There's been a huge upsurge lately in server side virus scanning for email, and you just don't see a lot of spyware in email.
In addition, I don't think this is necessarily a shortcoming on the system side. People executing shitware is a major problem, but the PEBCAK. To solve this we'd either have to train people (and they'd have to listen too!) or run a trusted computing configuration.
3. RPC Vulnerabilities
Not really since windows 2000.
Not really since 2003, but as I recall all the viruses and worms related to RPC vulnerabilities affected both 2000 & XP. However these days XP has a firewall on by default so it's not really a major attack vector, victor.
4. Buffer overflows on network services (e.g. IIS)
How many XP machines do you see with IIS?
Not many on XP, but he's talking attack vector on Windows. There are plenty of Win2000 & Win2003 IIS servers on the net. Hell there are still NT4 IIS Servers. This is a major attack vector, otherwise I wouldn't still be seeing code red and nimda attacks on my goddamn apache logs from compromised IIS installations.
Don't get me wrong, I mostly agree with you, just thought I'd point out the rest.
There is a perception that PCs cost less... but that's only because they give you less.
Dude, PC's cost less. Plain and simple. There are 200 dollar PC's. Apple's cheapest desktop is +300 and uses a four year old G4 processor.
On the high end Mac's have a better price, but NOT ALL CONSUMERS NEED/WANT THE HIGH END!?!??! SGI is dying because they didn't get this through their thick skulls and there were people like you still defending them to the bitter end.
Just face facts, the Mac doesn't compete on price. It competes on the experience. I have a Mac, I love OSX and it's interoperability with Win, Linux and other Unix. But I don't bullshit myself into thinking that a Mac is cheaper than a PC.
you might consider reading-up on the STUN protocol, which came out in 2003, and solves the VAST MAJORITY of NAT traversal issues, albeit, not *all* possible issues.
Spoken like someone who has never worked with stun. It helps, but it is by no means a panacea.
MITs implementation of Kerberos is MIT licensed, but MS didn't use that codebase anyway. They wrote their own implementation based on the published standards. So even if MITs implementation was GPL it wouldn't have made any difference to what MS ended up writing.
Not entirely true. Microsoft did use the reference MIT implementation to better design their own. Microsoft does have rules against going near GPL code.
It's possible Microsoft may have built their own protocol instead of bastardizing kerberos.
So the GPL is good because it keeps Microsoft from adopting open standards?
No, the GPL is good because it keeps Microsoft (and anyone in general) from bastardizing open standards. Kerberos (MIT License, similar to BSD) anyone?
What if Microsoft incorporated more open software- would that be a good thing, or a bad thing?
Probably a bad thing, considering how they've bastardized everything they touch.
If a CEO embraced a plan to cull 12% of the company's existing customer base in one fell swoop, the board would having him packing his office into boxes the next day.
The problem is that 12% of the companys userbase is not the same as the customer base in this scenario.
The advertisers are the customers for the TV industry, and it may not totally make sense to continue paying FCC fees to keep all this spectrum for the 12% userbase when the following things can probably be inferred about users without cable:
1) Probably don't watch much TV. 2) Probably get their programming from DVD's. May get more income from this avenue if regular broadcasting goes dead. 3) Probably don't have much disposable income to make advertisers want to target them too badly to begin wtih.
This would be more akin to doubleclick finding a workaround for IE's popup blocker. Then after many attempts with a workaround for Firefox (and being flanked by the mozilla developers each time) deciding that the extra 12% audience is not worth the added expenses to justify the continued R&D.
Of course this would be a big difference online because as Firefox and alternative browsers gain more relevance, the advertisers like doubleclick would probably die off. In a world of media megacorp conglomerates, this probably won't matter because the same people that own the local tv stations are connected with the ones that own the cable companies and so on and so forth.
I don't get it. Do microprocessors go stale or something? What's wrong with using a three-year-old chip in today's laptop? Or are you one of those idiots who bought into the marketing propaganda that you have to buy a new computer every 18 months if you want the Internet to be faster?
Dude, I love Apple as much as the next guy, hell I'm typing this on my iBook. However something is really wrong when the top of the line from 3 years ago is still all you got. You can only rest on your laurels for so long . . .
when it comes to overall chip design, Intel are the bottom of the barrel.
It may suck as a design, but I'll be damned if they haven't found a way to keep making these suckers faster and faster each year while using less power. Face it, not everyone wants a processor released in Jan 2002 powering their latest 2 thousand dollar laptop.
That's right, the 1.4 ghz G4 procesor was released in 2002 and it's still the cpu used in the top of the line Powerbook CPU!!?!?!?!??!!??!
Mac is switching their entire line by 2007, they'll start with low-end macs first in 2005.
Actually you're Google link just links to a bunch of other sites stating the same rumor. It doesn't have a source, no one at Apple/Intel/IBM has confirmed it.
I may be wrong tomorrow, but as far as right now it is still unconfirmed. Even then, it doesn't say what architecture will be used. Just that it will be built by Intel.
Actually, you don't know that. No one knows what they are up to. Please don't make statements without explaining they're based on wholly unsubstantiated rumor. (And a rather impractical rumor at that!)
True, besides the rumor wasn't specific enough. Intel makes chips, lots of different types of chips. PPC is an open spec, just like sparc. Which is why Fujitsu makes sparc chips in.JP. For all we know Intel is just planning on manufacturing PPC chips.
OK, some would argue that the AMD/Intel's "native" OS is really Windows,
I would argue that Intel/AMD's native OS would be MS-DOS. Since Windows is no longer based on the old DOS code, I think this means that both Linux and Windows are as native as it gets.
Seeing as how we're talking servers however, both Windows and Linux should be candidates based on the solutions sold today.
I've yet to see any indication that Apple is funding or helping FreeBSD in any way. While that is their perogative under the BSD license, it is a bit disingenious.
Uhm, they have some of the main coders for FreeBSD on the payroll. I'd imagine that since OSX userland is so heavily based on BSD, the work would coincide more often than not.
Slashdot Mirror
Red Hat Advanced Server 3.0 powers spreadfirefox.com:
Response Headers - http://www.spreadfirefox.com/
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 20:01:52 GMT
Server: Apache/2.0.52 (Red Hat)
Red Hat doesn't make an advanced server, redhat makes Red Hat Enterprise Linux WS, ES & AS.
Also RHEL 3 ships with Apache 2.0.46, RHEL 4 ships with 2.0.52.
According to Red Hat's site, the vulnerability for php has been patched as of July 7, 2005. My guess, lazy admin.
RHEL3:
https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2005-564.html
RHEL4:
https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2005-564.html
I'm sure there are tons of lines that Linux and SCO have in common, maybe not whole lines but partials such as:
/*
*/
#include
#def
#ifdef
2. False email attachments
There's been a huge upsurge lately in server side virus scanning for email, and you just don't see a lot of spyware in email.
In addition, I don't think this is necessarily a shortcoming on the system side. People executing shitware is a major problem, but the PEBCAK. To solve this we'd either have to train people (and they'd have to listen too!) or run a trusted computing configuration.
3. RPC Vulnerabilities
Not really since windows 2000.
Not really since 2003, but as I recall all the viruses and worms related to RPC vulnerabilities affected both 2000 & XP. However these days XP has a firewall on by default so it's not really a major attack vector, victor.
4. Buffer overflows on network services (e.g. IIS)
How many XP machines do you see with IIS?
Not many on XP, but he's talking attack vector on Windows. There are plenty of Win2000 & Win2003 IIS servers on the net. Hell there are still NT4 IIS Servers. This is a major attack vector, otherwise I wouldn't still be seeing code red and nimda attacks on my goddamn apache logs from compromised IIS installations.
Don't get me wrong, I mostly agree with you, just thought I'd point out the rest.
What about -$200?
There is a perception that PCs cost less... but that's only because they give you less.
Dude, PC's cost less. Plain and simple. There are 200 dollar PC's. Apple's cheapest desktop is +300 and uses a four year old G4 processor.
On the high end Mac's have a better price, but NOT ALL CONSUMERS NEED/WANT THE HIGH END!?!??! SGI is dying because they didn't get this through their thick skulls and there were people like you still defending them to the bitter end.
Just face facts, the Mac doesn't compete on price. It competes on the experience. I have a Mac, I love OSX and it's interoperability with Win, Linux and other Unix. But I don't bullshit myself into thinking that a Mac is cheaper than a PC.
you might consider reading-up on the STUN protocol, which came out in 2003, and solves the VAST MAJORITY of NAT traversal issues, albeit, not *all* possible issues.
Spoken like someone who has never worked with stun. It helps, but it is by no means a panacea.
Variable Bit Rate = mp3 file encoded with vbr enabled, allows bitrate to raise or lower in reaction to what is being encoded.
Average Bit Rate = Average Bit Rate for mp3 encoded with the Variable Bit Rate Setting.
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000635/
As a matter of fact he is . . .
MITs implementation of Kerberos is MIT licensed, but MS didn't use that codebase anyway. They wrote their own implementation based on the published standards. So even if MITs implementation was GPL it wouldn't have made any difference to what MS ended up writing.
Not entirely true. Microsoft did use the reference MIT implementation to better design their own. Microsoft does have rules against going near GPL code.
It's possible Microsoft may have built their own protocol instead of bastardizing kerberos.
So the GPL is good because it keeps Microsoft from adopting open standards?
No, the GPL is good because it keeps Microsoft (and anyone in general) from bastardizing open standards. Kerberos (MIT License, similar to BSD) anyone?
What if Microsoft incorporated more open software- would that be a good thing, or a bad thing?
Probably a bad thing, considering how they've bastardized everything they touch.
I agree. Here are the steps I did.
o t.img
/s d: (or whatever drive).
i ls.zip
1) Use Nero, make this a bootable cd. El Torito 1.44mb floppy.
http://webpages.charter.net/kabewm/files/pc/usbbo
md5: 2fe0913d4e60360f391e39224e98c549 usbboot.img
2) Plug a blank formatted (fat/fat32) usb stick into your usb port, and boot off of the cd.
3) This boot will assign a drive letter to the usb stick, simply type format
4) Unzip this file onto your usb stick.
http://webpages.charter.net/kabewm/files/pc/dosut
md5: fb63980160fb0cd75491d6bfba35387b dosutils.zip
Congrats, your usb stick is now dos bootable. (Make sure you have Legacy USB Support enabled in your BIOS before attempting to boot off of this).
With this you can flash as many BIOS' as you want.
Telling nero to create a bootable CD, and pointing to the floppy drive is not for the faint of heart?
Most of these ship in an exe that creates an image, such as a WinImage executable file. These are extractable, but most non-geeks wouldn't know how.
http://www.qmailtoaster.com/
This is an easy and simple way to get Qmail going.
If a CEO embraced a plan to cull 12% of the company's existing customer base in one fell swoop, the board would having him packing his office into boxes the next day.
The problem is that 12% of the companys userbase is not the same as the customer base in this scenario.
The advertisers are the customers for the TV industry, and it may not totally make sense to continue paying FCC fees to keep all this spectrum for the 12% userbase when the following things can probably be inferred about users without cable:
1) Probably don't watch much TV.
2) Probably get their programming from DVD's. May get more income from this avenue if regular broadcasting goes dead.
3) Probably don't have much disposable income to make advertisers want to target them too badly to begin wtih.
This would be more akin to doubleclick finding a workaround for IE's popup blocker. Then after many attempts with a workaround for Firefox (and being flanked by the mozilla developers each time) deciding that the extra 12% audience is not worth the added expenses to justify the continued R&D.
Of course this would be a big difference online because as Firefox and alternative browsers gain more relevance, the advertisers like doubleclick would probably die off. In a world of media megacorp conglomerates, this probably won't matter because the same people that own the local tv stations are connected with the ones that own the cable companies and so on and so forth.
I think you mean patented. How would you copyright a file system?
It's how Red Hat keeps their ISO's from being legally redistributed . . .
Just use the Google Web Accelerator.
http://webaccelerator.google.com/
Then you'll show up in the logs as though the connection were coming from Google.
More info here.
How about that's about as likely as Dell buying AMD chips.
.
.
Or Debian finally releasing sarge .
Or Deep Throat revealing himself . .
At this point, there ain't jack shit that could surprise me this month!
I don't get it. Do microprocessors go stale or something? What's wrong with using a three-year-old chip in today's laptop? Or are you one of those idiots who bought into the marketing propaganda that you have to buy a new computer every 18 months if you want the Internet to be faster?
Dude, I love Apple as much as the next guy, hell I'm typing this on my iBook. However something is really wrong when the top of the line from 3 years ago is still all you got. You can only rest on your laurels for so long . . .
when it comes to overall chip design, Intel are the bottom of the barrel.
It may suck as a design, but I'll be damned if they haven't found a way to keep making these suckers faster and faster each year while using less power. Face it, not everyone wants a processor released in Jan 2002 powering their latest 2 thousand dollar laptop.
That's right, the 1.4 ghz G4 procesor was released in 2002 and it's still the cpu used in the top of the line Powerbook CPU!!?!?!?!??!!??!
but getting it to boot on commodity hardware probably only requires work on the boot loader and kernel.
Sounds like GRUB to the rescue....
Although more than likely they will limit usage by locking down the drivers to only accept the addresses of Apple hardware.
frelled, fracking?!!? Times like this I wonder if anyones working on a universal translator . . .
It is not a rumor any longer.
Mac is switching their entire line by 2007, they'll start with low-end macs first in 2005.
Actually you're Google link just links to a bunch of other sites stating the same rumor. It doesn't have a source, no one at Apple/Intel/IBM has confirmed it.
I may be wrong tomorrow, but as far as right now it is still unconfirmed. Even then, it doesn't say what architecture will be used. Just that it will be built by Intel.
Actually, you don't know that. No one knows what they are up to. Please don't make statements without explaining they're based on wholly unsubstantiated rumor. (And a rather impractical rumor at that!)
.JP. For all we know Intel is just planning on manufacturing PPC chips.
True, besides the rumor wasn't specific enough. Intel makes chips, lots of different types of chips. PPC is an open spec, just like sparc. Which is why Fujitsu makes sparc chips in
why is it better? because it's not microsoft, right?
Because it's a shitload faster, useable on a 14.4kbps modem.
http://www.nomachine.com/sources.php
It can even be used to encapsulate Remote Desktop & VNC from a central box. Then you can ssh into box1 and have box1 rdp into box2 over X for free.
OK, some would argue that the AMD/Intel's "native" OS is really Windows,
I would argue that Intel/AMD's native OS would be MS-DOS. Since Windows is no longer based on the old DOS code, I think this means that both Linux and Windows are as native as it gets.
Seeing as how we're talking servers however, both Windows and Linux should be candidates based on the solutions sold today.
I've yet to see any indication that Apple is funding or helping FreeBSD in any way. While that is their perogative under the BSD license, it is a bit disingenious.
Uhm, they have some of the main coders for FreeBSD on the payroll. I'd imagine that since OSX userland is so heavily based on BSD, the work would coincide more often than not.