Installed applications can only install in to their own domain within the/Applications folder. If they want to roam outside that territory, they still need to sudo which prompts the admin privilege password prompt. They can not infect other applications with out that.
That does assume that all applications store all their data in their own domain in the Applications folder...which they don't.
I don't have to read it again, my comment was accurate.
Your comment: typing in the admin privilege password, to install in the/Applications folder. That's not "with ease". is clearly referencing installing, not the actions of an installed application.
Users with admin privs still require sudo, ie typing in the admin privilege password, to install in the/Applications folder. That's not "with ease". That's security.
If you read it again his/her 'with ease' comment was regarding what the malware could do once it's installed in that location with those privileges, not the process of getting it installed.
Then there's Amazon Appstore, something that Android desperately needed - a large app store backed by a major player with some premoderation (so that obvious malware and other similar crap doesn't get in).
I think you're right, that's a MASSIVE boon for Android, and if - as you mention - they come out with a Honeycomb tablet we could see Amazon being the most formidable player - next to Apple - in the tablet and content battle.
But it really is their right, after all, they are paying for his trip and they can put whatever conditions on it they'd like.
It's the right of proprietary software developers to put whatever conditions they want on their software, Stallman opposes this as a blow to freedom, but it seems freedom isn't so important when you get a free (in terms of cost) trip to israel even if it it restricts freedom.
It's interesting how great Nokia were only became well-known after they became Microsoft's bitch.
How great they were, you know, over 4 years ago back when their highend phones were good because we didn't expect as much of them as we do today. They arguably had the best hardware but since the 'smartphone revolution' they have been relegated to the low-mid end, low margin market. The N900 is great but it isn't going to win the mainstream consumer market.
What this is *not* is a hidden and silent install like what is going on with Windows.
If you're using the more than a decade-old Windows XP which was superseded 5 years ago by an operating system that gives you multiple warnings about executing unknown files.
This is what frusterates me. A company does something so unspeakably correct that it becomes second nature, and can't patent it. While another company does some very focused thing that doesn't really a whole lot of logical planning, and suddenly can make a whole lot of money off of it.
How is that any different from software patents? Or are you pro-software patents? I'm not interested in arguing the points of software patents but if you are against software patents then your stance on this issue for the reasons you outlined would make no sense.
Or Skype knows that Microsoft wants these skype clients dropped and one explanation for paying so much over market price for skype could be that part of the "deal" is that Skype drops support for what Microsoft doesn't want before the purchase. That way, Microsoft can honestly say they didn't drop support for Asterisk or Linux or whatever. Happens all the time in mergers and acquisitions: "We really would like to purchase our company, but the operations in xyz create a real problem for us." Next thing you know, there aren't any operations in xyz.
Yes im sure MS were so concerned about protecting that great image they have in the eyes of Asterisk users that they paid way over market price just to protect it.
You've clearly never set up a company. It's been a good couple of hundred years since people setting up a company have had to take on the risk of debt. What do you think that limited in limited company is, except to give a special dispensation to business owners?
Setting up business is not a risk/reward thing, it's a have money/reward thing.
You're obviously just spouting shit you know nothing about. You think LLCs magically fund themselves? It's the people who fund them that take on all the risk and many of the people who fund them are the business owners that take on considerable debt funding those businesses.
Slashdot Mirror
Installed applications can only install in to their own domain within the /Applications folder. If they want to roam outside that territory, they still need to sudo which prompts the admin privilege password prompt. They can not infect other applications with out that.
That does assume that all applications store all their data in their own domain in the Applications folder...which they don't.
Especially when users hand the trojan their root password, like what was done with MacDefender.
Except it didn't take long for them to release a version that doesn't need the admin password.
But even with that version, the user still has several chances to avoid infection
What's your point?
...the radioactive ground up.
If you read it again
I don't have to read it again, my comment was accurate. /Applications folder. That's not "with ease". is clearly referencing installing, not the actions of an installed application.
Your comment: typing in the admin privilege password, to install in the
They are doing a war act and the universities if they are us should be ad risk of losing alot
So universities shouldn't accept students from Korea? Or China?
Users with admin privs still require sudo, ie typing in the admin privilege password, to install in the /Applications folder. That's not "with ease". That's security.
If you read it again his/her 'with ease' comment was regarding what the malware could do once it's installed in that location with those privileges, not the process of getting it installed.
Especially when users hand the trojan their root password, like what was done with MacDefender.
Except it didn't take long for them to release a version that doesn't need the admin password.
encheapin our over priced product. We must put a stop to it!
Aren't most competing tablets more expensive? iPads are the cheap ones.
Repeat after me: Don't feed the trolls.
I thought that was only after midnight...or is that mogwais?
Then there's Amazon Appstore, something that Android desperately needed - a large app store backed by a major player with some premoderation (so that obvious malware and other similar crap doesn't get in).
I think you're right, that's a MASSIVE boon for Android, and if - as you mention - they come out with a Honeycomb tablet we could see Amazon being the most formidable player - next to Apple - in the tablet and content battle.
I don't know why any of these software publisher expect me to pay the same for a download as physical media?
Because it's more convenient than physical media?
it's probably better than compiling your own plane
i LOL'd
Trying to pick a bad guy in the region is pretty easy. It's pretty much all bad. I've seen no one that doesn't have blood on their hands.
I hear that Pontius Pilate was the last person with clean hands in that region...
I think he'd be disappointed that Pilates took so long to catch on.
But it really is their right, after all, they are paying for his trip and they can put whatever conditions on it they'd like.
It's the right of proprietary software developers to put whatever conditions they want on their software, Stallman opposes this as a blow to freedom, but it seems freedom isn't so important when you get a free (in terms of cost) trip to israel even if it it restricts freedom.
It's interesting how great Nokia were only became well-known after they became Microsoft's bitch.
How great they were, you know, over 4 years ago back when their highend phones were good because we didn't expect as much of them as we do today. They arguably had the best hardware but since the 'smartphone revolution' they have been relegated to the low-mid end, low margin market. The N900 is great but it isn't going to win the mainstream consumer market.
it's good to see MeeGo ain't dead after mama Nokia cheated papa Intel with his friend Microsoft.
You can't kill it, it's open source, it will die on its own if it isn't any good.
Is that an iPhone in that ad, or a Samsung? I'm really finding it hard to tell these days.
isn't the presence of branding a dead giveaway?
Really? A Mac is not a personal computer?
No. it is not.
yes, it is most certainly a personal computer.
This still requires the user to deliberately install the malware.
like most malware on any platform.
What this is *not* is a hidden and silent install like what is going on with Windows.
If you're using the more than a decade-old Windows XP which was superseded 5 years ago by an operating system that gives you multiple warnings about executing unknown files.
I could go for a Ballmer Zombie instead.
or a chair
This is what frusterates me. A company does something so unspeakably correct that it becomes second nature, and can't patent it. While another company does some very focused thing that doesn't really a whole lot of logical planning, and suddenly can make a whole lot of money off of it.
How is that any different from software patents? Or are you pro-software patents?
I'm not interested in arguing the points of software patents but if you are against software patents then your stance on this issue for the reasons you outlined would make no sense.
Apple should come out with a TV that mimics exactly what Samsung's current TV line looks like (but with Apple TV baked in).
TV makers always use design elements from each other, there isn't much there to work with, same as with tablets.
Or Skype knows that Microsoft wants these skype clients dropped and one explanation for paying so much over market price for skype could be that part of the "deal" is that Skype drops support for what Microsoft doesn't want before the purchase. That way, Microsoft can honestly say they didn't drop support for Asterisk or Linux or whatever. Happens all the time in mergers and acquisitions: "We really would like to purchase our company, but the operations in xyz create a real problem for us." Next thing you know, there aren't any operations in xyz.
Yes im sure MS were so concerned about protecting that great image they have in the eyes of Asterisk users that they paid way over market price just to protect it.
You've clearly never set up a company. It's been a good couple of hundred years since people setting up a company have had to take on the risk of debt. What do you think that limited in limited company is, except to give a special dispensation to business owners?
Setting up business is not a risk/reward thing, it's a have money/reward thing.
You're obviously just spouting shit you know nothing about. You think LLCs magically fund themselves? It's the people who fund them that take on all the risk and many of the people who fund them are the business owners that take on considerable debt funding those businesses.