I agree,but you're overlooking the obvious problem here...these are NOT tech savvy journalists who are reporting the story. It's all getting fed to them via A)"industry experts" or B)the college intern down the hall downloading MP3s in his/her spare time.
1)Are the authorities going to investigate the folks who are so happily presenting new and improved permutations of the virus? (I especially liked the resume variation).
2) Food for thought: If you go on CNN and do their little unscientific cyber-poll about ILOVEYOU, something like 50% of the respondents never received it (me, included). I keep on seeing this "43 million users affected" number popping up in news reports. I wonder what the real numbers are...
3)Also, I am seeing signs that there is going to be a push for world wide cyberpolice (after this little incident). I happened to read this weekend somewhere that Canadian authorities are looking into creating some sort of world wide law enforcement cyber bureau. Interesting...
but it is the idea of tracking my movements on the Net that I hate. I am a bit wary of what these folks are doing with the information they get.
In another perspective, regular TV and cable bombards us with ads, but these folks can only guess at who we are and sometimes don't even realize we're watching (that is why when I watch the Canandian channels, I get to see the MOLSON-I AM CANADIAN ad). Or if I watch THE VIEW on ABC, there's a panapoly of ads for makeup, kids videos, shampoo for women, etc. all targeting the housewife market. I don't mind these ads, since I realize the TV stations have to make money from somewhere.
My solution to the problem is that I regularly hose the cookie file on my box every so often. It gets the job done at least.
On the other hand, I get a chuckle from some of the ads that I do see, especially when I see ads for PAMPERS and LINUX products and outdoor paraphernalia in the same browing session. I have to wonder what my profile at one of these marketing houses looks like...
First of all, I'd like to give my thanks for a articulate viewpoint. And of course, I got to thinking...
From the article: "Just one last point, I must say this: On most of the systems affected, the operating system data itself was compromised. This is because the operating system itself lacks even the most basic sense of security. 30 years ago, when the first multi-user systems were built, users did not have access to manipulate anything but their own data. If one user (deliberately or by accident) ran a script like the one we've been discussing here, it could only harm that particular user's data. The operating system and the data of the other users would remain untouched. Yet, three decades later, the most widely used desktop operating system seems to have completely ignored the obvious benefits of such simple mechanisms..."
Simple mechanism? First, let's define what needs to be secured in the first place. Other networked user's data should have already been secured by the sysadmin, not by the user's OS. (By the accounts I have been hearing, the worm has been affecting others via email. I would think that if you had a networked drive, the data on the networked drive could be taken out also, but a good sysadmin should have planned ahead for that possibility...) Secondly, asserting that users should not be able to "ruin the data of the OS itself" is OK, but I thought the lure of MS was the user-configurable-easy-to-use-OS. (I mean, don't we all have the right to change the wallpaper on our Windoze box?) I would imagine that you would have to give up one for the other.
I am sure some will say that they'd gladly give up the fancy pictures for security, but I am not too sure that Joe User would want to give up his webshots desktop. However, I'd be loath to call MS lazy on the ability to configure the OS.
I just wanted to make the record straight. The preceding post was not a flame, it was asking a question of political involvement.
All too many times I've seen posts ranting about "the Feds" with no understanding or conception about US policymaking or the political system. Too many people cry "get the Feds out" without understanding the meaning of Locke's Social Contract.
I am glad to see that you are involved in the process, I am too. That is what makes democracy great.
Somewhat offtopic, but related to the IRC "blackout"....
Key concept: When companies (or whomever) are crippled by vandals abusing or crippling their sites (a situation that is somewhat exacerbated by the far-flung but inter-related nature of the Internet), do you think that the Federal government is not going to notice? Especially when these vandals hit noticeable sites that should CONCIEVEABLY have had some sort of security. I know that most people with inkling of routing protocol would respond that the sites should have filtered their packets, that they deserved what they got etc. etc. etc.
The issue truly at hand is wether or not the freedom of the Internet jeopardizes the freedom to USE the Internet. When that freedom to use is threatened by the abuses of a few miscreants, doesn't the government (policy makers, politicians, even the DOJ) have a duty to step in? Does the freedom of the Internet surpass the freedom to use it?
I agree that most politicians have no real grasp of technological issues. It seems that most are crafting their views depending on how the winds blow or on what Tom Brokaw hyperventilated about at 6.30pm or on what their tech advisor is telling them at the moment. Or, even worse, they regurgitate the party line when it comes to something like Internet taxes.
Whenever someone moans about "the Feds", I have to ask what the hell are YOU (yes, you) doing about it? Are you expecting someone else to step in and solve these problems? I hate to say this, but since there is a notable absence of the technologically savvy on Capitol Hill, others are stepping into the vacuum (corporate interests, politicos, etc.) and are driving tech policy.
As for the instance of the IRC operators, I can certainly sympathize with them and perhaps this might serve as a wake up call for the abusers.
Regulation seems to be a recurring theme on slashdot lately. Like my response to the Lawrence Lessig article a few days ago, how else will you motivate companies to act if not for regulation?
In the MS case, MS isn't exactly encouraging software development or OS deployment for PC component makers unless it is on MS terms. The "market" isn't a market at all because of the predominance and (not necessarily desire for) but a real need to run the OS on most consumer "magic tv set" desktops. And it is pretty clear that this situation, no matter how much we want it to, will change anytime soon.
Additionally, what do you propose for the companies whose innovations are being stifled because of MS marketshare? (READ:NETSCAPE) Don't just tell me that you expect them to just develop for Linux and the slashdot crowd.
I would not evaluate the two browsers just based on their propensity (or not) to crash. IE crashes less because it was designed to work with Windows. IE also uses that godforsaken screwed up C:\Windows\temporaryinternetfiles folder that you have to remember to empty every so often. And let's not forget about the security issues that seems to keep popping up every so often.
Netscape designers unfortunately don't have access to the underlying code. In light of this, does it surprise you that Netscape crashes quite a bit more?
Thereby, MICROSOFT has an unfair advantage in the browser market because ONLY MS DESIGNERS can work with the underlying OS code. And please don't get me started on the hideous links to the internet that are stashed away in the crevices of Windows...
Offtopic but...if you wanted to sell your hardware or software to consumers in the US you would have to abide by US laws. (And if you were offshore, wouldn't you want to have a share of the US market?) Compliance with US import/export regulations is currently a VERY IMPORTANT concern of multinational hardware/software firms.
Just think about the encryption software that US companies can't export to some nations overseas...
I'd just like to bring up a point or two about the great state of North Carolina and why WAVE is beginning there.
For all of you folks well north of the mason-dixon or outside of the US, I can understand the shock of a program like this, but it really doesn't surprise me. This is not an endorsement of the(for profit!!!)program, but you DO need to take a look at the culture and outlook of people in that part of the US.
I lived for three years in the great state of North Carolina after I graduated from school. And boy, did I suffer a great case of culture shock, born and bred "up north", I had no conception of what it was like to be Southern.
Quite frankly, it is a different world there. Talk about the influence of the church and "traditional values". Get out of Raleigh/Durham/Chapel Hill or Charlotte and it is strikingly different in the Sandhills or the Piedmont or the Mountains.
North Carolinians possess strong notions of God, country and the community at large. Residents do take an active interest in their community and I think that WAVE is a an effort to improve the community at large especially when today's society is at odds with the traditional values that some hold so dear to them.
I don't believe that just because a kid is a geek that it will make him or her a target of the program. It looks like it is meant to be proactive in getting assistance for most troubled (read:the other stuff) kids. Let me tell you that once you get out of the populated areas, good paying jobs (like IT) are scarce and if a kid had computer skills, he or she would be very lucky indeed. To give you some context, I was in an area where the key to affording a nice middle class lifestyle was a GOVERNMENT JOB. But anyway...
Wether or not you believe that the program onerous is your opinion, I just wanted to answer the "why North Carolina" question.
Others have posted very eloquently about Lessig's main points in the article, but I just wanted to clear up some misconceptions some \. posters have made about the US political process. Some of your knee jerk reactions to "the government" has made me turn around and go looking for the black helicopters.
Lessig's main point is that he feels that there should be regulation concerning the emergining broadband technologies so that there is "free access" for all. Not free as in money, mind you, but freedom to pick an ISP reguardless of who developed the infrastructure. You need to assume if we allow certain companies to develop these networks, they'll be extremely protective of their infrastructure. I highly doubt that TimeWarner or Adelphia or whomever will be willingly inviting other ISPs to use their cables and routers and what have you, unless there is some sort of motive--and the motive here is regulation. And, HOW ELSE WILL YOU MOTIVATE THESE COMPANIES TO KEEP THE NETWORK FREE OF PROPRIETARY STANDARDS?
As for those of you who are reading this outside of the US, the arguement is for regulating ACCESS TO THE NETWORK IN THE US.
But in the end, it comes down to this, there is work being done in Washington to regulate FREE ACCESS to the Internet and yeah, it will affect you sooner or later. Wether you choose to sit behind a screen all day is your business, but don't allow your misconceptions to color your view of the world. You might even want to actually pay attention to the Sunday news shows once in a while.
Wired posted a story about the Netpliance people changing their strategy back on the 23rd of this month. The link is http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,35156,00 .html
I understand why the question was asked, I just don't feel that it had any relation to the Open Source Documentation Project. I could emphasize if she was male bashing, but I honestly did not see any gender bias in her comments to slashdot.
What concerns me, however, is that she is recieving negative feedback from folks because of her linuxchix activities. Why? I didn't see where linuxchix and the Documentation project had anything do with each other, except that she was involved in both.
Monday, March 27th 2000 Red Hat version 6.2 and Red Hat's 4th quarter report are released on the SAME DAY.
Coincidence do ya think? At least they did not lose as much money as Wall Street predicted. Check out http://www.cbs.marketwatch.com and do a stock symbol search on RHAT for all the details.
I am finding it real amusing that a woman is being interviewed and now we are seeing rants about gender. As I read the interview, it wasn't Deb Richardson (female) being interviewed, but Deb Richardson (Head of the Open Source Documentation Project).
It plainly is not appropriate to ask Deb about her linuxchix.org website in this forum.
Clearly, there are gender issues that do need to looked at (introducing young girls to computing, etc.), but screaming about it in an unrelated discussion WEAKENS THE MESSAGE. And before you scream at me, dearies, I have been on the front lines for a while and have seen quite a bit of the action.
Just because there is a female-centric linux website out there does not mean those women who contribute to it are cutting themselves off from the rest of the linux community. And about a "woman centered linux distribution", where the heck was that even mentioned? Deb was talking about better documentation NOT a new distribution.
Anonymous Coward, I appreciate your musings but you have managed to contradict yourself in your short little rant. You first argue that "Adding all of these extras to allow people with no clue to about running Linux...[will]compromise the features that make it better than Windows" and later you go on to say that "Linux is for the people". Huh? I guess Linux is for people as savvy as you are?
First, I think that a large majority of the anti RH posters here need to get a great big gulp of the REAL WORLD. Not everyone on this planet with a PC has the time or the resources to go compiling kernels, downloading apps, etc. (I know that might make YOU excited to do that sort of stuff, however...) If RH can give me a solid distribution with support thrown in, that saves ME time.
Secondly, LINUX purity comes at a price folks. I agree that RH isn't the most technologically challenging software I've ever seen, but I think its way more important to bring "sucking air newbies" into the fold. For those of you who have jobs dealing with technologically inept people, I think you'll agree. Especially when A)99% of the PC users out there don't have a clue, B)these 99% are in all reality more wealthy than you, C)some of the 99% will be the decisionmakers (like your friendly IT manager) you will have to convince that LINUX is a good thing.
Will bringing in new users compromise the OS? I doubt it, as I am an IT instructor and have noticed that most people take what they are learning at face value. If it takes keystrokes or menu items to get something accomplished, it can be taught.
It's a good thing to debate amongst other geeks, but it isn't worth getting hysterical ABOUT A DISTRIBUTION.
Related to this thread, I think I can share my experiences of working at home with a toddler. If you are thinking of telecommuting so you can take care of a small child, I would defintely think twice about it. That small cuddly little baby will grow up into a pouring-water-on-the-keyboard, document-deleting, coloring-on-the-wall toddler real quick. Currently I am teaching a computer class at night and thought "oh how hard could it be to write my notes during the day while at home?" It can be difficult, especially when you are the primary caregiver and have a deadline to meet. Diaper changes, juice breaks and parenting take your time (in addition to your paid job duties). I love my little one, but I will be surely thrilled when I am done teaching this class and just go back to consulting on my own time.
No, Katz *IS NOT* a founder of Slashdot. He was hired to be a writer here. Check out this link for the beginning. I wasn't here but I have read that there were some *loud protests* when he was signed on.
Katz also takes every available opportunity to uphold and reiterate the belief that the posters who flame him are 15 year old teenage boys.
It is in his best interest to ignore viewpoints that disagree with his agenda of being a PIED PIPER for all of the lonely, alienated, misunderstood geeks out there. He's positioned himself to be a saviour of the geeks and he won't allow a little reason get in the way.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree,but you're overlooking the obvious problem here...these are NOT tech savvy journalists who are reporting the story. It's all getting fed to them via A)"industry experts" or B)the college intern down the hall downloading MP3s in his/her spare time.
Some thoughts...
1)Are the authorities going to investigate the folks who are so happily presenting new and improved permutations of the virus? (I especially liked the resume variation).
2) Food for thought: If you go on CNN and do their little unscientific cyber-poll about ILOVEYOU, something like 50% of the respondents never received it (me, included). I keep on seeing this "43 million users affected" number popping up in news reports. I wonder what the real numbers are...
3)Also, I am seeing signs that there is going to be a push for world wide cyberpolice (after this little incident). I happened to read this weekend somewhere that Canadian authorities are looking into creating some sort of world wide law enforcement cyber bureau. Interesting...
In another perspective, regular TV and cable bombards us with ads, but these folks can only guess at who we are and sometimes don't even realize we're watching (that is why when I watch the Canandian channels, I get to see the MOLSON-I AM CANADIAN ad). Or if I watch THE VIEW on ABC, there's a panapoly of ads for makeup, kids videos, shampoo for women, etc. all targeting the housewife market. I don't mind these ads, since I realize the TV stations have to make money from somewhere.
My solution to the problem is that I regularly hose the cookie file on my box every so often. It gets the job done at least.
On the other hand, I get a chuckle from some of the ads that I do see, especially when I see ads for PAMPERS and LINUX products and outdoor paraphernalia in the same browing session. I have to wonder what my profile at one of these marketing houses looks like...
From the article: "Just one last point, I must say this: On most of the systems affected, the operating system data itself was compromised. This is because the operating system itself lacks even the most basic sense of security. 30 years ago, when the first multi-user systems were built, users did not have access to manipulate anything but their own data. If one user (deliberately or by accident) ran a script like the one we've been discussing here, it could only harm that particular user's data. The operating system and the data of the other users would remain untouched. Yet, three decades later, the most widely used desktop operating system seems to have completely ignored the obvious benefits of such simple mechanisms..."
Simple mechanism? First, let's define what needs to be secured in the first place. Other networked user's data should have already been secured by the sysadmin, not by the user's OS. (By the accounts I have been hearing, the worm has been affecting others via email. I would think that if you had a networked drive, the data on the networked drive could be taken out also, but a good sysadmin should have planned ahead for that possibility...) Secondly, asserting that users should not be able to "ruin the data of the OS itself" is OK, but I thought the lure of MS was the user-configurable-easy-to-use-OS. (I mean, don't we all have the right to change the wallpaper on our Windoze box?) I would imagine that you would have to give up one for the other.
I am sure some will say that they'd gladly give up the fancy pictures for security, but I am not too sure that Joe User would want to give up his webshots desktop. However, I'd be loath to call MS lazy on the ability to configure the OS.
All too many times I've seen posts ranting about "the Feds" with no understanding or conception about US policymaking or the political system. Too many people cry "get the Feds out" without understanding the meaning of Locke's Social Contract.
I am glad to see that you are involved in the process, I am too. That is what makes democracy great.
Key concept: When companies (or whomever) are crippled by vandals abusing or crippling their sites (a situation that is somewhat exacerbated by the far-flung but inter-related nature of the Internet), do you think that the Federal government is not going to notice? Especially when these vandals hit noticeable sites that should CONCIEVEABLY have had some sort of security. I know that most people with inkling of routing protocol would respond that the sites should have filtered their packets, that they deserved what they got etc. etc. etc.
The issue truly at hand is wether or not the freedom of the Internet jeopardizes the freedom to USE the Internet. When that freedom to use is threatened by the abuses of a few miscreants, doesn't the government (policy makers, politicians, even the DOJ) have a duty to step in? Does the freedom of the Internet surpass the freedom to use it?
I agree that most politicians have no real grasp of technological issues. It seems that most are crafting their views depending on how the winds blow or on what Tom Brokaw hyperventilated about at 6.30pm or on what their tech advisor is telling them at the moment. Or, even worse, they regurgitate the party line when it comes to something like Internet taxes.
Whenever someone moans about "the Feds", I have to ask what the hell are YOU (yes, you) doing about it? Are you expecting someone else to step in and solve these problems? I hate to say this, but since there is a notable absence of the technologically savvy on Capitol Hill, others are stepping into the vacuum (corporate interests, politicos, etc.) and are driving tech policy.
As for the instance of the IRC operators, I can certainly sympathize with them and perhaps this might serve as a wake up call for the abusers.
Regulation seems to be a recurring theme on slashdot lately. Like my response to the Lawrence Lessig article a few days ago, how else will you motivate companies to act if not for regulation?
In the MS case, MS isn't exactly encouraging software development or OS deployment for PC component makers unless it is on MS terms. The "market" isn't a market at all because of the predominance and (not necessarily desire for) but a real need to run the OS on most consumer "magic tv set" desktops. And it is pretty clear that this situation, no matter how much we want it to, will change anytime soon.
Additionally, what do you propose for the companies whose innovations are being stifled because of MS marketshare? (READ:NETSCAPE) Don't just tell me that you expect them to just develop for Linux and the slashdot crowd.
Netscape designers unfortunately don't have access to the underlying code. In light of this, does it surprise you that Netscape crashes quite a bit more?
Thereby, MICROSOFT has an unfair advantage in the browser market because ONLY MS DESIGNERS can work with the underlying OS code. And please don't get me started on the hideous links to the internet that are stashed away in the crevices of Windows...
Just think about the encryption software that US companies can't export to some nations overseas...
For all of you folks well north of the mason-dixon or outside of the US, I can understand the shock of a program like this, but it really doesn't surprise me. This is not an endorsement of the(for profit!!!)program, but you DO need to take a look at the culture and outlook of people in that part of the US.
I lived for three years in the great state of North Carolina after I graduated from school. And boy, did I suffer a great case of culture shock, born and bred "up north", I had no conception of what it was like to be Southern.
Quite frankly, it is a different world there. Talk about the influence of the church and "traditional values". Get out of Raleigh/Durham/Chapel Hill or Charlotte and it is strikingly different in the Sandhills or the Piedmont or the Mountains.
North Carolinians possess strong notions of God, country and the community at large. Residents do take an active interest in their community and I think that WAVE is a an effort to improve the community at large especially when today's society is at odds with the traditional values that some hold so dear to them.
I don't believe that just because a kid is a geek that it will make him or her a target of the program. It looks like it is meant to be proactive in getting assistance for most troubled (read:the other stuff) kids. Let me tell you that once you get out of the populated areas, good paying jobs (like IT) are scarce and if a kid had computer skills, he or she would be very lucky indeed. To give you some context, I was in an area where the key to affording a nice middle class lifestyle was a GOVERNMENT JOB. But anyway...
Wether or not you believe that the program onerous is your opinion, I just wanted to answer the "why North Carolina" question.
Lessig's main point is that he feels that there should be regulation concerning the emergining broadband technologies so that there is "free access" for all. Not free as in money, mind you, but freedom to pick an ISP reguardless of who developed the infrastructure. You need to assume if we allow certain companies to develop these networks, they'll be extremely protective of their infrastructure. I highly doubt that TimeWarner or Adelphia or whomever will be willingly inviting other ISPs to use their cables and routers and what have you, unless there is some sort of motive--and the motive here is regulation. And, HOW ELSE WILL YOU MOTIVATE THESE COMPANIES TO KEEP THE NETWORK FREE OF PROPRIETARY STANDARDS?
As for those of you who are reading this outside of the US, the arguement is for regulating ACCESS TO THE NETWORK IN THE US.
But in the end, it comes down to this, there is work being done in Washington to regulate FREE ACCESS to the Internet and yeah, it will affect you sooner or later. Wether you choose to sit behind a screen all day is your business, but don't allow your misconceptions to color your view of the world. You might even want to actually pay attention to the Sunday news shows once in a while.
Wired posted a story about the Netpliance people changing their strategy back on the 23rd of this month. The link is http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,35156,00 .html
What concerns me, however, is that she is recieving negative feedback from folks because of her linuxchix activities. Why? I didn't see where linuxchix and the Documentation project had anything do with each other, except that she was involved in both.
Coincidence do ya think? At least they did not lose as much money as Wall Street predicted. Check out http://www.cbs.marketwatch.com and do a stock symbol search on RHAT for all the details.
It plainly is not appropriate to ask Deb about her linuxchix.org website in this forum.
Clearly, there are gender issues that do need to looked at (introducing young girls to computing, etc.), but screaming about it in an unrelated discussion WEAKENS THE MESSAGE. And before you scream at me, dearies, I have been on the front lines for a while and have seen quite a bit of the action.
Just because there is a female-centric linux website out there does not mean those women who contribute to it are cutting themselves off from the rest of the linux community. And about a "woman centered linux distribution", where the heck was that even mentioned? Deb was talking about better documentation NOT a new distribution.
First, I think that a large majority of the anti RH posters here need to get a great big gulp of the REAL WORLD. Not everyone on this planet with a PC has the time or the resources to go compiling kernels, downloading apps, etc. (I know that might make YOU excited to do that sort of stuff, however...) If RH can give me a solid distribution with support thrown in, that saves ME time.
Secondly, LINUX purity comes at a price folks. I agree that RH isn't the most technologically challenging software I've ever seen, but I think its way more important to bring "sucking air newbies" into the fold. For those of you who have jobs dealing with technologically inept people, I think you'll agree. Especially when A)99% of the PC users out there don't have a clue, B)these 99% are in all reality more wealthy than you, C)some of the 99% will be the decisionmakers (like your friendly IT manager) you will have to convince that LINUX is a good thing.
Will bringing in new users compromise the OS? I doubt it, as I am an IT instructor and have noticed that most people take what they are learning at face value. If it takes keystrokes or menu items to get something accomplished, it can be taught.
It's a good thing to debate amongst other geeks, but it isn't worth getting hysterical ABOUT A DISTRIBUTION.
Related to this thread, I think I can share my experiences of working at home with a toddler. If you are thinking of telecommuting so you can take care of a small child, I would defintely think twice about it. That small cuddly little baby will grow up into a pouring-water-on-the-keyboard, document-deleting, coloring-on-the-wall toddler real quick. Currently I am teaching a computer class at night and thought "oh how hard could it be to write my notes during the day while at home?" It can be difficult, especially when you are the primary caregiver and have a deadline to meet. Diaper changes, juice breaks and parenting take your time (in addition to your paid job duties). I love my little one, but I will be surely thrilled when I am done teaching this class and just go back to consulting on my own time.
No, Katz *IS NOT* a founder of Slashdot. He was hired to be a writer here. Check out this link for the beginning. I wasn't here but I have read that there were some *loud protests* when he was signed on.
It is in his best interest to ignore viewpoints that disagree with his agenda of being a PIED PIPER for all of the lonely, alienated, misunderstood geeks out there. He's positioned himself to be a saviour of the geeks and he won't allow a little reason get in the way.