I thought the consensus here was that open source software was secure? Why do the events of the past year make it appear as if they're as bad or worse?
That is all hogwash FUD and confirmation bias.
The truth is that there are a few orders of magnitude more effort put in to bash closed source software and hating on Microsoft on online tech boards compared to actual reading of source code to find bugs. Thats we have extremely serious bugs coming out of software like the Linux kernel that are 20 years old.
The preview doesn't say it will run on Nexus 4, hopefully the final version will run because it's powerful hardware, 2GB RAM and Quadcore. Forced obsolescence of good hardware is annoying and hope Google is not bad as other OEMs.
> but is Google really only paying their software developers 123,000 in Silicon Valley? That seems low for that place
Those numbers don't include stock options, which are a big part of compensation. The SV companies that don't give stock options have high salaries posted. The amount of ignorance in these comments is amazing.
Looks like there are a lot of highly skilled and highly paid people in the companies I looked... the opposite of the Slashdot narrative of indentured servants working on minimum wage.
That lab allowed Gates to take enormous tax write-offs but never produced any scientific or tecnological break-throughs. But hey, it was all in good tax-dodging fun, right?
Tax write-off and tax dodging? What the heck? That's like you donating $100 to the Red Cross to get $15 back in tax refund. Not to even mention all the payroll taxes that people working in Microsoft pay. MS would be way better off just stashing the money like Apple does.
Your post is utterly moronic. What is it about Microsoft that turns otherwise smart people into f**king morons?
It's interesting how it's Apple that mostly did everything and how the summary led people like you to mention only Microsoft. Typical biased Slashdot bullshit. Not to mention other companies are part of Rockstar like RIM, EMC, Ericsson, Sony. Apple bought some patents from Rockstart in 2012 for like $1B.
By the fifth round of bidding, it was Rockstar Bidco that decided not to submit a bid. This brought the group of bidders down to three: Google, Apple, and Intel.
Then something really interesting happened.
Following Rockstar’s seeming exit, Apple asked Nortel for permission to talk to the group about a possible partnership. This request was granted. Following these discussions, Apple decided they wanted to partner with Rockstar and adopt their name and transaction structure.
Essentially, Apple decided to stake the Rockstar group in this high-stakes poker game.
A long time went between the discovery and the fix available to the public. The ignorance and history rewriting is getting painful to watch in these comments.
To get around this, MS can sell a hardware dongle that costs $$$ that happens to come with free Windows, and Windows only runs if that hardware dongle is present. That way they can do the same thing that Apple does.
What about multiuser systems that are used as remote desktops? What about privilege separation? Why should a user logged into a machine be able to read keystrokes of all the others even though they're a normal user and not root? That doesn't happen with Windows.
So now we have "Windows" isn't "Windows" argument? Look, Microsoft has kept the basic features of "windows" including how the user interface operates all the way though from 3.1.1. They have brought along a lot of baggage in the process. People, users, administrators expect that the next version will work much like the current one. I remember the jump to NT, what a mess. But Microsoft had no choice but to break a lot of expected behavior though the years, many times for security reasons, but they bring a lot of the baggage along and are forced into compromises in security in the effort to keep their user base. They couldn't just make the changes they needed to, or a lot of folks would have bailed to Linux, which had the security, and wasn't in need of change.
Yes, "Windows XP" wasn't the next version of the "Windows ME" codebase and doesn't have it.
Similar UI != same code base just like React OS != Windows XP
Server OS != Desktop OS
Server use cases and audience != Desktop use cases and audience
Compare CentOS with Windows Server.
If you want a further locked down machine and featureless default install, there's Windows Server Core.
It's like me complaining that Linux comes with Amazon ads preinstalled and uploads search keywords to Canonical(like it does in Ubuntu) while Windows comes with a heavily restricted browser that doesn't even run JavaScript or download files without a lot of tweaking(Windows Server).
Do you remember DOS? Windows 3.1.1? Security was woefully lacking, it wasn't even a concern. At the same time, Linux was being developed, with the security model it has today, mostly unchanged. Windows has gong though many revisions and changes in the security design from ZERO security and no such thing as having separate user accounts to where we are now. Linux started out, very similar to what it is now.
Please stop repeating that, it stopped being true as of 10 years ago since Windows ME was the last OS based on DOS/Win 3.1.1 code.
XP, Vista, 7 and 8 are all based on the Windows NT family which was developed with security in mind and separate user accounts etc.
Windows boxes? They come out of the install process wide open with a whole raft of dangerous services turned on.
Can you list what dangerous services are turned on by default on a Windows Server install? If you don't it's a pretty sign that you have no clue about what you're talking about and last used Windows about 15 years ago.
So this isn't a really fair comparison you are making. Linux is BY DEFAULT more secure than Windows, mainly by design. Microsoft has made great strides of late, but fundamentally they are starting from a weak position (remember Windows 3.1?) and you have to install components to make it more secure, where Linux starts secure and gets security downgrades when you install and configure stuff. Either way, if you don't manage your server, you will have problems.
The point of comparison should be between the server OSes. So, do you really think Linux on the server is more secure than Windows Server 2012R2 ?
Mozilla is the only hope left in the browser market. The rest are controlled by mega corps. Witness the recent ramrodding of video DRM into W3C standards by Google, Microsoft and Apple, all of which have their own DRM implementations.
Not to mention Firefox being forced to support H.264 playback, after Google promised and backtracked on removing support from Chrome. Based on the above two cases, I guess it's already too late, corporate control has taken over the web.
They won't fix it. They make a ton of money from those ads, make Windows slow down and look bad so they can push heavily locked down Chromebooks that techies seem to sing the praise of.
I completely fail to comprehend why most Slashdotters seem to push everyone towards DRM'ed iPads and Chromebooks that put Palladium to shame instead of more open Windows PCs.
I guess it's more about Microsoft hate and the desire to bring them down than software freedom.
Content creation? You mean only English essays, right? Can the students even install and use a proper compiler or something like AutoCAD? Photoshop?
A heavily DRM'ed up "laptop" that no one can do anything except be forced to Google cloudservices to even login and a browser is a rational choice now? Not to mention Google Apps and email which helpfully uploads everything to the Google Cloud.
It pulls Palladium to shame since you can't install any apps except those provided by the Google overlords.
This proves that all the Slashdot talk about software freedom is thinly disguised Microsoft hate since everyone here seems to be pumping up heavily locked down iDevices and Chromebooks.
Slashdot Mirror
Isn't it open source?
Why is there no fix then?
I thought the consensus here was that open source software was secure? Why do the events of the past year make it appear as if they're as bad or worse?
That is all hogwash FUD and confirmation bias.
The truth is that there are a few orders of magnitude more effort put in to bash closed source software and hating on Microsoft on online tech boards compared to actual reading of source code to find bugs. Thats we have extremely serious bugs coming out of software like the Linux kernel that are 20 years old.
That applies to open source too.
There some in plain sight in some of the most popular server software in the world like OpenSSL that were found really late.
The preview doesn't say it will run on Nexus 4, hopefully the final version will run because it's powerful hardware, 2GB RAM and Quadcore. Forced obsolescence of good hardware is annoying and hope Google is not bad as other OEMs.
> but is Google really only paying their software developers 123,000 in Silicon Valley? That seems low for that place
Those numbers don't include stock options, which are a big part of compensation. The SV companies that don't give stock options have high salaries posted. The amount of ignorance in these comments is amazing.
Looks like there are a lot of highly skilled and highly paid people in the companies I looked... the opposite of the Slashdot narrative of indentured servants working on minimum wage.
That lab allowed Gates to take enormous tax write-offs but never produced any scientific or tecnological break-throughs. But hey, it was all in good tax-dodging fun, right?
Tax write-off and tax dodging? What the heck? That's like you donating $100 to the Red Cross to get $15 back in tax refund. Not to even mention all the payroll taxes that people working in Microsoft pay. MS would be way better off just stashing the money like Apple does.
Your post is utterly moronic. What is it about Microsoft that turns otherwise smart people into f**king morons?
It's interesting how it's Apple that mostly did everything and how the summary led people like you to mention only Microsoft. Typical biased Slashdot bullshit.
Not to mention other companies are part of Rockstar like RIM, EMC, Ericsson, Sony. Apple bought some patents from Rockstart in 2012 for like $1B.
From http://techcrunch.com/2011/07/...
By the fifth round of bidding, it was Rockstar Bidco that decided not to submit a bid. This brought the group of bidders down to three: Google, Apple, and Intel.
Then something really interesting happened.
Following Rockstar’s seeming exit, Apple asked Nortel for permission to talk to the group about a possible partnership. This request was granted. Following these discussions, Apple decided they wanted to partner with Rockstar and adopt their name and transaction structure.
Essentially, Apple decided to stake the Rockstar group in this high-stakes poker game.
A long time went between the discovery and the fix available to the public. The ignorance and history rewriting is getting painful to watch in these comments.
http://www.smh.com.au/it-pro/s...
Yet you don't cringe at all the snooping that Google is doing with student the information.
http://mashable.com/2014/03/19...
>I know that kid's data is saved to their Google Drive - automatically.
Where it can be mined for showing ads.
Fantastic, indeed, but for Google, not for the students.
To get around this, MS can sell a hardware dongle that costs $$$ that happens to come with free Windows, and Windows only runs if that hardware dongle is present. That way they can do the same thing that Apple does.
Kolab charges a license fee.
What about multiuser systems that are used as remote desktops? What about privilege separation? Why should a user logged into a machine be able to read keystrokes of all the others even though they're a normal user and not root? That doesn't happen with Windows.
Linux had and has a string of security issues, including things like this.
http://theinvisiblethings.blog...
Try doing that on a Terminal Server.
What multiuser security again?
Windows 7 is not Windows Server
So now we have "Windows" isn't "Windows" argument? Look, Microsoft has kept the basic features of "windows" including how the user interface operates all the way though from 3.1.1. They have brought along a lot of baggage in the process. People, users, administrators expect that the next version will work much like the current one. I remember the jump to NT, what a mess. But Microsoft had no choice but to break a lot of expected behavior though the years, many times for security reasons, but they bring a lot of the baggage along and are forced into compromises in security in the effort to keep their user base. They couldn't just make the changes they needed to, or a lot of folks would have bailed to Linux, which had the security, and wasn't in need of change.
Yes, "Windows XP" wasn't the next version of the "Windows ME" codebase and doesn't have it.
Similar UI != same code base
just like
React OS != Windows XP
Server OS != Desktop OS
Server use cases and audience != Desktop use cases and audience
Compare CentOS with Windows Server.
If you want a further locked down machine and featureless default install, there's Windows Server Core.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-u...
Compare Ubuntu(not Ubuntu Server) with Windows 8.
It's like me complaining that Linux comes with Amazon ads preinstalled and uploads search keywords to Canonical(like it does in Ubuntu) while Windows comes with a heavily restricted browser that doesn't even run JavaScript or download files without a lot of tweaking(Windows Server).
Get it?
Where do you think the designers of NT came up with that idea? Hmmmmm? Wouldn't have been Unix now would it?
Wrong again, it was designed by someone who quite hated Unix.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Cutler
http://www.theverge.com/gaming...
Windows NT's primary inspiration was VMS.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O...
Windows NT did not start less secure.
Do you remember DOS? Windows 3.1.1? Security was woefully lacking, it wasn't even a concern. At the same time, Linux was being developed, with the security model it has today, mostly unchanged. Windows has gong though many revisions and changes in the security design from ZERO security and no such thing as having separate user accounts to where we are now. Linux started out, very similar to what it is now.
Please stop repeating that, it stopped being true as of 10 years ago since Windows ME was the last OS based on DOS/Win 3.1.1 code.
XP, Vista, 7 and 8 are all based on the Windows NT family which was developed with security in mind and separate user accounts etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W...
So when Linux gets infected, it's the users fault but when Windows gets infected, it's Microsoft's fault[1]?
[1] http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...
Gotta love Slashdot logic.
The applications you mention are all Open Source, which people on here keep insisting are secure.
Windows boxes? They come out of the install process wide open with a whole raft of dangerous services turned on.
Can you list what dangerous services are turned on by default on a Windows Server install? If you don't it's a pretty sign that you have no clue about what you're talking about and last used Windows about 15 years ago.
So this isn't a really fair comparison you are making. Linux is BY DEFAULT more secure than Windows, mainly by design. Microsoft has made great strides of late, but fundamentally they are starting from a weak position (remember Windows 3.1?) and you have to install components to make it more secure, where Linux starts secure and gets security downgrades when you install and configure stuff. Either way, if you don't manage your server, you will have problems.
The point of comparison should be between the server OSes. So, do you really think Linux on the server is more secure than Windows Server 2012R2 ?
Mozilla is the only hope left in the browser market. The rest are controlled by mega corps. Witness the recent ramrodding of video DRM into W3C standards by Google, Microsoft and Apple, all of which have their own DRM implementations.
Not to mention Firefox being forced to support H.264 playback, after Google promised and backtracked on removing support from Chrome. Based on the above two cases, I guess it's already too late, corporate control has taken over the web.
They won't fix it. They make a ton of money from those ads, make Windows slow down and look bad so they can push heavily locked down Chromebooks that techies seem to sing the praise of.
I completely fail to comprehend why most Slashdotters seem to push everyone towards DRM'ed iPads and Chromebooks that put Palladium to shame instead of more open Windows PCs.
I guess it's more about Microsoft hate and the desire to bring them down than software freedom.
Content creation? You mean only English essays, right? Can the students even install and use a proper compiler or something like AutoCAD? Photoshop?
A heavily DRM'ed up "laptop" that no one can do anything except be forced to Google cloudservices to even login and a browser is a rational choice now? Not to mention Google Apps and email which helpfully uploads everything to the Google Cloud.
It pulls Palladium to shame since you can't install any apps except those provided by the Google overlords.
This proves that all the Slashdot talk about software freedom is thinly disguised Microsoft hate since everyone here seems to be pumping up heavily locked down iDevices and Chromebooks.