Or, Grandma can go into iPhoto (or Picassa, or whatever), click the photo she wants, click "e-mail photo", and then type out a caption, after she clicked on the _name_ (not the e-mail address) of the person she wanted to send it to.
Why are reactionary IT fuckwits always trying to fix what isn't broken?
Nonsene, what you are talking about is the ability to fallback gracefully, the way well designed web pages do. Try google; depending on the device, you get a different representation. Many e-mail clients do this now; you get a rich version for capable clients, accessibilitu cues when needed, and plain text for luddities.
And html 1.0 is primarily a static medium. Thing change. Protocols grow, either via standards, or piecemeal innovation if the standards groups are stupid&stubborn. Rich e-mail is here to stay, and I, for one, am grateful.
Not to mention that e-mail is more flexible than "general net access".
One can forward e-mail via CD. Via flash card. Via pigeon.
The round-trip request time to retrieve documents via CD could be a tad frustrating, versus delivery a pile of e-mails with attachments included on a weekly basis.
It most definitely *is* a step back. Think in terms of non-persistent connections.
I can get push e-mail of attachments to my handheld, and browse them at my leisure. I don't need any weird kind of pre-fetch system to pre-download documents from various URLs for offline viewing.
The idea that e-mail remains text only is laughable. Maybe not on your "MS Winders" platform, but on other platforms, with secure, rich e-mail clients I can view/edit/forward images and the like without any problem. My e-mail clients can reference attachments within the e-mail it self, allowing rich text e-mails (complete with graphics). My e-mails can contain CSS, allowing stationary effects.
Saying e-mail should be restricted to plaintext is no different than saying the "web" should be restricted to plaintext gopher. While you may believe the kludgieness of SMTP makes it unsuitable for data transfer, the vast majority of the globe, which circulates multi-megabyte (and in some cases multi-gigabyte) files via SMTP demonstrates you to be empirically wrong.
Inefficent? Perhaps. A Kludge? Yes. But does it work; most definitely.
People bitch about x86 all the time, but just about every desktop in the world is based on it now. Trying to push e-mail back towards plain text is a lost cause, and a stupid one, at that.
Rich e-mails have little to do with security problems. Poorly written software is what cuases security problems. I don't fear any e-mail.
Besides, from this statement: It's a bastardized, encoded cyst. A real document has a lifespan, an author, a source, and various other metadata that are not inherent to email. Copy an attachment out and paste into another email - unless the doc embeds the source, it has now been re-sourced forever. I get the impression that you are trolling. Data is Data is Data. Regardless of whether or not it is efficently encoded, Data is Data. MIME-encoded crap takes more space than, say, Bzip2; but that doesn't mean the the end representation is any different.
And the concept of a "source" is ludicrious. In the academic world, people routinely take "snippings" of newspapers, books, encyclopedias, dictionaries, hand written letters, whatever; it doesn't matter. They attribute them, take a short, quotable section (or in some cases the whole damn thing), integrate it into their project, and move on.
Use a modern word processor, and whenever you make changes to a document it'll "source" your name in the process.
Regardless of whether or not YOU think it is a good idea, rich e-mail is here to stay.
It sounds like an awful lot of work to setup/administer this Windows thing. The way your describing it, average users can't install anything, each terminal requires hand-tweaking, and you have to extensively filter all network traffic.
I hope that in the future this Windows thing can be made easier to run, perhaps someday it'll be more OS X-like or Linux-like, and come with sensible defaults.
There's only one Linux distribution that creates a default user with administrator priviledges. Linspire.
The rest, including my choice for noobs, SuSE, creates standard user permissions default entries. You need to type your root password to muck around with stuff.
Because the GP post is neither a Microsoft Apologist nor someone who proliferates the standard "MS is the most-ess popular, and that's why they (the bad guys) only target MS" myths.
Stories like this bring out the MS trolls. If you try to point out an MS mis-step, or contradiction, or weakness, or stupidity, you get modded through the floor.
If you say, "Market share leaders are the ONLY operating systems to get hacked/virused", or "Windows has 34873298437 million lines of code, its really too much work to secure it," or "Microsoft is trying REALLY hard this time. Vista will be secure!" you get +5, informative.
Watch people trumpet LUA, and how it will save us. Watch people trumpet Windows OneCare, and if we had all switched to it we wouldn't have these problems.
Watch people try and explain how even though the marketshare ratio of Windows : OS X is about 20x, the virusshare ratio of Windows : OS X is (divide by zero error).
Former. Installs a rootkit; at least thats what the article says. The ISC summary indicates it drops some kind of bot on your system, which probably takes advantage of some local privlidge escalation.
I've read comments from Microsoft trolls on at least 2 other articles saying that if I have up to date virus definitions and a working firewall I'll never experience any infection from anything like this.
Over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over again.
How many years have y'all been virus free, boys? 5? 50? 500? Because, after all, people never get viruses when they have all the avaliable OS updates, all the AV definitions up to date, and a working firewall. Right?/flameretardant materials on. I expect the MS fanbois to be storming this article in a matter of minutes.
Development, although it has slowed down lately, does seem to be continuing. Additionally, both Novell and Redhat have committed to MacBook Pro support, and I see this as "A Good Thing" in terms of 100% support.
Bluetooth support is really close, and internal speakers are rumored to be fixed in kernel 2.6.17. That'll leave the keyboard, integration of the synaptics touchpad extensions into the appletouch driver (basic mouse functions work, but getting the advanced touchpad features is still difficult), as well as integration of the LCD backlight support into the kernel (currently controlled by a user space program requiring root access).
It's coming along.
As to fully supported hardware? I've never really run into another Linux laptop that fully supported Suspend/Resume, and I've tried a whole lot. Haven't tried the thinkpads, I guess; perhaps those have 100% ACPI support.
What does being or not being open-source software have to do with abolishing or not abolishing IE. Does your company insist on non-open-source software?
Or are we discussing in the context of the (stupid) article?
In terms of internet infrastructure, Unix *is* more popular than Windows.
On the grand scheme of things, servers and the like, Unix & Unix like operating systems > The combined set of Windows operating systems, marketshare-wise.
Please don't parrot those studies that discuss Redhat v. Windows, Novell v. Windows, AIX v. Windows.
Unix has been around much longer than Windows. Most of the internet's big iron runs on Unix or Unix-like systems. Many of the internet's juiciest targets (largest companies) serve on Unix or Unix-like systems, including Google.
AMD X2 Stock Faster than Core Duo Stock. AMD X2 Stock Slower than Core Duo Overclocked. AMD FX-60 Stock Faster than Core Duo Stock. AMD FX-60 Stock Slower than Core Duo Overclocked.
There are many, many, many more out there. If you're doing math-intensive things, AMD64 out performs i386. It's irrelevant whether its the larger address space or greater number of registers; either way, it works better.
Athlon X2 4800+ stock > Core Duo at stock clocks, in 32-bit mode. Athlon X2 4800+ stock Core Duo at stock, in 32-bit mode. Athlon FX-60 stock http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?articleid=1 845&page=2 , it is possible to run the Athlon X2 4800+ at 3.14 ghz , which is a 30% overclock, albeit with a very serious cooling solution. I'm wagering that at that speed it would flatten the overclock Core Duo, especially if you permit 64-bit optimizations, which DO noticeably increase speed on several programs in Linux. Please don't whine about not having a 64-bit OS; those of us in the Linux world can choose 64-bit or 32-bit at will.
Now, I'll admit that the Intel's Performance per Watt is significantly better. But it ain't faster.
I don't think there would be a backdoor, per say, but more like an minor security flaw which is difficult to detect and has serious consequences. I could see such a thing being implemented in a very subtle fashion.
Slashdot Mirror
Or, Grandma can go into iPhoto (or Picassa, or whatever), click the photo she wants, click "e-mail photo", and then type out a caption, after she clicked on the _name_ (not the e-mail address) of the person she wanted to send it to.
Why are reactionary IT fuckwits always trying to fix what isn't broken?
Fix _insecure_ systems, not flexible frameworks.
Nonsene, what you are talking about is the ability to fallback gracefully, the way well designed web pages do. Try google; depending on the device, you get a different representation. Many e-mail clients do this now; you get a rich version for capable clients, accessibilitu cues when needed, and plain text for luddities.
This is not an argument againsst rich e-mail.
And html 1.0 is primarily a static medium. Thing change. Protocols grow, either via standards, or piecemeal innovation if the standards groups are stupid&stubborn. Rich e-mail is here to stay, and I, for one, am grateful.
Not to mention that e-mail is more flexible than "general net access".
One can forward e-mail via CD. Via flash card. Via pigeon.
The round-trip request time to retrieve documents via CD could be a tad frustrating, versus delivery a pile of e-mails with attachments included on a weekly basis.
It most definitely *is* a step back. Think in terms of non-persistent connections.
I can get push e-mail of attachments to my handheld, and browse them at my leisure. I don't need any weird kind of pre-fetch system to pre-download documents from various URLs for offline viewing.
The idea that e-mail remains text only is laughable. Maybe not on your "MS Winders" platform, but on other platforms, with secure, rich e-mail clients I can view/edit/forward images and the like without any problem. My e-mail clients can reference attachments within the e-mail it self, allowing rich text e-mails (complete with graphics). My e-mails can contain CSS, allowing stationary effects.
Saying e-mail should be restricted to plaintext is no different than saying the "web" should be restricted to plaintext gopher. While you may believe the kludgieness of SMTP makes it unsuitable for data transfer, the vast majority of the globe, which circulates multi-megabyte (and in some cases multi-gigabyte) files via SMTP demonstrates you to be empirically wrong.
Inefficent? Perhaps. A Kludge? Yes. But does it work; most definitely.
People bitch about x86 all the time, but just about every desktop in the world is based on it now. Trying to push e-mail back towards plain text is a lost cause, and a stupid one, at that.
Rich e-mails have little to do with security problems. Poorly written software is what cuases security problems. I don't fear any e-mail.
Besides, from this statement:
It's a bastardized, encoded cyst. A real document has a lifespan, an author, a source, and various other metadata that are not inherent to email. Copy an attachment out and paste into another email - unless the doc embeds the source, it has now been re-sourced forever.
I get the impression that you are trolling. Data is Data is Data. Regardless of whether or not it is efficently encoded, Data is Data. MIME-encoded crap takes more space than, say, Bzip2; but that doesn't mean the the end representation is any different.
And the concept of a "source" is ludicrious. In the academic world, people routinely take "snippings" of newspapers, books, encyclopedias, dictionaries, hand written letters, whatever; it doesn't matter. They attribute them, take a short, quotable section (or in some cases the whole damn thing), integrate it into their project, and move on.
Use a modern word processor, and whenever you make changes to a document it'll "source" your name in the process.
Regardless of whether or not YOU think it is a good idea, rich e-mail is here to stay.
I would not be surprised if it were a malformed word file that was generated on demand via-macro, with no super-easy to recognize signature.
Gawd.
It sounds like an awful lot of work to setup/administer this Windows thing. The way your describing it, average users can't install anything, each terminal requires hand-tweaking, and you have to extensively filter all network traffic.
I hope that in the future this Windows thing can be made easier to run, perhaps someday it'll be more OS X-like or Linux-like, and come with sensible defaults.
I <3 MS Trolls.
Did you miss the part of the article where it says, "The e-mail was written to look like an internal e-mail, including signature".
Get an e-mail from your boss. Doc format. Or get an e-mail from your clients. Doc format.
Do you open it, or not?
Do you feel lucky?
There's only one Linux distribution that creates a default user with administrator priviledges. Linspire.
The rest, including my choice for noobs, SuSE, creates standard user permissions default entries. You need to type your root password to muck around with stuff.
Perhaps I'm misinformed, but I thought that you couldn't have user-space rootkits.
Because the GP post is neither a Microsoft Apologist nor someone who proliferates the standard "MS is the most-ess popular, and that's why they (the bad guys) only target MS" myths.
Stories like this bring out the MS trolls. If you try to point out an MS mis-step, or contradiction, or weakness, or stupidity, you get modded through the floor.
If you say, "Market share leaders are the ONLY operating systems to get hacked/virused", or "Windows has 34873298437 million lines of code, its really too much work to secure it," or "Microsoft is trying REALLY hard this time. Vista will be secure!" you get +5, informative.
Watch people trumpet LUA, and how it will save us. Watch people trumpet Windows OneCare, and if we had all switched to it we wouldn't have these problems.
Watch people try and explain how even though the marketshare ratio of Windows : OS X is about 20x, the virusshare ratio of Windows : OS X is (divide by zero error).
Not sure about this, but why not explore SynCE and Kitchensync for your PDA? I suspect you can get those for FreeBSD.
So lemme guess, you aren't opening word files, even from your clients or coworkers, until this is patched. Right?
Quote from article:
The e-mail was written to look like an internal e-mail, including signature.
Either that, or you don't use your computer for business, at least nothing involving Office Documents.
Lets say one of your clients system's are infected with this 0-day exploit. No virus definitions yet. What do you do?
Do you just refuse to open MS Word Documents until you get new definitions? How the _hell_ do you know when you are protected?
It wouldn't surprise me if it worked like that.
Also, it wouldn't surprise me if it started re-emailing itself to everyone in your outlook address book. I believe one can send e-mails from
Why is this modded troll? Because it's anti-MS?
Is it anymore trollish that the article he is referencing?
Former. Installs a rootkit; at least thats what the article says. The ISC summary indicates it drops some kind of bot on your system, which probably takes advantage of some local privlidge escalation.
I've read comments from Microsoft trolls on at least 2 other articles saying that if I have up to date virus definitions and a working firewall I'll never experience any infection from anything like this.
/flameretardant materials on. I expect the MS fanbois to be storming this article in a matter of minutes.
Over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over again.
How many years have y'all been virus free, boys? 5? 50? 500? Because, after all, people never get viruses when they have all the avaliable OS updates, all the AV definitions up to date, and a working firewall. Right?
Keyboard status is same as windows. Nada.
Development, although it has slowed down lately, does seem to be continuing. Additionally, both Novell and Redhat have committed to MacBook Pro support, and I see this as "A Good Thing" in terms of 100% support.
Bluetooth support is really close, and internal speakers are rumored to be fixed in kernel 2.6.17. That'll leave the keyboard, integration of the synaptics touchpad extensions into the appletouch driver (basic mouse functions work, but getting the advanced touchpad features is still difficult), as well as integration of the LCD backlight support into the kernel (currently controlled by a user space program requiring root access).
It's coming along.
As to fully supported hardware? I've never really run into another Linux laptop that fully supported Suspend/Resume, and I've tried a whole lot. Haven't tried the thinkpads, I guess; perhaps those have 100% ACPI support.
What does being or not being open-source software have to do with abolishing or not abolishing IE. Does your company insist on non-open-source software?
Or are we discussing in the context of the (stupid) article?
In terms of internet infrastructure, Unix *is* more popular than Windows.
On the grand scheme of things, servers and the like, Unix & Unix like operating systems > The combined set of Windows operating systems, marketshare-wise.
Please don't parrot those studies that discuss Redhat v. Windows, Novell v. Windows, AIX v. Windows.
Unix has been around much longer than Windows. Most of the internet's big iron runs on Unix or Unix-like systems. Many of the internet's juiciest targets (largest companies) serve on Unix or Unix-like systems, including Google.
http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/wlg/4177
Desktop Marketshare = Viruses is a popular myth. It belongs where the sun don't shine.
Wow slashdot kills brackets.
AMD X2 Stock Faster than Core Duo Stock.
AMD X2 Stock Slower than Core Duo Overclocked.
AMD FX-60 Stock Faster than Core Duo Stock.
AMD FX-60 Stock Slower than Core Duo Overclocked.
MP3 Decoding and Encoding, as well as Video Decoding and Encoding, are significantly faster in AMD64 mode than i386.
4 13209.shtml?tid=121
1 665&page=6
Of course, if you want proper end-to-end AMD64 software you'll need Linux.
AMD64's performance improvements are a reality on Linux, today.
Some benchmarks:
http://enterprise.linux.com/enterprise/05/06/09/1
Some more benchmarks, on XP!:
http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?articleid=
There are many, many, many more out there. If you're doing math-intensive things, AMD64 out performs i386. It's irrelevant whether its the larger address space or greater number of registers; either way, it works better.
I don't understand the articles' conclusions.
1 845&page=2 , it is possible to run the Athlon X2 4800+ at 3.14 ghz , which is a 30% overclock, albeit with a very serious cooling solution. I'm wagering that at that speed it would flatten the overclock Core Duo, especially if you permit 64-bit optimizations, which DO noticeably increase speed on several programs in Linux. Please don't whine about not having a 64-bit OS; those of us in the Linux world can choose 64-bit or 32-bit at will.
Athlon X2 4800+ stock > Core Duo at stock clocks, in 32-bit mode.
Athlon X2 4800+ stock Core Duo at stock, in 32-bit mode.
Athlon FX-60 stock http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?articleid=
Now, I'll admit that the Intel's Performance per Watt is significantly better. But it ain't faster.
I don't think there would be a backdoor, per say, but more like an minor security flaw which is difficult to detect and has serious consequences. I could see such a thing being implemented in a very subtle fashion.