I thought that instead of continuing "I did some research..." you were going to say "And then I woke up screaming...".
I won't even go into how much I loath IE and the hell spawns that are responsible for it.
I will note that the original poster who stated that DHTML development just got harder is missing the big picture. It's harder if you only ever develop for IE. FireFox and the latest Mozillas, heck even KHTML and Safari are worlds easier to code for then they ever were. So much so that IE7 is do out even after MS said they were not going to improve IE. The world is getting rosier, or maybe it's just my glasses.
It's IBM that brought the patent claims against SCO, not the otherway around! By your logic, it should be SCO that is calling for patent reform. IBM does not give one wit about SCO. The only thing SCO has done for IBM is turn their lawyers into the fairy godmothers of Free Software. Not to mention given a ton of press to IBM. It's about as harmful as the "New Coke" vs. "Cocacola Classic" shananigans in the 80's.
What IBM has realised is that they can change the rules of commerce in their industry and they are in a position to capitalise on that change. It just so happens that "we" (FLOSS) are going to "win" when this happens, so it's all good to the Slashdot crowd. IF IBM saw more dollars using an alternat strategy, they would use it instead. Which is not a bad thing neccesarily, there is nothing wrong with making money. There is something wrong with screwing people, and that is what the current software market is doing. IBM is going to take advantage of a sea change in they way people think about, purchase and interact with technology. All because the Free Software "movement" preserved what is ultimatly being shown to be the best way to develop software.
Right, and here in lies your problem and the problem with this entire entire line of argument, which is based on logical falicy.
As for the other snide remarks I'm not even arguing those points and I'm not going to provide you with evidence that you can find yourself on bugtrak, by asking almost anyone, or simply by taking your head out of the sand. I work at a shop where the service techs deal with a non-stop stream of infected Windows systems so I draw my statements from direct experience.
Having said all that thank you for going back and forth on this. The point about Windows exploits and market share just came to me after reading the original post I replied to and I wanted to see what people thought about it. You've helped me develop the thought and added some focus to the point. Thanks.
"Most Windows exploits require the user to execute an email attachment."
Thank you for identifying Windows Exploit Myth #2. The life expectancy of a Windows box connected directly to the Internet is measured in minutes. I know first hand because we service Windows systems in our shop. While SP2 has gone a long way to improving security, even with it Windows is paricularly suseptable to exploits. Also please note that XP2, the be all end all of Windows security is only available for Windows XP. Many people are still running 9x or 2000, a group to which MS has become down right abusive.
As for needing the user to run an attachment or something it's not that simple. Browsing the web and installing popular well known and used software can start a slow slide into total destruction.
Finally, please note you are still not understanding my argument which is that just because Windows has been brought to it's knees by the Internet does not mean that other OS's are just as insecure because they do not have the same market share. It's speculation. It's absurd. I dare say it's idiotic, counterproductive and FUD food. Thats why I brought it up, it's deceitful and wrong headed and needs to stop. The issue of how a FOSS operating system will fare once it attains the market share that MS has enjoyed has yet to be seen, If I am to speculate I would say that it would become so secure as to alter our our fundamental conception of security and what can be achieved. But then thats just me.
"Only if you choose to ignore the preponderance of evidence in the form of viruses targetting Windows."
Which may or may not be do to Windows market share. It may also not have to do with any one factor. The problem I see is when Windows zealots use the market share argument exlusively to defend Windows.
I'm really trying to extract your point from your post and not having much success.
How is Classic MacOS and DOS less secure? DOS had zero internet connectivity out of the box. Even if you added a TCP/IP stack there were no services you were going to run on DOS. If you ran Windows 3.1 or something you could run Netscape I think. But then, here we are with Windows (actually, DOS) again with about the same market share as Windows has today and no rampent network exploit problem. So again, I'm not sure what your getting at.
The fact that Windows is exploted is proof that it is insecure. That is my point. Speculating that Linux or Mac would be just as insecure if they had the same market share is just speculation. It also ignores the possiblity that a system that was easier, or even as easy, to exploit as Windows but had a smaller market share might also be exploited. So the fact that Linux and Mac exploits are not a pandemic does not mean that they are just as insecure as Windows. It's not "fact-free hystrionics", it's just observation and logic.
Now if you think Linux is insecure because Windows is exploited maybe you can elaborate on why that is so I can better understand what your getting at. If on the other hand your arguing something else, please don't confuse it with my argument because you make me feel like you are'nt really paying attention to what I am saying.
Because in order to exploit a system you have to actually infect it somehow. Even though OS 9 might have been chewy on the inside it was crunchy on the outside.
Having said that though, I do remember there being viruses for OS 7 that were transfered via shareware and floppies and the like.
"Market share must make a target more attractive."
I don't think this is the most importaint factor. For example, spammers want to send spam. If they can easily exploit a system that only has a small fraction of the market and achieve their goals than I think they would do that. I mean, they will take the path of least resistence that still meets their needs. If Windows is both a vast and easy target, more the better. But if Macs or Linux were easy to exploit there are probobly enough of these systems on the Internet, even with only a combined market share of, say, 10-20%, to meet their needs. As it happens though, Windows has been sufficiently meeting the needs of spammers for the past several years, so why switch platforms mid stream?;-)
Also, please keep in mind that I am not saying Windows market share does not contribute to it's being attacked. What I am pointing out is that the fact that it is attacked (and exploited) does not mean that it is as secure as Linux or Mac because they are not attacked. What it does prove is that Windows is insecure. It says nothing about Linux or Mac security and people who speculate about Linux or Mac exploits if these systems had a higher market share are just that, speculating. The Windows exloits do prove that Windows is insecure however.
"As far as I'm aware there is no conclusive evidence that shows Macs are inherently more secure and would not suffer the virus problem that Windows does if it had Windows' market share."
As far as I'm aware there is no conclusive evidence that the "Windows Market Share" theory of exploitation holds any water at all. From a _design_ perspective Windows has been shown to be less secure than other operating systems. Wether it's targetted or not has no effect how secure Windows actually is! It just brings to light that it is insecure, incontravertably and demonstratably insecure.
I don't think this is such a good idea. Debian is a good base because it is stable. primarily, but also has a massive bredth of packages. The "Debian based" distributions generally add value to Debian by providing more limited but current set of packages by pulling from the testing branches and doing their own integration. They also target some niche. This is why Ubuntu has value. It targets the desktop.
Debian does not really target anything, and that is good because it makes for a rich base to start from.
What would the value add be for basing a distribution on Ubuntu?
Someone modded this as a Troll. It is clearly not a troll. If you disagree with someone, reply! Don't be a coward and hide behind the moderation system.
So are you saying the MS should not implement it? I hardley see how that helps anything.
They are one of the richest companies in the world. It would be nice if they'd spend a little cash to make the task of writting Internet apps a lot easier until the all singing all dancing standard that solves everyones problems emerges.
You clearly have never actually worked before. He is not saying that he won't do it, he is just saying he is going to break out the billing so it is clear what they are paying for! It's not like if he just sticks his head in the sand the work required to make a website look nice in IE will magiacly vanish. jeezus.
"There lies the problem with Civil IP cases. The lay person does not have the money to defend let alone assert those rights."
Yes indeed, thats the larger problem. And the rest of your comment certainly applies to this case except for a couple points.
1. I was just mentioning that the grandparent posters case might not be the same so the legal advise might not apply 100%. The GPL is involved in this case, not sure about the grandparent.
2. The company seems to already be in violation of the GPL as they have appariently distributed the code without providng access to the source. They most likely just shipped it with their own copyright notice, which would be a big no no in this case.
Which brings us to:
"You don't have to have a hope of prevailing."
Normally quite true and possibly true in this case but not conclusive. The posting author is not the only one involved here, IBM seems to be involved as well as maybe other parties. This is another difference between the grandparent and this guys case.
The very fact that there are third parties involved that have an open and shut case against this company regarding their code use should give this company pause. I don't know what the statutes of limitation are here but they seem to be basing this product on a house of cards. The more succeful the product the more likely they will be taken to court on GPL violations. Not a good position to be in.
He is using GPL'd code that is copyrighted to it's respective owners. These owners have not entered into any aggreements with said company nor have they transfered any rights.
Thus the company is violating the license of the GPL'd material they are distributing. They may be able to lay claim, right or wrong, to the code he himself wrote and possibly even override his own licensing decision. They can not alter the license arrangements of the pre-existing GPL'd code however.
Now this is facinating because of the misunderstandings created by the access to source code clause in the GPL. Access is a right granted by the GPL, but access does not mean or imply ownership. This company is confused because they can't fathom both having the code right their in front of them and not having ownership or it.
My bet is that if this went to court they would get their pants smacked around backwords.
I really don't see how this company has any hope of prevailing.
"you fail to grasp what is really being discussed here: the role of open source and free software in the commercial world."
You are failing to grasp why millions of people around the world use open source and why it has no competitors. I'll spell it out for you:
It. Can. Not. Be. Stopped... Ever.
There is no way for FL/OSS to go away. All that can happen is interest can wax and wane as it has several times in history already. Now it's waxing, maybe soon it will wane, who cares?
SAP is a big German ERP dinasour. ABAP is what their product, R3, is scripted with. Their hayday was the mid 90's. They are probobly still doing quite well though.
No mod points to bump you so I'll just add that it is really annoying when people who have probobly never contributed a single line of code to any project anywhere in the world start bashing RMS for being a relic/fanatic/idealist.
RMS is not only the last person I would expect to put ego above cause, he is one of the few people in the world who truely understands what he started.
Then why is it that it took so long to certify Linux? Why did it take 4 years to certify Windows 2000? Why is'nt XP certified?
If it were easy to do and almost all major vendors could claim complience then why wouldn't MS make sure that XP was certified. They made a big deal about Win2000 certification when they got it. It's cheap marketing for MS and fuel for their FUD engine, which they know they need to keep fed. I doubt that MS simply doesn't care about certification or couldn't put enough resources behind the process to get it done.
Now I don't doubt that EAL certs. are mostly a bunch of paper shuffling and hand waving but then again it doesn't seem like they come in crackerjack boxes either. Otherwise MS _would_ have certs for XP.
I'm sure Gates would have like to have been able to say , "Hey, XP's EAL4 certified by the US government" when asked about MS's commitment to security and stability recently.
No mod points to bump your comment, but this hits the nail on the head. IBM makes it's money via IBM Global Services. They are using Linux to create a standard platform on which they can compete where they really shine, i.e. massive development projects.
What IBM does not want is for Microsoft to gain a foothold in the services market and put IBM at a disadvantage because everyone is using MS products.
I think that the timing is right and that IBM may just pull this off before MS figures out that IBM destroying Windows is just a byproduct of IBM protecting it's core services.
(not to mention that MS pissed off an elephant awhile back and elephants _never_ forget!)
And congradulations on the porting work, A/UX was something quite unique and special at the time, at least the 3.x series. I have 2.0 CDs but have never installed them. I don't think they had Finder integration until 3.0.
Did you guys do just the porting of, I believe SVR2 as well as the BSD integration, MacOS7.1 modifications and Apple Unix utilities such as the pop up command editor called, I think, Komander (to get it you type in a command, like "grep" and then hit <command>K to get a graphic dialog with most of the command options)?
Did you guys port the GCC tool chain or was that the community? Was Steve Jobs involved at all, as per my previous speculation? It looked like he was seriously eyeing the Unix market back then. Although you call A/UX a foot note to Apple.
You guys turned those boxes into real computers. While most people were dinking around with Windows 3.11 I had my Mac and Unix too!
Slashdot Mirror
I won't even go into how much I loath IE and the hell spawns that are responsible for it.
I will note that the original poster who stated that DHTML development just got harder is missing the big picture. It's harder if you only ever develop for IE. FireFox and the latest Mozillas, heck even KHTML and Safari are worlds easier to code for then they ever were. So much so that IE7 is do out even after MS said they were not going to improve IE. The world is getting rosier, or maybe it's just my glasses.
Kind Regards
What IBM has realised is that they can change the rules of commerce in their industry and they are in a position to capitalise on that change. It just so happens that "we" (FLOSS) are going to "win" when this happens, so it's all good to the Slashdot crowd. IF IBM saw more dollars using an alternat strategy, they would use it instead. Which is not a bad thing neccesarily, there is nothing wrong with making money. There is something wrong with screwing people, and that is what the current software market is doing. IBM is going to take advantage of a sea change in they way people think about, purchase and interact with technology. All because the Free Software "movement" preserved what is ultimatly being shown to be the best way to develop software.
Kind Regards
Why write a bubble sort when you can have a quik sort for free?
Kind Regards
Thats:
;-)
apt-get install vote
Ya Gentoo freak!
Kind Regards
Right, and here in lies your problem and the problem with this entire entire line of argument, which is based on logical falicy.
As for the other snide remarks I'm not even arguing those points and I'm not going to provide you with evidence that you can find yourself on bugtrak, by asking almost anyone, or simply by taking your head out of the sand. I work at a shop where the service techs deal with a non-stop stream of infected Windows systems so I draw my statements from direct experience.
Having said all that thank you for going back and forth on this. The point about Windows exploits and market share just came to me after reading the original post I replied to and I wanted to see what people thought about it. You've helped me develop the thought and added some focus to the point. Thanks.
Kind Regards
Thank you for identifying Windows Exploit Myth #2. The life expectancy of a Windows box connected directly to the Internet is measured in minutes. I know first hand because we service Windows systems in our shop. While SP2 has gone a long way to improving security, even with it Windows is paricularly suseptable to exploits. Also please note that XP2, the be all end all of Windows security is only available for Windows XP. Many people are still running 9x or 2000, a group to which MS has become down right abusive.
As for needing the user to run an attachment or something it's not that simple. Browsing the web and installing popular well known and used software can start a slow slide into total destruction.
Finally, please note you are still not understanding my argument which is that just because Windows has been brought to it's knees by the Internet does not mean that other OS's are just as insecure because they do not have the same market share. It's speculation. It's absurd. I dare say it's idiotic, counterproductive and FUD food. Thats why I brought it up, it's deceitful and wrong headed and needs to stop. The issue of how a FOSS operating system will fare once it attains the market share that MS has enjoyed has yet to be seen, If I am to speculate I would say that it would become so secure as to alter our our fundamental conception of security and what can be achieved. But then thats just me.
Kind Regards
Which may or may not be do to Windows market share. It may also not have to do with any one factor. The problem I see is when Windows zealots use the market share argument exlusively to defend Windows.
I'm really trying to extract your point from your post and not having much success.
How is Classic MacOS and DOS less secure? DOS had zero internet connectivity out of the box. Even if you added a TCP/IP stack there were no services you were going to run on DOS. If you ran Windows 3.1 or something you could run Netscape I think. But then, here we are with Windows (actually, DOS) again with about the same market share as Windows has today and no rampent network exploit problem. So again, I'm not sure what your getting at.
The fact that Windows is exploted is proof that it is insecure. That is my point. Speculating that Linux or Mac would be just as insecure if they had the same market share is just speculation. It also ignores the possiblity that a system that was easier, or even as easy, to exploit as Windows but had a smaller market share might also be exploited. So the fact that Linux and Mac exploits are not a pandemic does not mean that they are just as insecure as Windows. It's not "fact-free hystrionics", it's just observation and logic.
Now if you think Linux is insecure because Windows is exploited maybe you can elaborate on why that is so I can better understand what your getting at. If on the other hand your arguing something else, please don't confuse it with my argument because you make me feel like you are'nt really paying attention to what I am saying.
Kind Regards
Having said that though, I do remember there being viruses for OS 7 that were transfered via shareware and floppies and the like.
Kind Regards
I don't think this is the most importaint factor. For example, spammers want to send spam. If they can easily exploit a system that only has a small fraction of the market and achieve their goals than I think they would do that. I mean, they will take the path of least resistence that still meets their needs. If Windows is both a vast and easy target, more the better. But if Macs or Linux were easy to exploit there are probobly enough of these systems on the Internet, even with only a combined market share of, say, 10-20%, to meet their needs. As it happens though, Windows has been sufficiently meeting the needs of spammers for the past several years, so why switch platforms mid stream? ;-)
Also, please keep in mind that I am not saying Windows market share does not contribute to it's being attacked. What I am pointing out is that the fact that it is attacked (and exploited) does not mean that it is as secure as Linux or Mac because they are not attacked. What it does prove is that Windows is insecure. It says nothing about Linux or Mac security and people who speculate about Linux or Mac exploits if these systems had a higher market share are just that, speculating. The Windows exloits do prove that Windows is insecure however.
Kind Regards
As far as I'm aware there is no conclusive evidence that the "Windows Market Share" theory of exploitation holds any water at all. From a _design_ perspective Windows has been shown to be less secure than other operating systems. Wether it's targetted or not has no effect how secure Windows actually is! It just brings to light that it is insecure, incontravertably and demonstratably insecure.
Kind Regards
I don't think this is such a good idea. Debian is a good base because it is stable. primarily, but also has a massive bredth of packages. The "Debian based" distributions generally add value to Debian by providing more limited but current set of packages by pulling from the testing branches and doing their own integration. They also target some niche. This is why Ubuntu has value. It targets the desktop.
Debian does not really target anything, and that is good because it makes for a rich base to start from.
What would the value add be for basing a distribution on Ubuntu?
Kind Regards
Someone modded this as a Troll. It is clearly not a troll. If you disagree with someone, reply! Don't be a coward and hide behind the moderation system.
I hope this "moderator" gets smacked in meta mod.
Kind Regards
They are one of the richest companies in the world. It would be nice if they'd spend a little cash to make the task of writting Internet apps a lot easier until the all singing all dancing standard that solves everyones problems emerges.
Kind Regards
Kind Regards
"There lies the problem with Civil IP cases. The lay person does not have the money to defend let alone assert those rights."
Yes indeed, thats the larger problem. And the rest of your comment certainly applies to this case except for a couple points.
1. I was just mentioning that the grandparent posters case might not be the same so the legal advise might not apply 100%. The GPL is involved in this case, not sure about the grandparent.
2. The company seems to already be in violation of the GPL as they have appariently distributed the code without providng access to the source. They most likely just shipped it with their own copyright notice, which would be a big no no in this case.
Which brings us to:
"You don't have to have a hope of prevailing."
Normally quite true and possibly true in this case but not conclusive. The posting author is not the only one involved here, IBM seems to be involved as well as maybe other parties. This is another difference between the grandparent and this guys case.
The very fact that there are third parties involved that have an open and shut case against this company regarding their code use should give this company pause. I don't know what the statutes of limitation are here but they seem to be basing this product on a house of cards. The more succeful the product the more likely they will be taken to court on GPL violations. Not a good position to be in.
Kind Regards
He is using GPL'd code that is copyrighted to it's respective owners. These owners have not entered into any aggreements with said company nor have they transfered any rights.
Thus the company is violating the license of the GPL'd material they are distributing. They may be able to lay claim, right or wrong, to the code he himself wrote and possibly even override his own licensing decision. They can not alter the license arrangements of the pre-existing GPL'd code however.
Now this is facinating because of the misunderstandings created by the access to source code clause in the GPL. Access is a right granted by the GPL, but access does not mean or imply ownership. This company is confused because they can't fathom both having the code right their in front of them and not having ownership or it.
My bet is that if this went to court they would get their pants smacked around backwords.
I really don't see how this company has any hope of prevailing.
Kind Regards
Only if after having completed that big "what if" they also port it to Linux.
You are failing to grasp why millions of people around the world use open source and why it has no competitors. I'll spell it out for you:
It. Can. Not. Be. Stopped... Ever.
There is no way for FL/OSS to go away. All that can happen is interest can wax and wane as it has several times in history already. Now it's waxing, maybe soon it will wane, who cares?
Kind Regards
ABAP is SAP's 4GL. Clear as mud? :-)
SAP is a big German ERP dinasour. ABAP is what their product, R3, is scripted with. Their hayday was the mid 90's. They are probobly still doing quite well though.
Kind Regards
Kind Regards
RMS is not only the last person I would expect to put ego above cause, he is one of the few people in the world who truely understands what he started.
I wish people would just chill about the guy.
Kind Regards
If it were easy to do and almost all major vendors could claim complience then why wouldn't MS make sure that XP was certified. They made a big deal about Win2000 certification when they got it. It's cheap marketing for MS and fuel for their FUD engine, which they know they need to keep fed. I doubt that MS simply doesn't care about certification or couldn't put enough resources behind the process to get it done.
Now I don't doubt that EAL certs. are mostly a bunch of paper shuffling and hand waving but then again it doesn't seem like they come in crackerjack boxes either. Otherwise MS _would_ have certs for XP.
I'm sure Gates would have like to have been able to say , "Hey, XP's EAL4 certified by the US government" when asked about MS's commitment to security and stability recently.
Kind Regards
What IBM does not want is for Microsoft to gain a foothold in the services market and put IBM at a disadvantage because everyone is using MS products.
I think that the timing is right and that IBM may just pull this off before MS figures out that IBM destroying Windows is just a byproduct of IBM protecting it's core services.
(not to mention that MS pissed off an elephant awhile back and elephants _never_ forget!)
Kind Regards
I think I may just go fire up that Quadra sometime soon.
Thanks for the replies, I'm an A/UX cultist of one.
Kind Regards
And congradulations on the porting work, A/UX was something quite unique and special at the time, at least the 3.x series. I have 2.0 CDs but have never installed them. I don't think they had Finder integration until 3.0.
Did you guys do just the porting of, I believe SVR2 as well as the BSD integration, MacOS7.1 modifications and Apple Unix utilities such as the pop up command editor called, I think, Komander (to get it you type in a command, like "grep" and then hit <command>K to get a graphic dialog with most of the command options)?
Did you guys port the GCC tool chain or was that the community? Was Steve Jobs involved at all, as per my previous speculation? It looked like he was seriously eyeing the Unix market back then. Although you call A/UX a foot note to Apple.
You guys turned those boxes into real computers. While most people were dinking around with Windows 3.11 I had my Mac and Unix too!
Kind Regards