This is a company which regards their software as "most secure ever" just before a several years of gaping security flaws are revealed and exploited.
They said that it was the most secure Windows so far; are you disputing this?
revealing Windows security flaws should be halted by the Department of Homeland Security as it represents a threat to businesses which use the software
I can actually see the logic in that. I do not agree with it (if one person has found an exploitable flaw, chances are someone else has or will), but it's not an entirely stupid idea on the face of it (you have to think about it to realise how dangerous it is).
no liability is expressed or implied by the jokers who make billions selling it, however
Very very few software licences do not disclaim liability, the GPL included. It's extremely hard (and time consuming, and so expensive) to create software that can be guaranteed exploit-free, and this difficulty increases as the complexity of the software increases.
Thanks EU for having some balls, which the US DoJ doesn't.
Well there's one thing we can agree on. I personally think that MS's software often gets too raw a deal here, but some of their business practices are deplorable. It's nice to see that someone finally has the guts to stand up to them and actually impose the punishment they threatened them with for a change.
I know from personal experience that you can use Group Policy to do things as trivial/unimportant as set the desktop background and disallow the user from changing it.
I know this because the last time I received a new machine, that's exactly what the IT department (of another branch of the company - don't ask, it's a long and boring story) did. Of course, they reckoned without two facts:
1) We're not part of the corporate Active Directory 2) We all get local admin
That took about 5 minutes of googling to circumvent. The point is though, if done properly, you can indeed lock a machine down tight using group policy.
Check your RAM usage - for a lot of modern games under Windows, goig from 512meg to 1gig makes a considerable difference. Going from (say) 250 meg free to 350meg free is likely to have a noticeable effect too. I'd imagine that your Linux install uses less RAM than your Windows one, assuming you have third party firewall and anti-virus software under Windows.
You also can't hide from a different installation of Windows that has the infected disk mounted. Rootkits hide themselves by hooking into the running kernel/fs drivers - inspect the disk with a clean install and they can't hide then either.
Of course, the more tools you have available to you, the better, and while it's very unlikely that a rootkit from one install can infect another as long as you're careful, it's *extremely* unlikely that it'll be able to infect a Linux install. That may change with time, of course - as with so many things, it's an arms race, and this one is unlikely to do anything but get hotter.
To construct a better metaphor: Would you tell someone if a pickpocket were stealing their wallet? Or would you call the police first?
Actually, I think a better metaphor would be to warn someone that there are pickpockets operating in the area *and* that their bag is open and their wallet/purse clearly visible.
Ie while they're not being robbed *right now*, they're definitely vulnerable.
You seem surprised that an OS that is currently slated for release in 2007 won't run on a product released in 2004 yet will run on a product that is still in development...
This huge industry push to OSS and virtualization could be the end of Microsoft and the tech economy as we know it.
How can a push to virtualisation - the process of running an OS on "virtual hardware" - possibly be the end of a company that's core business involves selling an OS? Not to mention that most virtualisation products require a host OS in the first place (VMWare's ESX Server is the only one that springs to mind that doesn't, but it certianly still requires at least one guest OS)
Besides which, the real uses for virtualisation (to my mind) are currently:
1) Running multiple server OSes on a beefy server 2) Running an alternative OS for testing or application availability purposes
In the first instance, you're most likely going to be running server OSes, and I don't see MS changing the licencing terms for any of their Server products any time soon, so that'll still require one licence per VM. In the second instance, the licencing is immaterial, as you only need the one licence anyway.
Now, a move to OSS I can see being problematic for vendors like MS, but let's be honest here - it's not looking to have made much of a dent in their profits over the last decade or so. Doubtless it will given time, but I wouldn't hold my breath. Ousting a company that is *that* entrenched is no simple matter.
Until such time as I am required to sign (in ink) something to the effect that I agree not to sell, give or otherwise transfer the item in question to a third party, I can do whatever the hell I want with it, short of making infringing copies.
The day that that happens, is the day I stop buying copyrighted works and start planning a revolution instead.
While what you say is true, who needs a hole to exploit a machine? All you need is to convince a user to run your malware and you're away.
If they have root access, they can hose the whole system. If they don't have root access (or refuse to supply the credentials), they can still hose their own user account. Either way, if you're looking to add another PC to your zombie botnet, the difference is immaterial, especially on single-user machines.
Even if there were absolutely no remotely exploitable holes, there will always be enough naive and incautious users to provide a rich hunting ground for malware.
Even your comments are copyrighted. There *are* ways to register your copyright of a given piece of content, but they exist solely to help you *prove* that you produced it originally, and carry no weight other than that.
Which makes one wonder how they know someone has uploaded "a lot".
Well, you could simply download a lot from them, making a note of their IP address. Any IP that uploads more than X to you, you go after.
Yes, a lot of them will be dynamic IPs, in which case the ISP can simply reply to that effect and that's the end of it. However, a lot of people have static IP addresses - I've had one for about 5 years now at no extra cost, and a lot of ISPs hand them out either by default or on request, often for free.
Short of breaking down doors and confiscating PCs, there's not a lot they can do. The law gives them the right to protect their copyrights, you can hardly blame them for trying to do so. At least they're not just blanket suing people (at the moment...)
Since the AUP's UK users agree to are pretty draconian in order to get internet access
Speak for your own ISP's AUP; mine isn't what I'd call draconian (scroll past the terms for the one month trial). In summary, my obligations are to obey the relevant laws, and not try to claim that it's Eclipse's fault if I get caught breaking one.
I've not coded in C in a long time, but I imagine (under Linux) I might well give KDevelop a go.
Java code
Eclipse.
the letter to your grandmother
Depends on how formal I want it to look; vi for a quick thing, something like OpenOffice for something a little more formal. (Unlikely to be to my granny, of course, but then I'm unlikely to write to her as she's been dead for about 15 years)
Wouldn't the editor/viewer be something that handles "ASCII English text"?
Yes, but the editor may well be required to support different functionality for the various different files - most likely by using different editors tailored to the file type. That can only be accomplished (from the desktop shell) by correctly identifying the file type.
My point being that the DNS lookup fails - and an error is returned to the user - before the browser ever gets to issue the GET request. Given that this is about a DNS resolution service, they have absolutely nothing whatesoever to do with anything beyond the resolution of the DNS request - their job is over before the GET request is made, as at that point the connection is already established.
You cannot get a 404 for a DNS lookup failure, unless you're using some sort of poorly-implemented web interface to perform the lookup.
I assume that that's what was meant, but even that isn't a 404 error. Just because the pages that IE use for lookup failure and 404s look similar doesn't mean that they're the same error condition.
I was under the impression that Wired was relatively technical; perhaps I was wrong. (I've never actually read it, so I could well be)
And know little of networking and other sysadmin type subjects, but:
Users who type "wordpres.sorg" or "craigslist.or" into their browser's address field are automatically routed to the correct address, instead of getting a 404 error page.
Since when were DNS lookup failures responded to with HTTP error codes?
If connecting via the MS proxy was supported, they should have supported it. If it wasn't, it should have been made clear and potentially not included as an option in the standard build at all.
When entering into a support agreement for a product, it's reasonable to expect all features to be supported unless specifically and clearing excepted; it doesn't sound like that was the case in this instance.
A another poster has already said, finding good quality people simply isn't that easy. I know from personal experience the problems we've had finding even a small handful of people (half a dozen or so) to take on at the start of a new project when we don't have sufficient people in-house. Taking on hundreds of people at a time simply isn't doable if you care even slightly about quality.
Apart from that, there's the logistics of the thing (HR are going to be *busy* churning out contracts, following up references, etc), the infrastructure needs (they'll all need a desk, chair, 'phone, PC, maybe a laptop, id cards, keys/passes/PINs, etc), and so on.
Ramping up that many people that quickly simply isn't doable. Outsourcing is the only way to do it realistically. In order to outsource something, there must be someone there to outsource to - hence whether RedHat intends to go that route or simply allow/recommend people to go to third parties directly, they need these companies to exist, hence it's good when they are set up.
Going just by classical copyright, and not the DMCA (which doesn't apply outside the US), what would stop you from copying DVDs and altering them for your own use?
Well, here in the UK that would be illegal - we have no right to make copies of media in that way. In fact, it's illegal to rip a CD you've bought to mp3 - hence the BPI's recent announcement that they're prepared to turn a blind eye to it.
No, but under current copyright law it would make you a criminal, the punishment for which includes fines, prison time or both. It could be argued that exposing yourself to that risk unnecessarily would make you a bad parent.
Slashdot Mirror
This is a company which regards their software as "most secure ever" just before a several years of gaping security flaws are revealed and exploited.
They said that it was the most secure Windows so far; are you disputing this?
revealing Windows security flaws should be halted by the Department of Homeland Security as it represents a threat to businesses which use the software
I can actually see the logic in that. I do not agree with it (if one person has found an exploitable flaw, chances are someone else has or will), but it's not an entirely stupid idea on the face of it (you have to think about it to realise how dangerous it is).
no liability is expressed or implied by the jokers who make billions selling it, however
Very very few software licences do not disclaim liability, the GPL included. It's extremely hard (and time consuming, and so expensive) to create software that can be guaranteed exploit-free, and this difficulty increases as the complexity of the software increases.
Thanks EU for having some balls, which the US DoJ doesn't.
Well there's one thing we can agree on. I personally think that MS's software often gets too raw a deal here, but some of their business practices are deplorable. It's nice to see that someone finally has the guts to stand up to them and actually impose the punishment they threatened them with for a change.
I know from personal experience that you can use Group Policy to do things as trivial/unimportant as set the desktop background and disallow the user from changing it.
I know this because the last time I received a new machine, that's exactly what the IT department (of another branch of the company - don't ask, it's a long and boring story) did. Of course, they reckoned without two facts:
1) We're not part of the corporate Active Directory
2) We all get local admin
That took about 5 minutes of googling to circumvent. The point is though, if done properly, you can indeed lock a machine down tight using group policy.
Check your RAM usage - for a lot of modern games under Windows, goig from 512meg to 1gig makes a considerable difference. Going from (say) 250 meg free to 350meg free is likely to have a noticeable effect too. I'd imagine that your Linux install uses less RAM than your Windows one, assuming you have third party firewall and anti-virus software under Windows.
You also can't hide from a different installation of Windows that has the infected disk mounted. Rootkits hide themselves by hooking into the running kernel/fs drivers - inspect the disk with a clean install and they can't hide then either.
Of course, the more tools you have available to you, the better, and while it's very unlikely that a rootkit from one install can infect another as long as you're careful, it's *extremely* unlikely that it'll be able to infect a Linux install. That may change with time, of course - as with so many things, it's an arms race, and this one is unlikely to do anything but get hotter.
To construct a better metaphor: Would you tell someone if a pickpocket were stealing their wallet? Or would you call the police first?
Actually, I think a better metaphor would be to warn someone that there are pickpockets operating in the area *and* that their bag is open and their wallet/purse clearly visible.
Ie while they're not being robbed *right now*, they're definitely vulnerable.
ALl someone has to do is slip this sucker into some seemingly harmless content and WHAM!
Well, that's the very definition of a trojan.
Soon enough, universities will be obsolete, and corporations will judge one based on open source contributions.
That's all very well for developers, not so good for engineers, architects, doctors, chemists...
You seem surprised that an OS that is currently slated for release in 2007 won't run on a product released in 2004 yet will run on a product that is still in development...
This huge industry push to OSS and virtualization could be the end of Microsoft and the tech economy as we know it.
How can a push to virtualisation - the process of running an OS on "virtual hardware" - possibly be the end of a company that's core business involves selling an OS? Not to mention that most virtualisation products require a host OS in the first place (VMWare's ESX Server is the only one that springs to mind that doesn't, but it certianly still requires at least one guest OS)
Besides which, the real uses for virtualisation (to my mind) are currently:
1) Running multiple server OSes on a beefy server
2) Running an alternative OS for testing or application availability purposes
In the first instance, you're most likely going to be running server OSes, and I don't see MS changing the licencing terms for any of their Server products any time soon, so that'll still require one licence per VM. In the second instance, the licencing is immaterial, as you only need the one licence anyway.
Now, a move to OSS I can see being problematic for vendors like MS, but let's be honest here - it's not looking to have made much of a dent in their profits over the last decade or so. Doubtless it will given time, but I wouldn't hold my breath. Ousting a company that is *that* entrenched is no simple matter.
That's pretty-much exactly what I thought.
Until such time as I am required to sign (in ink) something to the effect that I agree not to sell, give or otherwise transfer the item in question to a third party, I can do whatever the hell I want with it, short of making infringing copies.
The day that that happens, is the day I stop buying copyrighted works and start planning a revolution instead.
You think Sony won't force Lackluster to sign a contract preventing them from selling on their used stock?
While what you say is true, who needs a hole to exploit a machine? All you need is to convince a user to run your malware and you're away.
If they have root access, they can hose the whole system. If they don't have root access (or refuse to supply the credentials), they can still hose their own user account. Either way, if you're looking to add another PC to your zombie botnet, the difference is immaterial, especially on single-user machines.
Even if there were absolutely no remotely exploitable holes, there will always be enough naive and incautious users to provide a rich hunting ground for malware.
Most of all, every piece of crap program is tied into the kernel, or needs kernel level privileges.
Do you have any proof at all to back up that assertion?
I've seen it repeated time and again here (especially with regards to IE), but have never once seen any proof.
Even your comments are copyrighted. There *are* ways to register your copyright of a given piece of content, but they exist solely to help you *prove* that you produced it originally, and carry no weight other than that.
Which makes one wonder how they know someone has uploaded "a lot".
Well, you could simply download a lot from them, making a note of their IP address. Any IP that uploads more than X to you, you go after.
Yes, a lot of them will be dynamic IPs, in which case the ISP can simply reply to that effect and that's the end of it. However, a lot of people have static IP addresses - I've had one for about 5 years now at no extra cost, and a lot of ISPs hand them out either by default or on request, often for free.
Short of breaking down doors and confiscating PCs, there's not a lot they can do. The law gives them the right to protect their copyrights, you can hardly blame them for trying to do so. At least they're not just blanket suing people (at the moment...)
Since the AUP's UK users agree to are pretty draconian in order to get internet access
Speak for your own ISP's AUP; mine isn't what I'd call draconian (scroll past the terms for the one month trial). In summary, my obligations are to obey the relevant laws, and not try to claim that it's Eclipse's fault if I get caught breaking one.
What do you use to edit the C code
I've not coded in C in a long time, but I imagine (under Linux) I might well give KDevelop a go.
Java code
Eclipse.
the letter to your grandmother
Depends on how formal I want it to look; vi for a quick thing, something like OpenOffice for something a little more formal. (Unlikely to be to my granny, of course, but then I'm unlikely to write to her as she's been dead for about 15 years)
Wouldn't the editor/viewer be something that handles "ASCII English text"?
Yes, but the editor may well be required to support different functionality for the various different files - most likely by using different editors tailored to the file type. That can only be accomplished (from the desktop shell) by correctly identifying the file type.
My point being that the DNS lookup fails - and an error is returned to the user - before the browser ever gets to issue the GET request. Given that this is about a DNS resolution service, they have absolutely nothing whatesoever to do with anything beyond the resolution of the DNS request - their job is over before the GET request is made, as at that point the connection is already established.
You cannot get a 404 for a DNS lookup failure, unless you're using some sort of poorly-implemented web interface to perform the lookup.
I assume that that's what was meant, but even that isn't a 404 error. Just because the pages that IE use for lookup failure and 404s look similar doesn't mean that they're the same error condition.
I was under the impression that Wired was relatively technical; perhaps I was wrong. (I've never actually read it, so I could well be)
Since when were DNS lookup failures responded to with HTTP error codes?
IMHO, it would've been better if IBM had put this investment into Wine so other applications had profited as well.
Better for us, yes, but for IBM? They're doing this to *sell* Notes, not out of the goodness of their hearts.
If connecting via the MS proxy was supported, they should have supported it. If it wasn't, it should have been made clear and potentially not included as an option in the standard build at all.
When entering into a support agreement for a product, it's reasonable to expect all features to be supported unless specifically and clearing excepted; it doesn't sound like that was the case in this instance.
A another poster has already said, finding good quality people simply isn't that easy. I know from personal experience the problems we've had finding even a small handful of people (half a dozen or so) to take on at the start of a new project when we don't have sufficient people in-house. Taking on hundreds of people at a time simply isn't doable if you care even slightly about quality.
Apart from that, there's the logistics of the thing (HR are going to be *busy* churning out contracts, following up references, etc), the infrastructure needs (they'll all need a desk, chair, 'phone, PC, maybe a laptop, id cards, keys/passes/PINs, etc), and so on.
Ramping up that many people that quickly simply isn't doable. Outsourcing is the only way to do it realistically. In order to outsource something, there must be someone there to outsource to - hence whether RedHat intends to go that route or simply allow/recommend people to go to third parties directly, they need these companies to exist, hence it's good when they are set up.
Going just by classical copyright, and not the DMCA (which doesn't apply outside the US), what would stop you from copying DVDs and altering them for your own use?
Well, here in the UK that would be illegal - we have no right to make copies of media in that way. In fact, it's illegal to rip a CD you've bought to mp3 - hence the BPI's recent announcement that they're prepared to turn a blind eye to it.
No, but under current copyright law it would make you a criminal, the punishment for which includes fines, prison time or both. It could be argued that exposing yourself to that risk unnecessarily would make you a bad parent.