If it reduces the number of teams copying MS's mistakes from two to one. Think what useful work the other team could get on with. I vote for a good DTP package.
I think that if the children where taught knife safety, how to properly handle a knife, and yes, even how to safely knife fight for their own protection, it would cause the knife death rate to sharply decline.
Interesting how changing "gun" to "knife" makes the argument so much more fatuous, isn't it? And yet a knife is far less deadly than a 'scoped rifle...
In fact the belief in the inherent security of Open Source software over proprietary software seems to be the product of a single comparison, Apache versus Microsoft IIS
And Pine/Kmail Vs Outlook, and Netscape/Mozilla Vs IE (ANYTHING Vs IE). Basically everything that connects to the Internet that has an analogue between open and closed source has been less badly cracked on the open side.
There have been some belters on the open side, of course and I've had a worm that got in through Bind myself. But, there is no way that I would ever trust closed source software to connect to the 'Net again.
I suppose that my experience is just "anecdotal evidence" but my experience matters more to me than any number of useless metrics, and the metrics given are useless; how sever were the bugs and how long did a fix take to appear? How many of the fixes appeared before an exploit was seen in the wild? The method used punishes the systems which fix bugs before an exploit appears and rewards those that sit and hope that the bug is never "hit" and so don't spoil their "security score" by issuing a vunerability report.
As for the suggested methods of producing secure software, big deal! Apart from formal methods these are all in widespread use by people interested in security. Formal methods, for that matter, do not (and can not) guarantee correct software; I have met two desigers involved in the Airbus 320 project and one of them refuses to fly in the thing and no one can forget the pictures of that Airbus doing loops over Italy with a full load of passengers.
The problem with the "solutions" is not that no one knows what to do but that many (eg MS) don't bother trying. Given a package which has not been properly reviewed before release it's pretty obvious that the open source version is better insofar that it gives the user a chance of doing it for themselves. In an ideal world the source does not matter; in the real world it does.
I don't think we need ex-MS employees coming round here preaching about security, frankly. Closed source removes power from the user and leaves them helpless in the face of bugs that require even a one character patch to the code. Open source gives the user a chance which s/he may or may not be able or willing to take to fix bugs quickly, or to find them first before the black hats, but at least it gives them the chance. Only an idiot would claim that that does not lead to higher security.
The only valid point in this article is that programmers sould write better code and check it more before release. Well, DUH!
The desktop has been pentrated but it's still going to be tough to exploit the foothold and it was tough getting this far, so I don't think there is a contradiction.
"Penetrated" is not "conquered". Hmm...what would Freud say?
All international mail in and out of the US has been opened for at least thirty years. All international calls have been monitored for at least 15 years, probably more.
Most countries reserve the right to open international mail as a matter of routine to check for duty-payable goods such as artwork etc.
Lot of people have tried/suggested this, but the problem is trust. If I see that a program has arrived and claims to be "helping" me, do I trust it? Even if I trust you, how do I know that someone somewhere hasn't hacked your code to use it as a Trojan horse into systems where your anti-virus virus is accepted?
CERTAINLY better than these "revolutionary" never-ending-beta, hardly usable Open Source crap.
Well, even if your mindless rantings were true, they ain't any better than the OS "crap" and they're a damn sight more expensive.
The phone industry of 25 years ago was doing just as fine without Nokia etc...
What is your point ?
My point is that MS can only dream of comming up with an idea as useful and reliable as a cheap mobile phone. Actually, I don't think they can even dream of it as it would require putting a product out that works which gets in the way of the cashflow from mugs like you.
Windows does not suck.
I think if you look closely, you'll find it does and always has.
As a dekstop it is better than anything Sun came up, anything Apple offers etc...
I've never used Sun's desktop and clearly you've never seen a working desktop system of any kind.
I works for me and millions of other people
Are trolls people?
TWW
Re:Linux vs everything....
on
SuSE 7.3 vs XP
·
· Score: 2
Fuck you are so stupid.
At least I managed to log in.
Thank God MS is here, insted we woulbe forced to draw our diagrams and pictures with nothing but command line if people like you were running the show.
I never mentioned drawing from the command line. I draw on screen. For document production I use TeX and include the drawings, and photographs, into the document.
If you have to produce lots of similar documents using, for example, dynamically generated graphs based on data in a database, and need it to go to a Linotronic Lasersetter and also send sections to newspapers and magazines, then WYSIWYG page layout is useless.
TWW
Re:Linux vs everything....
on
SuSE 7.3 vs XP
·
· Score: 1
Well, duh. Why should someone who's used to intuitive layout via a WYSIWYG interface suffer with obsolete antiquated shit like LaTeX and ghostscript?
Ghostscript has nothing to do with it; it's just a software RIPper for driving printers. I agree with your pithy review of LaTeX, though. That's why I use plain (real) TeX. Very easy to use, great results.
How did MS destroy the computer industry? They created it
This is a common myth. MS has contributed almost nothing to the computing industry, certainly much less that the damage it has done by stiffling innovation and creativity by giving jobs to literally tens of thousands of shit programmers who would be unemployable in an industry where quality control existed. Flood the market with garbage and you end up with a garbage market.
I don't know of a single thing MS has produced that didn't either suck (Windows, Outlook etc) or come from another company that they bought and released before making later versions suck (Flight Sim, Word etc.).
I've been programming for 26 years and MS has done nothing except make life harder for people who want to produce quaility, working software that does its job by showing that such an attitude is unimportant in the face of marketing blitzes for crap products that don't work.
The computing industry of 25 years ago was doing just fine without MS. Sure, IBM had a big grip on the business end of things but that was comming to an end as people like Lotus started up. IBM and Apple then helped MS by various insane business decisions and the rest is history.
TWW
Re:Linux vs everything....
on
SuSE 7.3 vs XP
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
The best successes I've had moving people off Windows and onto Linux is with the various secretaries and temps we've had here. I simply don't tell them that they're using Linux and Star/Open Office! It works a treat.
The hard ones are graphic designers and the worst are DTP people who can't handle the Linux command line and automatic document production via piped commands chains.
I disagree. Given that the movie is already 3 hours long, and that is probably the upper limit of what it could be, I thought the editorial choices were good ones.
Three hours to film less than 400 pages is more than enough; the editorial choice was "Dump the character development and have more fighting".
The word butchery is the only one that covers what was done to the characters. Frodo never shows his inner strength and why Gandalf trusted him with the fate of the world because he's never allowed to do anything. In particular he does not defy the Nazgul at the ford, he gets rescued, and he has to clear his plan with Aragon at the falls. Aragon's role in the history of the world is mangled. Saruman never mentions his important and symbolic step of becoming "many coloured", even though Gandalf's line about breaking things is still in there (a cross reference to "many colours" in the book). Galadriel (sp?) neglects to mention to Frodo that, oh yes, everything she's built over the last 6000 years will be destroyed if he succeeds. Forget her own head next, I don't know.
The list of important plot points skipped over or ruined by this version just goes on and on and what was filmed is not even a true attempt at an adaptation.
It already took them about 1.5 screen-hours to get to Rivendell.
That's just bad pacing caused by having a third rate director; it simply shouldn't have taken that long, particularly given how much story from Bree and the Barrowdowns was cut out and the pathetic version of the attack at Weathertop which should have been a real visual treat if the book had been followed, with the Nazgul uncloacked and in their "natural" form. But, no, Nazgul are highly flamable for some reason. What a farce.
I understand that they need to cut books down a bit and introduce a bit more action but what they did in Lord of the Rings is just criminal.
I think it's interesting to look at the (much maligned) animated version. In its first hour it covers the Fellowship of the Ring better than this three hour turkey does (even though the turkey steals scenes and dialog from the animated film which are not in the books).
He also cuts out just about all interaction between Gimli and Legolas,
I disagree, Jackson pretty well made sure that none of the characters interact in any maningful way. Why pick on Legolas and Gimli?
the battle between Gandalf and Saruman
Oh, that was BAD. That and Lorien really covered it for me: Jackson had no interest in adapting LotR and I doubt he ever even bothered to read it through.
I think everyone kind of agrees that LOTR was good. I
Nope, poor movie, terrible adaptation. I don't think any of the important story points made it onto the screen. Plenty of fight scenes, though so who cares if the plot is mangled?
Re:Red Hat's up2date, and a size 13EE up the butt.
on
Read the Fine Print
·
· Score: 2
Now, as to whether or not this is legal, I don't know, I get a minor to install my software.
Another issue is: can you enter into an agreement with a machine (which is asking you to agree), and even if you can is your computer a duly-appointed representative of MS? Mine isn't, and if it was I'd get a new one.
Slashdot Mirror
and if he claims that his conclusions are "scientific" then surely a rebutter is defending science?
TWW
It's called "jumping"!
TWW
TWW
Interesting how changing "gun" to "knife" makes the argument so much more fatuous, isn't it? And yet a knife is far less deadly than a 'scoped rifle...
TWW
And Pine/Kmail Vs Outlook, and Netscape/Mozilla Vs IE (ANYTHING Vs IE). Basically everything that connects to the Internet that has an analogue between open and closed source has been less badly cracked on the open side.
There have been some belters on the open side, of course and I've had a worm that got in through Bind myself. But, there is no way that I would ever trust closed source software to connect to the 'Net again.
I suppose that my experience is just "anecdotal evidence" but my experience matters more to me than any number of useless metrics, and the metrics given are useless; how sever were the bugs and how long did a fix take to appear? How many of the fixes appeared before an exploit was seen in the wild? The method used punishes the systems which fix bugs before an exploit appears and rewards those that sit and hope that the bug is never "hit" and so don't spoil their "security score" by issuing a vunerability report.
As for the suggested methods of producing secure software, big deal! Apart from formal methods these are all in widespread use by people interested in security. Formal methods, for that matter, do not (and can not) guarantee correct software; I have met two desigers involved in the Airbus 320 project and one of them refuses to fly in the thing and no one can forget the pictures of that Airbus doing loops over Italy with a full load of passengers.
The problem with the "solutions" is not that no one knows what to do but that many (eg MS) don't bother trying. Given a package which has not been properly reviewed before release it's pretty obvious that the open source version is better insofar that it gives the user a chance of doing it for themselves. In an ideal world the source does not matter; in the real world it does.
I don't think we need ex-MS employees coming round here preaching about security, frankly. Closed source removes power from the user and leaves them helpless in the face of bugs that require even a one character patch to the code. Open source gives the user a chance which s/he may or may not be able or willing to take to fix bugs quickly, or to find them first before the black hats, but at least it gives them the chance. Only an idiot would claim that that does not lead to higher security.
The only valid point in this article is that programmers sould write better code and check it more before release. Well, DUH!
TWW
The desktop has been pentrated but it's still going to be tough to exploit the foothold and it was tough getting this far, so I don't think there is a contradiction.
"Penetrated" is not "conquered". Hmm...what would Freud say?
TWW
Most countries reserve the right to open international mail as a matter of routine to check for duty-payable goods such as artwork etc.
TWW
Doesn't mention police; just all unreasonable searches and seizures.
TWW
TWW
TWW
Apart from the fourth amendment, of course. Or what did you think "searches" means?
TWW
TWW
No, I'd be the first to claim they're trying to extend their monopoly. But then, that's what they do. Did you miss an episode or something?
Windows doesn't suck for me
Maybe you're not paying it enough.
TWW
Well, even if your mindless rantings were true, they ain't any better than the OS "crap" and they're a damn sight more expensive.
The phone industry of 25 years ago was doing just as fine without Nokia etc ...
What is your point ?
My point is that MS can only dream of comming up with an idea as useful and reliable as a cheap mobile phone. Actually, I don't think they can even dream of it as it would require putting a product out that works which gets in the way of the cashflow from mugs like you.
Windows does not suck.
I think if you look closely, you'll find it does and always has.
As a dekstop it is better than anything Sun came up, anything Apple offers etc ...
I've never used Sun's desktop and clearly you've never seen a working desktop system of any kind.
I works for me and millions of other people
Are trolls people?
TWW
At least I managed to log in.
Thank God MS is here, insted we woulbe forced to draw our diagrams and pictures with nothing but command line if people like you were running the show.
I never mentioned drawing from the command line. I draw on screen. For document production I use TeX and include the drawings, and photographs, into the document.
If you have to produce lots of similar documents using, for example, dynamically generated graphs based on data in a database, and need it to go to a Linotronic Lasersetter and also send sections to newspapers and magazines, then WYSIWYG page layout is useless.
TWW
Ghostscript has nothing to do with it; it's just a software RIPper for driving printers. I agree with your pithy review of LaTeX, though. That's why I use plain (real) TeX. Very easy to use, great results.
getting there is like SEAL training
Lots of fish, you mean?
TWW
This is a common myth. MS has contributed almost nothing to the computing industry, certainly much less that the damage it has done by stiffling innovation and creativity by giving jobs to literally tens of thousands of shit programmers who would be unemployable in an industry where quality control existed. Flood the market with garbage and you end up with a garbage market.
I don't know of a single thing MS has produced that didn't either suck (Windows, Outlook etc) or come from another company that they bought and released before making later versions suck (Flight Sim, Word etc.).
I've been programming for 26 years and MS has done nothing except make life harder for people who want to produce quaility, working software that does its job by showing that such an attitude is unimportant in the face of marketing blitzes for crap products that don't work.
The computing industry of 25 years ago was doing just fine without MS. Sure, IBM had a big grip on the business end of things but that was comming to an end as people like Lotus started up. IBM and Apple then helped MS by various insane business decisions and the rest is history.
TWW
The hard ones are graphic designers and the worst are DTP people who can't handle the Linux command line and automatic document production via piped commands chains.
TWW
Three hours to film less than 400 pages is more than enough; the editorial choice was "Dump the character development and have more fighting".
The word butchery is the only one that covers what was done to the characters. Frodo never shows his inner strength and why Gandalf trusted him with the fate of the world because he's never allowed to do anything. In particular he does not defy the Nazgul at the ford, he gets rescued, and he has to clear his plan with Aragon at the falls. Aragon's role in the history of the world is mangled. Saruman never mentions his important and symbolic step of becoming "many coloured", even though Gandalf's line about breaking things is still in there (a cross reference to "many colours" in the book). Galadriel (sp?) neglects to mention to Frodo that, oh yes, everything she's built over the last 6000 years will be destroyed if he succeeds. Forget her own head next, I don't know.
The list of important plot points skipped over or ruined by this version just goes on and on and what was filmed is not even a true attempt at an adaptation.
It already took them about 1.5 screen-hours to get to Rivendell.
That's just bad pacing caused by having a third rate director; it simply shouldn't have taken that long, particularly given how much story from Bree and the Barrowdowns was cut out and the pathetic version of the attack at Weathertop which should have been a real visual treat if the book had been followed, with the Nazgul uncloacked and in their "natural" form. But, no, Nazgul are highly flamable for some reason. What a farce.
TWW
I understand that they need to cut books down a bit and introduce a bit more action but what they did in Lord of the Rings is just criminal.
I think it's interesting to look at the (much maligned) animated version. In its first hour it covers the Fellowship of the Ring better than this three hour turkey does (even though the turkey steals scenes and dialog from the animated film which are not in the books).
He also cuts out just about all interaction between Gimli and Legolas,
I disagree, Jackson pretty well made sure that none of the characters interact in any maningful way. Why pick on Legolas and Gimli?
the battle between Gandalf and Saruman
Oh, that was BAD . That and Lorien really covered it for me: Jackson had no interest in adapting LotR and I doubt he ever even bothered to read it through.
TWW
Nope, poor movie, terrible adaptation. I don't think any of the important story points made it onto the screen. Plenty of fight scenes, though so who cares if the plot is mangled?
TWW
TWW
Another issue is: can you enter into an agreement with a machine (which is asking you to agree), and even if you can is your computer a duly-appointed representative of MS? Mine isn't, and if it was I'd get a new one.
TWW
Oh ha, ha. W3M is a web browser and so is Lynx but neither claims to support CSS.
TWW
Mozilla is bad because it's a load of shite, open source or not, and the point is what do they claim?
TWW