I can easily see Larry Ewing's Tux used in this 'polished' and minimialist way;
First off, put Tux on a black button. (Optionally, focus on just the head.)
Next, outline Tux so there is contrast with the background. Posterize. There should only be 3 color areas; background button and two parts for the body (black and white).
Now, change the colors of these 3 areas depending on the theme. In most cases, there would be nothing outside the button, though there would be exceptions. For example;
Linux Home Edition (tux) = Tux with a turf and sky scheme, maybe a 2D roof and chimney.
Linux Enterprise Edition (business tux) = Stark black and white; very high contrast. Maybe some metal in place of white; silver or gold.
Linux Firewall Edition (tux in a firefighter outfit? or camo?) = Red or 'Matrix green' instead of black. Maybe a gradent.
Linux Router Edition (tux in a traffic cop outfit) = Green instead of black (if single Tux), or Red-Yellow-Green stoplight of Tux, or replace the button with a stop sign (using a white Tux instead of the words 'stop').
One company that is right here in Seattle that publishes a Linux oriented magazing is Specialized System Consultants (SSC) that publishes Linux Journal.
...the only Linux mag -- or any magazine -- I've even considered subscribing to. I've picked up about 1/2 of the copies they've put out over the last year. Good stuff.
While it may be inherantly more secure, and un-patched box is still an un-patched box; linux's saving grace is that its average user is typically more savvy than your average windows user is.
If you are running a server, security is part of your job.
If you are a user, don't have exposed network-available servers, don't have physical security concerns, upgrades for security reasons aren't necessary.
The biggest northwest computer 'zine (it's free and has good distribution, so everyone grabs one eventually), Computer User, has been doing monthly articles on Linux and BSD for years.
Computer User is national with local customizations.
Depending on the user, in my experience it can be anywhere from 6-12 months before the PC pretty much needs Windows to be reinstalled.
Windows 95/98/ME...agreed. Windows NT/2000/XP...disagree. I'd put the later at 18-24 months. That said, even the current Windows suffers from 3 major stability problems that appear when installing/uninstalling software;
Users tend to run as Administrator or use an account that is Administrator-level.
As admin, the installation programs and apps dump garbage into the registry and muck with other app settings and directories including system files leading to what looks and acts like 'corruption'.
And finally -- the big one -- Windows does not track dependencies between applications to reduce or eliminate conflicts.
The last one is the reason why the user keeps getting asked if shared libraries should be replaced or not. It is also the reason why they are asked if a file should be removed during uninstallation. How could anyone know that without running a dependency checker like Dependency Walker on every program?
The dependency issue has been largely resolved with package managers on Unix systems, though other issues occur that rightfully should be complained about.
If people gain sheel access to my server they already have gotten past my defenses, which are based around keeping people from getting inside, not around keeping them from getting root priviledges once they are inside.
Exactly. Over time the seperation of access rights as in SELinux is also a very good thing;
Don't allow local access
If local access is gained, protect the important resources and protect other local accounts
If the local accounts can't be protected, limit what they can do (aka drop the superuser/root account)
I'm looking at the tools for this in Fedora Core test2 and in theory it looks possible, though it is an entirely different way of looking at things. I'd be surprised if in 3 years tech like the SELinux extentions aren't the default account and access methods.
Yep. The analogy I use is there are two types of bad guys;
Professional crooks
'Neighborhood kids egging cars, rolling houses, and stealing bikes'
Both do not know or care who they harm or even if they do cause problems. You might just have a hill that they can use to scope out the next target.
While on your property, why not raid the fridge, drink your beer, look through your rooms, take stuff, break stuff, or even kill the dog? Why would you care -- you don't even notice them most of the time.
So, I think that little demos are the way to go. Don't pressure a switch to Linux, work at switching the applications first.
Yep. I get the occasional "Microsoft is everywhere, so why bother?" comments, and I've gotten into the habbit of either smiling and not saying a word or giving a demo and not commenting on Microsoft at all. Silence or not contradicting them makes people curious and I don't have to spend time arguing this over this type of sillyness.
As for switching folks over, I've had sucess with my father after I installed Firefox (when it was Pheonix) and gave both he and my mom a 10 minute demo.
What really did it though is that I first found out what sites they like to visit, put them a bookmark, and set the home page to the bookmark. After they switched, I cut the confusion even more by using a custom wallpaper that has text on it with arrows ("click this to connect to the Internet",...).
He is concerned about security now, but won't leave Windows. He is hoping that I have a silver bullet that can prevent his financial information from being stolen...and while I am thinking about that, I also know that neither of them want to have any changes at all to what they have.
Having said all that, demos don't always sink in. For example: One person kept referring to KDE on my laptop as XP. I must have said "I'm not running Windows; this is KDE and Linux; Not XP." about 30-40 times over 3 weeks before it sunk in. He even kept calling KDE XP moments after I told him it wasn't!
The same person keeps thinking that the web cam he has will work perfectly if only he gets a faster computer...though he and his family in another country have dial up. No demo of that fact, so it is taking even longer.
I think it's becoming clear to Microsoft that the swiss cheese known as Windows is a joke in tech circles, and if they don't clean up their image they will start to choke (if they havn't already)
Agreed, though the only reason that matters to MS is that it impacts stock prices. Everything else is way down the list as far as being a motivator.
That said, there is a weakening of the heavy default 'Of course we will use Windows/IE/Outlook/Word' bias in non-geek circles...though not much of one. If this becomes stronger or a 'me too' attitude starts to appear irt open source and/or Linux, this could change rapidly.
Doing minor demos of Linux raises quite a few eyebrows, though Linux and OSS are still alien concepts to most.
The biggest problem I encounter is that people assume I'm using Linux and OSS out of an anti-Microsoft stance...though in my circle of technical friends I'm the one who complains the liest about Microsoft! (OK, complains the liest off-line.)
Personally, I think this is a Very Good Thing(tm). Microsoft may finally be "Getting it"
While I agree, I'm becomming a strong advocate for looking at the world from the point of base motivations.
Microsoft is primarily motivated to keep stock prices going up -- or at a minimum -- stable.
If these changes become too painful for those who don't care about security, it will cause a decrease in the deployment of Windows XP and XP-specific programs.
If this happens -- or may happen -- Microsoft will do something to make people happy...even if that means back stepping.
That said, I can see them putting out XP SP2 (forcing the app vendors including MS themselves to deal with security) and then offering a variety of moderately painful workarounds. Ideally, the workarounds would break with each minor update, forcing the security issue.
Putting the changes in XP only, though, does fit with Microsoft's motivation to get people to upgrade. Now they can say "well, W2K is not nearly as secure as XP", even though they could back port the changes to W2K -- though there is no motivation to do so.
From motivations, though, it's hard to beat OSS on security. The code is there, and if something is not secure it will be made secure because the developers are personally driven to make it so.
(ObDisclaimer: Keeping in mind that security is always a process not a product. Tools can be handy or even critical, though how they are used and why is much more important.)
(which reminds me of the Atari 2600 games, which had more variations on the theme of a particular game than you could shake a stick at - I think there was about 26 variations on Space Invaders alone!)
...and even more if you pop the cover of the cart and apply a screwdriver to the pins. Adventure worked well with this trick; something that would be hard to do with an emulator.
Sorry to say this... But it's not part of linux (which is ONLY the kernel if any of you can remember that) if it's a 3rd party patch and not supplied by the same group which develops the kernel.
*BLINK* Oranges are orange and Apache doesn't give me a pre-made web site...how is this a problem with the Linux kernel and vservers?
...Consider the consequences of writing software for free. "Software is the immediate result and the manifestation of what your learned and what you know. How much is that worth? Nothing? Think again."
Applying this logic to the letter itself, offered for free (the horror!), an interesting conclusion is reached regarding its value.
I like your comments and would mod you up if I had points. That said...
It does have value;
It acts as propoganda -- he's a MS employee and not a low-tier one.
It allows him to promote future speaking/writing assignments.
If these weren't true, you would be absolutely right! (Since they are, the promotion aspect still works for the young programmer he's publically addressing.)
The professors say, "The ideas of copy-left, or of a more liberal regime of copyright, are receiving wider and wider support, It's no longer a wacky idea cloistered in the ivory tower; it's become a more mainstream idea that we need a different kind of copyright regime to support the wide range of activities in cyberspace."
Man-on-the-street: "But, aren't you a member of that group of ivory tower theorists?"
Profs: [runs off] "AAHAHAHA! Man the battlements! Back, I say to thee, BACK!"
Re:Half-life of Viruses
on
The Virus Squad
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
"Firewalls are not useful for an individual system if you don't have things running on ports that can be abused."
Well, unless some evil program hits you and opens up another port. And that is were the firewall comes in - second line of defense. Even if someone evil manages to open up a rootshell, the packet filter will not allow any connections out or in.
How...
...does that evil program break in and get run if the ports are not in use?
...does the evil program abuse a port if the software using that port is secure?
...do you protect your firewall once the evil program is on the same side as the firewall and all your other apps?
While firewalls are useful at times, they are not magic. They are tools and not always appropriate.
Slashdot Mirror
Rebates. Software leasing. Firmware upgrades for MP3 players. Lotery tickets. Promises for anything that isn't *right here now*.
All of these are a bet, and the odds are not in our favor. Linux has little to do with it.
First off, put Tux on a black button. (Optionally, focus on just the head.)
Next, outline Tux so there is contrast with the background. Posterize. There should only be 3 color areas; background button and two parts for the body (black and white).
Now, change the colors of these 3 areas depending on the theme. In most cases, there would be nothing outside the button, though there would be exceptions. For example;
Linux Home Edition (tux) = Tux with a turf and sky scheme, maybe a 2D roof and chimney.
Linux Enterprise Edition (business tux) = Stark black and white; very high contrast. Maybe some metal in place of white; silver or gold.
Linux Firewall Edition (tux in a firefighter outfit? or camo?) = Red or 'Matrix green' instead of black. Maybe a gradent.
Linux Router Edition (tux in a traffic cop outfit) = Green instead of black (if single Tux), or Red-Yellow-Green stoplight of Tux, or replace the button with a stop sign (using a white Tux instead of the words 'stop').
If you are running a server, security is part of your job.
If you are a user, don't have exposed network-available servers, don't have physical security concerns, upgrades for security reasons aren't necessary.
Computer User is national with local customizations.
Windows 95/98/ME...agreed. Windows NT/2000/XP...disagree. I'd put the later at 18-24 months. That said, even the current Windows suffers from 3 major stability problems that appear when installing/uninstalling software;
The last one is the reason why the user keeps getting asked if shared libraries should be replaced or not. It is also the reason why they are asked if a file should be removed during uninstallation. How could anyone know that without running a dependency checker like Dependency Walker on every program?
The dependency issue has been largely resolved with package managers on Unix systems, though other issues occur that rightfully should be complained about.
Exactly. Over time the seperation of access rights as in SELinux is also a very good thing;
Don't allow local access
If local access is gained, protect the important resources and protect other local accounts
If the local accounts can't be protected, limit what they can do (aka drop the superuser/root account)
I'm looking at the tools for this in Fedora Core test2 and in theory it looks possible, though it is an entirely different way of looking at things. I'd be surprised if in 3 years tech like the SELinux extentions aren't the default account and access methods.
Yes, and probably ISPs with virtual domains on the same box/cluster. Neither are a problem for me though this could be a big pain for others.
Local, not remote.
In general: If an attacker has local access or can gain the equivelent by using a remote access tool, a local exploit can be a problem.
So, personally I'm not too worried though others with different types of users or configurations might have a high level of concern.
Professional crooks
'Neighborhood kids egging cars, rolling houses, and stealing bikes'
Both do not know or care who they harm or even if they do cause problems. You might just have a hill that they can use to scope out the next target.
While on your property, why not raid the fridge, drink your beer, look through your rooms, take stuff, break stuff, or even kill the dog? Why would you care -- you don't even notice them most of the time.
Yep. I get the occasional "Microsoft is everywhere, so why bother?" comments, and I've gotten into the habbit of either smiling and not saying a word or giving a demo and not commenting on Microsoft at all. Silence or not contradicting them makes people curious and I don't have to spend time arguing this over this type of sillyness.
As for switching folks over, I've had sucess with my father after I installed Firefox (when it was Pheonix) and gave both he and my mom a 10 minute demo.
What really did it though is that I first found out what sites they like to visit, put them a bookmark, and set the home page to the bookmark. After they switched, I cut the confusion even more by using a custom wallpaper that has text on it with arrows ("click this to connect to the Internet", ...).
He is concerned about security now, but won't leave Windows. He is hoping that I have a silver bullet that can prevent his financial information from being stolen...and while I am thinking about that, I also know that neither of them want to have any changes at all to what they have.
Having said all that, demos don't always sink in. For example: One person kept referring to KDE on my laptop as XP. I must have said "I'm not running Windows; this is KDE and Linux; Not XP." about 30-40 times over 3 weeks before it sunk in. He even kept calling KDE XP moments after I told him it wasn't!
The same person keeps thinking that the web cam he has will work perfectly if only he gets a faster computer...though he and his family in another country have dial up. No demo of that fact, so it is taking even longer.
Agreed, though the only reason that matters to MS is that it impacts stock prices. Everything else is way down the list as far as being a motivator.
That said, there is a weakening of the heavy default 'Of course we will use Windows/IE/Outlook/Word' bias in non-geek circles...though not much of one. If this becomes stronger or a 'me too' attitude starts to appear irt open source and/or Linux, this could change rapidly.
Doing minor demos of Linux raises quite a few eyebrows, though Linux and OSS are still alien concepts to most.
The biggest problem I encounter is that people assume I'm using Linux and OSS out of an anti-Microsoft stance...though in my circle of technical friends I'm the one who complains the liest about Microsoft! (OK, complains the liest off-line.)
While I agree, I'm becomming a strong advocate for looking at the world from the point of base motivations.
Microsoft is primarily motivated to keep stock prices going up -- or at a minimum -- stable.
If these changes become too painful for those who don't care about security, it will cause a decrease in the deployment of Windows XP and XP-specific programs.
If this happens -- or may happen -- Microsoft will do something to make people happy...even if that means back stepping.
That said, I can see them putting out XP SP2 (forcing the app vendors including MS themselves to deal with security) and then offering a variety of moderately painful workarounds. Ideally, the workarounds would break with each minor update, forcing the security issue.
Putting the changes in XP only, though, does fit with Microsoft's motivation to get people to upgrade. Now they can say "well, W2K is not nearly as secure as XP", even though they could back port the changes to W2K -- though there is no motivation to do so.
From motivations, though, it's hard to beat OSS on security. The code is there, and if something is not secure it will be made secure because the developers are personally driven to make it so.
(ObDisclaimer: Keeping in mind that security is always a process not a product. Tools can be handy or even critical, though how they are used and why is much more important.)
If program that does not follow good security practices breaks, so much the better.
While not as bad, I've taught one of our jr. maintenance programmers these tips this week;
Tab / Shift-Tab
Ctrl-C / Ctrl-V
Ctrl-Z / Shift-Ctrl-Z
Process not product.
If using Access, how and why splitting the front end from the back can be useful.
The registry and why it can be useful.
How to write and answer a defect report.
How Windows and Unix have the same general parts (with examples).
Process not product. Process not product.
Why installation programs can't be trusted.
Program dependencies.
Moving as much as possible from the client to the server has multiple benifits for maintenance/development/security/... even if it is not a web app.
Network concepts; why security management here should make you run in horror. Really.
Did I mention process, not product?
The list above is far from complete. I consider it part of a crash course on doing things the right way.
...and even more if you pop the cover of the cart and apply a screwdriver to the pins. Adventure worked well with this trick; something that would be hard to do with an emulator.
Not according to the FAQ;
That's OK, I'm suing them for that!
With how forthright and honest (*cough!* *liars* *cough!*), SCO has handled the other half of the case, I doubt it.
The 'reason' for each seems to be the same, though: Since the switch from SCO software happened so fast, there must have been use of SCO code and IP.
This "rebooting" that you speak of...tell me more...it is forign to me.
*BLINK* Oranges are orange and Apache doesn't give me a pre-made web site...how is this a problem with the Linux kernel and vservers?
Applying this logic to the letter itself, offered for free (the horror!), an interesting conclusion is reached regarding its value.
I like your comments and would mod you up if I had points. That said...
It does have value;
It acts as propoganda -- he's a MS employee and not a low-tier one.
It allows him to promote future speaking/writing assignments.
If these weren't true, you would be absolutely right! (Since they are, the promotion aspect still works for the young programmer he's publically addressing.)
That's a horrible idea. See what happened when Ben & Jerry's sold a book of the most popular ice cream they made! They, they...nevermind.
Man-on-the-street: "But, aren't you a member of that group of ivory tower theorists?"
Profs: [runs off] "AAHAHAHA! Man the battlements! Back, I say to thee, BACK!"
Well, unless some evil program hits you and opens up another port. And that is were the firewall comes in - second line of defense. Even if someone evil manages to open up a rootshell, the packet filter will not allow any connections out or in.
How...
...does that evil program break in and get run if the ports are not in use?
...does the evil program abuse a port if the software using that port is secure?
...do you protect your firewall once the evil program is on the same side as the firewall and all your other apps?
While firewalls are useful at times, they are not magic. They are tools and not always appropriate.