Seriously, this is the wrong website to ask that sort of question on if you're expecting people to say "Hey, you're right - I couldn't have done that!". Well, apart from all the teenagers, I guess; sorry, as you were.
Let me get this straight - the guy didn't know how to update his anti-virus software, and that's a failing in the usability of Windows? He didn't know to intall Opera, Mozilla or Firefox, and that's a failing in the usability of Windows?
I'm sorry, but that's a failing in the antivirus software and the guy's knowledge of alternative browsers. You can't blame Windows for either.
The operating system used by most of the world, and a website used by some.
And both are software; the biggest difference, is that while Windows is hugely complex and has to run on a very large number of different hardware combinations, slashdot is comparatively trivial and runs on known hardware and yet still it's having stability problems.
A lot of spyware either masquerades as legitimate software, or piggy backs on legitmate software installers. Sure, some gets in through ActiveX exploits and what have you, but by no means all.
As for the "run as admin by default", that is changing, but will *not* prevent this sort of problem. Even if MS prevented interactive login by members of the Adminstrators group, you have to have a way of installing programs and performing system maintenance. That means an account that's capable of modifying system files.
So all the malware has to do is get to the machine as above (piggy backing or pretending to be legitimate), and prompt the user to enter their admin password.
Malware is not MS's fault. They've not made it as difficult for malware authors as they could have, but it's impossible to make it impossible, if the user has admin rights, and that includes *every* home user. The same applies to Linux, of course - as it grows in popularity, the malware authors will come. It'll take a little more social engineering, and an extra "enter your root password" step, but it cannot be stopped.
I'm sure that they mean it at the moment, but things change, be they attitudes, situations, or the people in charge.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that IBM is lying - just that what they intend today doesn't necessarily hold tomorrow. IBM isn't supporting Linux out of the goodness of their collective hearts - they're doing it because it helps them in their core business, selling hardware and services. Pissing off MS is a nice to have, too, I'd imagine. If Linux ever somehow became a threat to IBM, don't think for one minute that that promise would mean anything.
The theory I heard was that it was to force the cashier to open the till (to get the customer's change), thus making it harder for them to simply pocket the money as the customer turned away.
I also imagine that there's an element of truth to the marketing angle, of 49.99 being advertised as "under 50!" and seeming cheaper subconsciously.
however if the black box tattles to say that in order to get to 45 MPH at the impact point, the driver was breaking hard to get down from a speed of 75 MPH in that 30 MPH zone
Then it'll only be confirming what the investigators already know from the tire marks left on the road.
Don't get me wrong - I've nothing against black boxes in cars, with the usual provisos about only recording relevant information, only being available in the event of a crash, etc. Your example is nothing that conventional methods don't already have covered, though.
Which is even worse. At least with copyright infringement, you can claim that you never saw the code you're supposed to have copied, and any similarity must be a coincidence. Patent infringement offers no such defense; I believe that even simultaneous development in isolation is infringing, if they patent it first.
Why does only Linux need to be indemnified against copyright infringement?
This is about patent infringement, not copyright infringement. I'd imagine that the problem for Linux is that managers making these decisions get to hear that there is no "Linux Corp Inc." and so wonder
a) who they turn to for support b) who protects them in the event of a legal fight
If someone accuses Microsoft of patent infringement, you know it'll be in court for quite a while, and no matter what happens, MS will sort it out - either pay up, crush/buy the opposition, or release a patch to provide compliance. At no point is it in the least bit likely that anyone will try to take on MS's customers.
With no single Linux entity to attack, however, I can understand why the less savvy manager might start worrying about vengeful patent holders going after the companies using it. Even if they know that it wouldn't happen, they don't know that it wouldn't, so they take the path of least perceived risk.
True - but that doesn't stop a Linux distributor from taking infringement action against users of GPLed software that they do not distribute.
Say, for example, if IBM had a patent that MPlayer was infringing on, they could sue to their heart's content as long as they do not themselves distribute MPlayer. The fact that they distribute other GPLed software has no bearing on that.
Also, even if they were distributing a GPLed program that was then the subject of an infringement suit, surely they'd go after the authors, not the end users?
There are of course specialist tasks that require more horsepower, but those are.. specialist tasks.
Once upon a time, viewing images was a specialist task. Then, viewing them in full colour, then editnig them. Sound used to be a specialist task, then editing sound.
Now, things like video encoding/editing is a specialist task, requiring (relatively) serious amounts of horsepower.
Well, once that sort of horsepower becomes commonplace, the task stops being specialist, as more and more people do it simply because they can.
True, there will always be truly specialist tasks that never become mainstream (animation and rendering work, phsically simulation and similar number crunching), but there is stuff now that could most certainly benefit from more CPU power (whether it be from single- or multi-cored machines) that would become more mainstream when that power became affordable.
The RIAA and MPAA won't care at all about this -- they'll just claim it's lies.
And how do we know it isn't? All it would take would be a group of people with an agenda to push to inflate the figures well beyond the realm of reality.
Well, I have a hard time arguing that it's a "fair and balanced" opinion, given that one of his opening paragraph headings is "How Did Windows Become So Insecure?"
Unless I've missed something on a previous page (which I admit is entirely possible), he's started from his conclusion ("Windows is not secure") and at best worked backwards.
though more will be at user not system level, since it's harder to evevate priviilages on a Unix bos than a Windows one.
"In order to install your FREE BonzaiCometCursorBuddyWeatherUpdatesTool, please enter your 'root' password in the box below and click 'next'. (Your 'root' password is the one you use to install programs and perform system configuration tasks)"
That, or you'll simply see people running as root all the time, just as they run as admin under Windows. Since 2k at least it's been perfectly possible to run as a non-privileged account and use the "Run as..." service where necessary, and yet so few people do...
This means you need to change your motherboard everytime you switch from one socket to another - big expense and something that makes u think a lot about which socket u want.
Well, I've had a PC for about 8 years now, and have upgraded a number of times. I don't recall ever keeping the same motherboard when buying a new processor.
True, I imagine that if you buy them regularly, then you may well "reuse" a motherboard once or twice. But personally, by the time I need/can afford to upgrade, a new motherboard is a requirement if I want to obtain a decent performance increase. My old one simply won't support the newer chips.
So, for people who do go to the trouble and expense of incremental upgrades, yes, I can see that not having to buy a new motherboard may be a factor. But I think probably the majority of people leave it long enough between upgrades that keeping the same one simply isn't an option. YM, of course, MV.
Well, I've been using some form of AV software for 3+ years now, and have had exactly zero false positives. In fact, this is the first I've heard of the rate being high - I don't doubt that there *ar* false positives, but the idea that it might occur often enough to be a problem is a new one on me.
The point of this 'myth' is you have the ability to.
No - you have permission to do so, and access to the necessary resources. That alone does not confer ability, merely opportunity.
I'm nit-picking, but then so are you. Non-programmers (ie the vast majority of computer users) simply cannot modify their applications at source-level. They lack the required skill, and most likely the time (and perhaps even ability) to acquire it, too.
Even so, I've had things crash Win2k without fail (Dungeon Keeper 2 springs immediately to mind) that work absolutely fine under XP. Also, XP Pro comes with remote desktop server built-in, while 2k Pro does not, and there's no way I was shelling out for 2k Server.
$10K is a ridiculously low figure to rewrite slashdot.
Agreed, but we're not - or rather, shouldn't be - talking about a rewrite. We're talking about changing the presentation layer, to make it standards-compliant.
If they've written well-architected code, then the presentation should be (as far as possible) separate from the business layer. It shouldn't involve rewriting slashdot, it *should* just mean changing some templates.
I have absolutely no clue of what "the implicit information storage that corresponds to all of the hard disks made in the world this year, multiplied by the number of years the universe has been around" actually represents in bytes.
Well, let's estimate that 1 million hard drives are made each year, at an average capacity of 200gig (both figures pulled out of the air; I have no idea how many hard drives will be made this year). That's a total capacity of 0.2 billion GB/year.
The age of the universe is estimated to be somewhere around 14 billion years, so that gives us 2.8 billion billion GB.
Seems simple to me, but then my degree is in Physics, so I'm used to that sort of crap:-)
Don't forget, a lot of semiconductor fabs are located overseas, to avoid harsh environmental regulations here in the U.S. Well, guess what... U.S. law does not apply there.
True, but if the companies involved wish to sell those products to or withing the US, then the products will have to comply with all the relevant statutes.
Slashdot Mirror
/raises hand
Seriously, this is the wrong website to ask that sort of question on if you're expecting people to say "Hey, you're right - I couldn't have done that!". Well, apart from all the teenagers, I guess; sorry, as you were.
So you would strip home users of admin rights?
How would they apply patches then? Or would that be done remotely by MS themselves, or locally by MS-approved service engineers?
Let me get this straight - the guy didn't know how to update his anti-virus software, and that's a failing in the usability of Windows? He didn't know to intall Opera, Mozilla or Firefox, and that's a failing in the usability of Windows?
I'm sorry, but that's a failing in the antivirus software and the guy's knowledge of alternative browsers. You can't blame Windows for either.
The operating system used by most of the world, and a website used by some.
And both are software; the biggest difference, is that while Windows is hugely complex and has to run on a very large number of different hardware combinations, slashdot is comparatively trivial and runs on known hardware and yet still it's having stability problems.
How so?
A lot of spyware either masquerades as legitimate software, or piggy backs on legitmate software installers. Sure, some gets in through ActiveX exploits and what have you, but by no means all.
As for the "run as admin by default", that is changing, but will *not* prevent this sort of problem. Even if MS prevented interactive login by members of the Adminstrators group, you have to have a way of installing programs and performing system maintenance. That means an account that's capable of modifying system files.
So all the malware has to do is get to the machine as above (piggy backing or pretending to be legitimate), and prompt the user to enter their admin password.
Malware is not MS's fault. They've not made it as difficult for malware authors as they could have, but it's impossible to make it impossible, if the user has admin rights, and that includes *every* home user. The same applies to Linux, of course - as it grows in popularity, the malware authors will come. It'll take a little more social engineering, and an extra "enter your root password" step, but it cannot be stopped.
IBM Wont Use Patents Against Linux
I'm sure that they mean it at the moment, but things change, be they attitudes, situations, or the people in charge.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that IBM is lying - just that what they intend today doesn't necessarily hold tomorrow. IBM isn't supporting Linux out of the goodness of their collective hearts - they're doing it because it helps them in their core business, selling hardware and services. Pissing off MS is a nice to have, too, I'd imagine. If Linux ever somehow became a threat to IBM, don't think for one minute that that promise would mean anything.
The theory I heard was that it was to force the cashier to open the till (to get the customer's change), thus making it harder for them to simply pocket the money as the customer turned away.
I also imagine that there's an element of truth to the marketing angle, of 49.99 being advertised as "under 50!" and seeming cheaper subconsciously.
That of course didn't stop the european patent offices from granting thousands of software patents even though they are illegal.
They're not illegal, they're just not legally enforceable; there's a big difference.
however if the black box tattles to say that in order to get to 45 MPH at the impact point, the driver was breaking hard to get down from a speed of 75 MPH in that 30 MPH zone
Then it'll only be confirming what the investigators already know from the tire marks left on the road.
Don't get me wrong - I've nothing against black boxes in cars, with the usual provisos about only recording relevant information, only being available in the event of a crash, etc. Your example is nothing that conventional methods don't already have covered, though.
The majority of hit and run accidents would involve "wreckless" deaths...
We're talking about patents.
Which is even worse. At least with copyright infringement, you can claim that you never saw the code you're supposed to have copied, and any similarity must be a coincidence. Patent infringement offers no such defense; I believe that even simultaneous development in isolation is infringing, if they patent it first.
Why does only Linux need to be indemnified against copyright infringement?
This is about patent infringement, not copyright infringement. I'd imagine that the problem for Linux is that managers making these decisions get to hear that there is no "Linux Corp Inc." and so wonder
a) who they turn to for support
b) who protects them in the event of a legal fight
If someone accuses Microsoft of patent infringement, you know it'll be in court for quite a while, and no matter what happens, MS will sort it out - either pay up, crush/buy the opposition, or release a patch to provide compliance. At no point is it in the least bit likely that anyone will try to take on MS's customers.
With no single Linux entity to attack, however, I can understand why the less savvy manager might start worrying about vengeful patent holders going after the companies using it. Even if they know that it wouldn't happen, they don't know that it wouldn't, so they take the path of least perceived risk.
True - but that doesn't stop a Linux distributor from taking infringement action against users of GPLed software that they do not distribute.
Say, for example, if IBM had a patent that MPlayer was infringing on, they could sue to their heart's content as long as they do not themselves distribute MPlayer. The fact that they distribute other GPLed software has no bearing on that.
Also, even if they were distributing a GPLed program that was then the subject of an infringement suit, surely they'd go after the authors, not the end users?
There are of course specialist tasks that require more horsepower, but those are .. specialist tasks.
Once upon a time, viewing images was a specialist task. Then, viewing them in full colour, then editnig them. Sound used to be a specialist task, then editing sound.
Now, things like video encoding/editing is a specialist task, requiring (relatively) serious amounts of horsepower.
Well, once that sort of horsepower becomes commonplace, the task stops being specialist, as more and more people do it simply because they can.
True, there will always be truly specialist tasks that never become mainstream (animation and rendering work, phsically simulation and similar number crunching), but there is stuff now that could most certainly benefit from more CPU power (whether it be from single- or multi-cored machines) that would become more mainstream when that power became affordable.
The RIAA and MPAA won't care at all about this -- they'll just claim it's lies.
And how do we know it isn't? All it would take would be a group of people with an agenda to push to inflate the figures well beyond the realm of reality.
Well, I have a hard time arguing that it's a "fair and balanced" opinion, given that one of his opening paragraph headings is "How Did Windows Become So Insecure?"
Unless I've missed something on a previous page (which I admit is entirely possible), he's started from his conclusion ("Windows is not secure") and at best worked backwards.
If you can remeber when all items were (manually) priced, you are getting old.
Remember when they were? My parents used to own a small village shop - I remember pricing stuff myself...
though more will be at user not system level, since it's harder to evevate priviilages on a Unix bos than a Windows one.
"In order to install your FREE BonzaiCometCursorBuddyWeatherUpdatesTool, please enter your 'root' password in the box below and click 'next'. (Your 'root' password is the one you use to install programs and perform system configuration tasks)"
That, or you'll simply see people running as root all the time, just as they run as admin under Windows. Since 2k at least it's been perfectly possible to run as a non-privileged account and use the "Run as..." service where necessary, and yet so few people do...
This means you need to change your motherboard everytime you switch from one socket to another - big expense and something that makes u think a lot about which socket u want.
Well, I've had a PC for about 8 years now, and have upgraded a number of times. I don't recall ever keeping the same motherboard when buying a new processor.
True, I imagine that if you buy them regularly, then you may well "reuse" a motherboard once or twice. But personally, by the time I need/can afford to upgrade, a new motherboard is a requirement if I want to obtain a decent performance increase. My old one simply won't support the newer chips.
So, for people who do go to the trouble and expense of incremental upgrades, yes, I can see that not having to buy a new motherboard may be a factor. But I think probably the majority of people leave it long enough between upgrades that keeping the same one simply isn't an option. YM, of course, MV.
Well, I've been using some form of AV software for 3+ years now, and have had exactly zero false positives. In fact, this is the first I've heard of the rate being high - I don't doubt that there *ar* false positives, but the idea that it might occur often enough to be a problem is a new one on me.
The point of this 'myth' is you have the ability to.
No - you have permission to do so, and access to the necessary resources. That alone does not confer ability, merely opportunity.
I'm nit-picking, but then so are you. Non-programmers (ie the vast majority of computer users) simply cannot modify their applications at source-level. They lack the required skill, and most likely the time (and perhaps even ability) to acquire it, too.
Even so, I've had things crash Win2k without fail (Dungeon Keeper 2 springs immediately to mind) that work absolutely fine under XP. Also, XP Pro comes with remote desktop server built-in, while 2k Pro does not, and there's no way I was shelling out for 2k Server.
$10K is a ridiculously low figure to rewrite slashdot.
Agreed, but we're not - or rather, shouldn't be - talking about a rewrite. We're talking about changing the presentation layer, to make it standards-compliant.
If they've written well-architected code, then the presentation should be (as far as possible) separate from the business layer. It shouldn't involve rewriting slashdot, it *should* just mean changing some templates.
I have absolutely no clue of what "the implicit information storage that corresponds to all of the hard disks made in the world this year, multiplied by the number of years the universe has been around" actually represents in bytes.
:-)
Well, let's estimate that 1 million hard drives are made each year, at an average capacity of 200gig (both figures pulled out of the air; I have no idea how many hard drives will be made this year). That's a total capacity of 0.2 billion GB/year.
The age of the universe is estimated to be somewhere around 14 billion years, so that gives us 2.8 billion billion GB.
Seems simple to me, but then my degree is in Physics, so I'm used to that sort of crap
Don't forget, a lot of semiconductor fabs are located overseas, to avoid harsh environmental regulations here in the U.S. Well, guess what... U.S. law does not apply there.
True, but if the companies involved wish to sell those products to or withing the US, then the products will have to comply with all the relevant statutes.