The parent poster named some very important flaws that go with this particular article that is reporting about this study.
Here are two more:
1. Overall methodology 2. Sample group (i.e. how many machines, how many running Linux/Windows, setup of the machines, default/hardened etc.)
It can be argued (I love academic talk) that this article would probably even fail as an abstract in most universities. Nevertheless, this article is read and even gets coverage, so it can be assumed that many people will read it. How many readers know about flaws in studies and statistics to read the article on an informed basis?
Very few, most of their readers will most likely be management people (I am one myself btw) and misinterpreted (not me). In fact it is written so that the uninformed (read: non-IT, non-security) reader has to misinterpret it.
The interesting thing is, that anyone who is knowledgable in the industry could have written a better article making the point for Windows. Surely it would have been ripped apart here on/. , but that's not the target audience anyway. It's targeted at industry decision makers, who depressingly often have no idea about IT and/or research methodologies. They will read it as: "WINDOWS MORE SECURE THAN LINUX AFTERALL - Gates better than Torvalds"
Ok, point taken, but would you really recommend running Apache in default mode (highly likely for the type of user you are describing)? I think it is a good thing that some applications require the user to read a HOWTO or other documentation to install and run it, especially when it is (Inter-)net related. While reading the docs one can get a first impression of the dangers (and their impacts) of running that app, thereby already considering security measures at the time of the setup.
Click and run installations are very tempting for inexperienced users and their mistakes can hurt others, expecially on machines connected to the Internet.
Alas, that is not a question of which system is better, a graphical install via YaST is possible on SuSE as well, with the same possible side effects.
I have two main desktop computers at home - a dual Athlon box running RedHat Linux 7.3 and a dual 800MHz PowerMac running MacOS X 10.1.5. Both of them use standard memory, standard video cards, standard hard drives. The price you pay for the "PC" version is the exact same price you would pay for a "Mac" version. Why? They're the same hardware.
...
I haven't checked. I don't want a computer that maybe works most of the time. I don't want a computer where I have to fuss with drivers to make my video card work right. I don't want a computer made of cheap components. I want something that works just right, every time, with no fuss, that I don't have to worry about. I get that from my PowerMac and iBook. I wish I could say the same of my other computers.
Huh?!
Aren't you contradicting yourself here? First you state that x86 and Apple systems are basically using the same hardware, and then you go on justifying your Apple purchases with better hardware that's in them.
Or set up Apache on Linux or Windows and then do it on MacOS X. Tell me which one was quicker (hint - it's just a single button click on MacOS X).
That's bs as well since you just install with one click (or a single command in Linux), but configuration (which is part of setting up anything in my book) is not done with one click (or command line).
Anyway, the parent to your post was idiotic as well, so one can't really blame you.;)
Thanks a lot. That more or less confirms my initial thoughts about it, from what I have seen at friends' computers. I also think that it's good for playing stuff like F1 2002 with FF-Wheel, however, the annoyances have become unbearable for me (WPA, default skin, resource hunger, cumbersome configuration), especially since I am really used to just running a window manager with KDE and Gnome libs installed, so I can run all the apps.
I also really despise graphical configuration since I got used to the command line and vi (the best desktop environment so far, emacs is just too bloated:)).
I have been using Linux as my primary OS for quite some time now, with the exception of a couple of hours in Win2K (which I think is sort of ok...ish).
Anyway, what I am looking for is a summary of WinXP's functionality from a Linux user's point of view. That is, I would like to know what XP does in terms of (desktop) configurability (getting rid of Aqua, Windows update, stuff like that) and (multi-) user environment, explained and maybe compared by someone who comes from Unix. I do _not_ want something that explains this stuff to someone who has been using Windows solely.
My econ teacher (referenced above) was also my government teacher. We had a Mock Congress. I chose to be a Republican after losing a week-long fight to be a Libertarian ("No, we're only doing the two real parties", she says).
Brilliant teaching. Send her back to "democracy for dummies", but then again, too many people still believe that the US is the most democratic place in the world with only two major parties. Remember, that's only one more than in the former GDR (there were more parties, but since the elections were always rigged, all the non-socialist parties combined never got more than 2% of the vote. It's less obvious in the US, UK, Germany etc.).
On the other hand, there is no system that I can think of, that I would describe as a functioning democracy, *sigh*. Karl Popper summed it up best when he said that the benefits of democracy are not that you can elect your government, but that you can _dismiss_ it.
I know at least 4 Mac-Users. Is that above average?
But seriously, do you really think Apple will be able to avoid the DRM craze, given Microsoft's investment in the company? Also, do you believe that we ("the small guys") can influence Joe and Jane Average enough to convince them that DRM, or the way it is achieved, is bad?
Realistically, I think we will have to wait for Microsoft to fumble the ball (again) and make the system a real inconvienience, if not harassment, to the end user. Come to think of it, Windows is already all that and most people roll their eyes on me when I tell them about the alternatives.
Sorry, my mistake. It was awesome to celebrate with the Turkish community here in Berlin.
Re:GermMUHAHAHAHAHA
on
World Cup Final
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
You have obviously never played football in your life and don't understand neither the rules nor the tactics. It's even possible that you haven't even watched the game.
Here's what I saw: Two very capable teams, a solid, convincing German start, Brazilian players who lost many 1o1s, a terrible mistake by Kahn (his only in the tournament), Brazil taking their chances, while Germany missing all of them.
All in all Brazil deserves to hold the cup (as would have Germany) and I was happy to see Ronaldo come back after his 4 year struggle, as a much better player than he ever was.
The parent troll should note that Gerald Asamoah ("the black...FAT ASS" as the guy so offensively stated) is a striker and not a defender. It wasn't his mistake, but rather bound to happen when the coach sends in an additional striker to replace a defender. With one-nil against the Germans, it was the right decision. Nobody cares whether you lose by one or two, try to even and your back in the game.
One last thing: The troll wrote:"Ireland, Korea, Turkey and Croatia had a better game than Germany." If that would have been so, why weren't they in the finals?
Sinserve, the next time you write something about football, use all players' names and never their numbers. All players deserve this, for they played their hearts out and deserve a little respect. Every goddamn journalist knows and honors it.
The most commonly used term is 'brokered P2P", because that's essentially what the server does: It brokers the connections of the clients. The clients are still peers and talk directly to each other, very much like the old phone system, where operators functioned as the brokering server (well, I will work on my metaphors).
....and fairness to call it GNU/Star Wars then. Or there might be some dirty deal going on, like we get to see a Master Stallmann in GNU/Episode3. Who knows...
This is classic HR: Employee wants more money, company instead offers training with the incentive to raise payment after qualification process is completed, employee is happy because he knows that he is worth more in the market (and gained knowledge, experience etc.) and gets paid accordingly by his (current) employer, employer is happy, because the employee can contribute more to the company's goal, employee was worth the extra cost. Everyone is motivated to keep working together. That's the theory.
Done with good intentions and assuming the company's current financial position permits this kind of practice, this can actually work. Think of all those people to whom money is not the motivating factor (it's still necessary to maintain the employment relationship, but it doesn't add to motivation. Hertzberg calls this hygiene factor for those interested), who program for fun. Their incentive (or motivation) is the process of solving problems. How can they better achieve this goal, than through training?
I would prefer to get my pot from a pharmacist, who in turn, got it from a government controlled farm. Why? Simply because I could be sure that I am getting a quality product and the government could have a pretty high increase in tax income, instead of spending money on catching and prosecuting users and small-time traffickers. Organized crime (yes, and terrorist groups, rogue nations etc. think of the political lobbying that is possible right now...) wouldn't get its share, and I would be happy about it.
Just because something is legalized doesn't mean that you wouldn't be able to control accessability for minors. You could argue in fact that it is _now_ impossible to control the availability to minors, because the government doesn't control anything regarding to pot. I think it is even more dangerous to have it prohibited: It is proven that pot is not an entry drug (i.e. users will eventually move on to stronger drugs like cocaine etc.) medically, but it is one sociologically. Think about it, the government says that marijuana is dangerous, the average kid sees his or her friends smoking it, and they don't die instantly because of it. Instead it makes them feel good. He or she decides to try it, eventually wants to buy it as well. Where to get it? From your friendly (uncontrolled) neighboorhood dealer, who also happens to be engaged in hard drug traffiicking. Well, this guy (mostly guys in this business) offers something stronger. Our drug apprentice thinks that he was fed lies about drugs before and might just as well try something else
It is this disinformation.strategy that is a lot more dangerous than pot can ever be. Look at the Netherlands for example, where pot is legal to own (in small quantities) and where the number of first-time drug users (and drug related deaths) is declining. AFAIK, the Netherlands is the only country in the EU (and probably world-wide) where this is the case.
That's called 'security through obscurity' and doesn't work. Their approach of naming it 'Unbreakable' is a marketing ploy as well as a method to attract hackers to the system, so that it will get hacked and fixed quickly.
However, it will also attract middle management's attention, who might misunderstand the concept and think that the system will be unbreakable out-of-the-box.
There is and never will be such a product. Everything is breakable, given the resources (money, computing power, etc.) and the fact that people will work with this system. People make mistakes, a lot of them, all the time. There's still nothing better than a well planned social engineering attack.
There is no technological solution for a sociological problem. The kind of branding the 'Unbreakable'-group is practicing might very well become very dangerous (if at all possible).
...why am I reading about a non-tech, non-nerd film on/. ? Maybe it's time for me to write that review on "Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron" after all.
Folks, please let's keep this forum at least a little tech related. There are loads of sites where we can discuss films and stuff that would normally be rated as off-topic on/.
I can understand your concerns, but why is RedHat still publishing a lot, if not all, of their code GPL'ed? They could achieve the same thing (fighting against other distros) a lot easier by incorporating essential closed source software into the RH Linux package. Filing for patents is a lot more hassle then just releasing software under a proprietary license.
They would furthermore hurt their developer base and a lot of their customers by doing this. In the long run, they would achieve the exact opposite of what you are worried about. RH users can move to any other distro any time, or build their own based on an older (pre-patented) version of RH Linux.
This is how you argue when you live in an ideological bubble disconnected from the real world. Of course it would be better to stand back and point your finger at the bad guys who are using patents to increase their profit and stronghold on the market.
The problem is, ideology doesn't work in the real world. While you are still arguing about moral implications, everybody else out there amasses patents and puts you of business and/or threatens OSS/FS's existence. In this sense, it is a lot like an arms race: Everybody gets nukes (patents) and threatens to use them on the enemy (competitor, OSS/FS projects) if the other party uses it as well. It is sick, but chances are that while the various governments implement software patents into their legal systems, they will instantly become meaningless.
Of course I am assuming that the good people (OSS/FS) accumulate patents that are worth something in order to keep the balance with proprietary software vendors. OSS/FS doesn't exist in a well defined model world where the competition always plays fair and the best product wins in the market. Instead we are all living in a world where we have to assume the worst and hope for the best, i.e. that the companies which lobbied for software patents (politicians did not come up with that on their own, you know) will eventually use those patents against their competition. And this includes OSS/FS vendors.
If you want to play the game, know the rules and use them if you can't change them. This is what RedHat is doing here.
That should be simple enough: Hack on one of the Open Source Napster servers (e.g. OpenNap) and implement a reasonably secure authentication mechanism. Run this server and grant access rights to people you trust.
Alternatively, start blocking requests on your firewall, just kidding:-)
In case you only have a small number of trusted people that you want to share files with, build a VPN and use a central file server. Or you could just setup the required number of ssh accounts.
Pure P2P networks like Gnutella rely on each user dedicating a certain amount of bandwidth to form an ad-hoc backbone to route queries and balance the load. It is therefore unavoidable to allow unwanted traffic. That's not nice, but you don't have to become a part of it if you don't want to.
I am not an expert, but I think it would be quite difficult to layer a personalized trust model on top of the current P2P models like Gnutella. Any ideas?
No, you are not. To be precise the other AC was talking about the US, the country (well, initially). Not you as a person. To be even more precise, the US accounts for 25% of the budget (let me explain this a little: that's one quarter of the budget). That is a lot. According to this page, the "U.S. owes $1.952 billion In past, current obligations." This effectively makes the US one of the largest debtors of the UN as well.
You then go on: We litterly rebuilt Japan after bombing it in to the stone age.
The people of Nagasaki and Hiroshima are probably extremely thankful to this very day. The nicest thing one could say about this, is probably that it ended the war in the Pacific.
The US funding for Germany and Japan wasn't exactly altruistic, but (rightfully) politically motivated.
lets keep our own technology.. hell.. lets stop the internet
And if that were possible, we would all happily call it USnet and praise Al Gore as our saviour. There is a reason why it's called "Internet" (hint: because it's international and the US can't stop it, it can just shut down a part of it.).
Why not we just step back during WW1.. and maybe there wouldn't have been a Europe.. Hell.. WW2.. same case.. Funny.. comments like this just freaking make me laugh.
Your English is so bad that I can hardly believe you are US American. Actually, I think when referring to the US, it's very important to do just that: REFER TO THE USA, NOT AMERICA. There are a hell of a lot Americans who aren't US citizens, and quite happily so.
By the way, in case you are interested: America was discovered by Europeans (not counting native Americans, who didn't call themselves Americans back then).
Every Single Country in this world OWES money to the US.
And the US owes money to every single country in the world as well. It's called economics. Just in case you were wondering.
If we was to stop trade with other nations.. Growth would litterly stop..
Again, your grasp of the English language is astonishing, but never mind. Yes, you are right, growth in the US would become virtually non-existent if that were to happen.
I had the privi to be in another nation, Germany.. when we where doing our Interist rates in the US.. funny how that was aired on TV news more than the local game shows.
Aaaargh, that English again. This statement clearly indicates that you are an idiot AND a liar: Nothing gets more air time in Germany than game shows.
All in all, you are a disgrace to so many US citizens (if you are one, if not, you are a plain idiot) I have met.
Slashdot Mirror
...that you didn't forge yourself.
/. , but that's not the target audience anyway. It's targeted at industry decision makers, who depressingly often have no idea about IT and/or research methodologies. They will read it as: "WINDOWS MORE SECURE THAN LINUX AFTERALL - Gates better than Torvalds"
The parent poster named some very important flaws that go with this particular article that is reporting about this study.
Here are two more:
1. Overall methodology
2. Sample group (i.e. how many machines, how many running Linux/Windows, setup of the machines, default/hardened etc.)
It can be argued (I love academic talk) that this article would probably even fail as an abstract in most universities. Nevertheless, this article is read and even gets coverage, so it can be assumed that many people will read it. How many readers know about flaws in studies and statistics to read the article on an informed basis?
Very few, most of their readers will most likely be management people (I am one myself btw) and misinterpreted (not me). In fact it is written so that the uninformed (read: non-IT, non-security) reader has to misinterpret it.
The interesting thing is, that anyone who is knowledgable in the industry could have written a better article making the point for Windows. Surely it would have been ripped apart here on
It's FUD, and not good one at that.
Ask "What is 42", very nice as well, *sniff*
Ok, point taken, but would you really recommend running Apache in default mode (highly likely for the type of user you are describing)? I think it is a good thing that some applications require the user to read a HOWTO or other documentation to install and run it, especially when it is (Inter-)net related. While reading the docs one can get a first impression of the dangers (and their impacts) of running that app, thereby already considering security measures at the time of the setup.
Click and run installations are very tempting for inexperienced users and their mistakes can hurt others, expecially on machines connected to the Internet.
Alas, that is not a question of which system is better, a graphical install via YaST is possible on SuSE as well, with the same possible side effects.
I have two main desktop computers at home - a dual Athlon box running RedHat Linux 7.3 and a dual 800MHz PowerMac running MacOS X 10.1.5. Both of them use standard memory, standard video cards, standard hard drives. The price you pay for the "PC" version is the exact same price you would pay for a "Mac" version. Why? They're the same hardware.
...
;)
I haven't checked. I don't want a computer that maybe works most of the time. I don't want a computer where I have to fuss with drivers to make my video card work right. I don't want a computer made of cheap components. I want something that works just right, every time, with no fuss, that I don't have to worry about. I get that from my PowerMac and iBook. I wish I could say the same of my other computers.
Huh?!
Aren't you contradicting yourself here? First you state that x86 and Apple systems are basically using the same hardware, and then you go on justifying your Apple purchases with better hardware that's in them.
Or set up Apache on Linux or Windows and then do it on MacOS X. Tell me which one was quicker (hint - it's just a single button click on MacOS X).
That's bs as well since you just install with one click (or a single command in Linux), but configuration (which is part of setting up anything in my book) is not done with one click (or command line).
Anyway, the parent to your post was idiotic as well, so one can't really blame you.
Thanks a lot. That more or less confirms my initial thoughts about it, from what I have seen at friends' computers. I also think that it's good for playing stuff like F1 2002 with FF-Wheel, however, the annoyances have become unbearable for me (WPA, default skin, resource hunger, cumbersome configuration), especially since I am really used to just running a window manager with KDE and Gnome libs installed, so I can run all the apps.
:)).
I also really despise graphical configuration since I got used to the command line and vi (the best desktop environment so far, emacs is just too bloated
I have been using Linux as my primary OS for quite some time now, with the exception of a couple of hours in Win2K (which I think is sort of ok...ish).
Anyway, what I am looking for is a summary of WinXP's functionality from a Linux user's point of view. That is, I would like to know what XP does in terms of (desktop) configurability (getting rid of Aqua, Windows update, stuff like that) and (multi-) user environment, explained and maybe compared by someone who comes from Unix. I do _not_ want something that explains this stuff to someone who has been using Windows solely.
Is there such a thing?
TIA and have a nice day.
My econ teacher (referenced above) was also my government teacher. We had a Mock Congress. I chose to be a Republican after losing a week-long fight to be a Libertarian ("No, we're only doing the two real parties", she says).
Brilliant teaching. Send her back to "democracy for dummies", but then again, too many people still believe that the US is the most democratic place in the world with only two major parties. Remember, that's only one more than in the former GDR (there were more parties, but since the elections were always rigged, all the non-socialist parties combined never got more than 2% of the vote. It's less obvious in the US, UK, Germany etc.).
On the other hand, there is no system that I can think of, that I would describe as a functioning democracy, *sigh*. Karl Popper summed it up best when he said that the benefits of democracy are not that you can elect your government, but that you can _dismiss_ it.
I know at least 4 Mac-Users. Is that above average?
But seriously, do you really think Apple will be able to avoid the DRM craze, given Microsoft's investment in the company? Also, do you believe that we ("the small guys") can influence Joe and Jane Average enough to convince them that DRM, or the way it is achieved, is bad?
Realistically, I think we will have to wait for Microsoft to fumble the ball (again) and make the system a real inconvienience, if not harassment, to the end user. Come to think of it, Windows is already all that and most people roll their eyes on me when I tell them about the alternatives.
Sorry, my mistake. It was awesome to celebrate with the Turkish community here in Berlin.
You have obviously never played football in your life and don't understand neither the rules nor the tactics. It's even possible that you haven't even watched the game.
:"Ireland,
Here's what I saw: Two very capable teams, a solid, convincing German start, Brazilian players who lost many 1o1s, a terrible mistake by Kahn (his only in the tournament), Brazil taking their chances, while Germany missing all of them.
All in all Brazil deserves to hold the cup (as would have Germany) and I was happy to see Ronaldo come back after his 4 year struggle, as a much better player than he ever was.
The parent troll should note that Gerald Asamoah ("the black...FAT ASS" as the guy so offensively stated) is a striker and not a defender. It wasn't his mistake, but rather bound to happen when the coach sends in an additional striker to replace a defender. With one-nil against the Germans, it was the right decision. Nobody cares whether you lose by one or two, try to even and your back in the game.
One last thing: The troll wrote
Korea, Turkey and Croatia had a better game than Germany." If that would have been so, why weren't they in the finals?
Sinserve, the next time you write something about football, use all players' names and never their numbers. All players deserve this, for they played their hearts out and deserve a little respect. Every goddamn journalist knows and honors it.
The most commonly used term is 'brokered P2P", because that's essentially what the server does: It brokers the connections of the clients. The clients are still peers and talk directly to each other, very much like the old phone system, where operators functioned as the brokering server (well, I will work on my metaphors).
....and fairness to call it GNU/Star Wars then. Or there might be some dirty deal going on, like we get to see a Master Stallmann in GNU/Episode3. Who knows...
This is classic HR: Employee wants more money, company instead offers training with the incentive to raise payment after qualification process is completed, employee is happy because he knows that he is worth more in the market (and gained knowledge, experience etc.) and gets paid accordingly by his (current) employer, employer is happy, because the employee can contribute more to the company's goal, employee was worth the extra cost. Everyone is motivated to keep working together. That's the theory.
Done with good intentions and assuming the company's current financial position permits this kind of practice, this can actually work. Think of all those people to whom money is not the motivating factor (it's still necessary to maintain the employment relationship, but it doesn't add to motivation. Hertzberg calls this hygiene factor for those interested), who program for fun. Their incentive (or motivation) is the process of solving problems. How can they better achieve this goal, than through training?
That's a very sensitive topic:
Prohibition doesn't work. Never has, never will.
I would prefer to get my pot from a pharmacist, who in turn, got it from a government controlled farm. Why? Simply because I could be sure that I am getting a quality product and the government could have a pretty high increase in tax income, instead of spending money on catching and prosecuting users and small-time traffickers. Organized crime (yes, and terrorist groups, rogue nations etc. think of the political lobbying that is possible right now...) wouldn't get its share, and I would be happy about it.
Just because something is legalized doesn't mean that you wouldn't be able to control accessability for minors. You could argue in fact that it is _now_ impossible to control the availability to minors, because the government doesn't control anything regarding to pot. I think it is even more dangerous to have it prohibited: It is proven that pot is not an entry drug (i.e. users will eventually move on to stronger drugs like cocaine etc.) medically, but it is one sociologically. Think about it, the government says that marijuana is dangerous, the average kid sees his or her friends smoking it, and they don't die instantly because of it. Instead it makes them feel good. He or she decides to try it, eventually wants to buy it as well. Where to get it? From your friendly (uncontrolled) neighboorhood dealer, who also happens to be engaged in hard drug traffiicking. Well, this guy (mostly guys in this business) offers something stronger. Our drug apprentice thinks that he was fed lies about drugs before and might just as well try something else
It is this disinformation.strategy that is a lot more dangerous than pot can ever be. Look at the Netherlands for example, where pot is legal to own (in small quantities) and where the number of first-time drug users (and drug related deaths) is declining. AFAIK, the Netherlands is the only country in the EU (and probably world-wide) where this is the case.
That's called 'security through obscurity' and doesn't work. Their approach of naming it 'Unbreakable' is a marketing ploy as well as a method to attract hackers to the system, so that it will get hacked and fixed quickly.
However, it will also attract middle management's attention, who might misunderstand the concept and think that the system will be unbreakable out-of-the-box.
There is and never will be such a product. Everything is breakable, given the resources (money, computing power, etc.) and the fact that people will work with this system. People make mistakes, a lot of them, all the time. There's still nothing better than a well planned social engineering attack.
There is no technological solution for a sociological problem. The kind of branding the 'Unbreakable'-group is practicing might very well become very dangerous (if at all possible).
Nope, it's not his mind, rather your original statement that doesn't make sense. Now it's much better and I for one, agree with you.
Good point ;-)
There are hundreds of applications on the system that are CHROOT'ed, that is have access as root when executed.
Errr, you probably mean suid root, right?
...why am I reading about a non-tech, non-nerd film on /. ? Maybe it's time for me to write that review on "Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron" after all.
/.
Folks, please let's keep this forum at least a little tech related. There are loads of sites where we can discuss films and stuff that would normally be rated as off-topic on
There is no place in the society for those who help others commit heinous crimes of Natalie Portman picture sharing!
Or even worse, _changing_ Natalie Portman pictures. This guy has to go prison, if not for DMCA violation, then at least for committing a moral crime.
I can understand your concerns, but why is RedHat still publishing a lot, if not all, of their code GPL'ed? They could achieve the same thing (fighting against other distros) a lot easier by incorporating essential closed source software into the RH Linux package. Filing for patents is a lot more hassle then just releasing software under a proprietary license.
They would furthermore hurt their developer base and a lot of their customers by doing this. In the long run, they would achieve the exact opposite of what you are worried about. RH users can move to any other distro any time, or build their own based on an older (pre-patented) version of RH Linux.
This is how you argue when you live in an ideological bubble disconnected from the real world. Of course it would be better to stand back and point your finger at the bad guys who are using patents to increase their profit and stronghold on the market.
The problem is, ideology doesn't work in the real world. While you are still arguing about moral implications, everybody else out there amasses patents and puts you of business and/or threatens OSS/FS's existence. In this sense, it is a lot like an arms race: Everybody gets nukes (patents) and threatens to use them on the enemy (competitor, OSS/FS projects) if the other party uses it as well. It is sick, but chances are that while the various governments implement software patents into their legal systems, they will instantly become meaningless.
Of course I am assuming that the good people (OSS/FS) accumulate patents that are worth something in order to keep the balance with proprietary software vendors. OSS/FS doesn't exist in a well defined model world where the competition always plays fair and the best product wins in the market. Instead we are all living in a world where we have to assume the worst and hope for the best, i.e. that the companies which lobbied for software patents (politicians did not come up with that on their own, you know) will eventually use those patents against their competition. And this includes OSS/FS vendors.
If you want to play the game, know the rules and use them if you can't change them. This is what RedHat is doing here.
That should be simple enough: Hack on one of the Open Source Napster servers (e.g. OpenNap) and implement a reasonably secure authentication mechanism. Run this server and grant access rights to people you trust.
:-)
Alternatively, start blocking requests on your firewall, just kidding
In case you only have a small number of trusted people that you want to share files with, build a VPN and use a central file server. Or you could just setup the required number of ssh accounts.
Pure P2P networks like Gnutella rely on each user dedicating a certain amount of bandwidth to form an ad-hoc backbone to route queries and balance the load. It is therefore unavoidable to allow unwanted traffic. That's not nice, but you don't have to become a part of it if you don't want to.
I am not an expert, but I think it would be quite difficult to layer a personalized trust model on top of the current P2P models like Gnutella. Any ideas?
Some points:
.. same case.. Funny.. comments like this just freaking make me laugh.
We are the budget of the Unitied Nations
No, you are not. To be precise the other AC was talking about the US, the country (well, initially). Not you as a person. To be even more precise, the US accounts for 25% of the budget (let me explain this a little: that's one quarter of the budget). That is a lot. According to this page, the "U.S. owes $1.952 billion In past, current obligations." This effectively makes the US one of the largest debtors of the UN as well.
You then go on:
We litterly rebuilt Japan after bombing it in to the stone age.
The people of Nagasaki and Hiroshima are probably extremely thankful to this very day. The nicest thing one could say about this, is probably that it ended the war in the Pacific.
The US funding for Germany and Japan wasn't exactly altruistic, but (rightfully) politically motivated.
lets keep our own technology.. hell.. lets stop the internet
And if that were possible, we would all happily call it USnet and praise Al Gore as our saviour. There is a reason why it's called "Internet" (hint: because it's international and the US can't stop it, it can just shut down a part of it.).
Why not we just step back during WW1.. and maybe there wouldn't have been a Europe.. Hell.. WW2
Your English is so bad that I can hardly believe you are US American. Actually, I think when referring to the US, it's very important to do just that: REFER TO THE USA, NOT AMERICA. There are a hell of a lot Americans who aren't US citizens, and quite happily so.
By the way, in case you are interested: America was discovered by Europeans (not counting native Americans, who didn't call themselves Americans back then).
Every Single Country in this world OWES money to the US.
And the US owes money to every single country in the world as well. It's called economics. Just in case you were wondering.
If we was to stop trade with other nations.. Growth would litterly stop..
Again, your grasp of the English language is astonishing, but never mind. Yes, you are right, growth in the US would become virtually non-existent if that were to happen.
I had the privi to be in another nation, Germany.. when we where doing our Interist rates in the US.. funny how that was aired on TV news more than the local game shows.
Aaaargh, that English again. This statement clearly indicates that you are an idiot AND a liar: Nothing gets more air time in Germany than game shows.
All in all, you are a disgrace to so many US citizens (if you are one, if not, you are a plain idiot) I have met.
...to beat Windows on the desktop it needs to have Office....wait...wrong discussion. Sorry :-)