But most people are not aware of the link between IE and [spy|ad|mal]ware. Heck, most users are not aware of said wares. The Firefox ad should put emphasis on that.
hardly anyone bothers following the Transitional spec from 1997, considering it too difficult...
Actually, I find XHTML everywhere nowadays. Just not on big dynamic sites, like government agencies, newspapers and so on. But many smaller sites are converting/have been written in XHTML. Which is really good.
You talk about relaxing? Maybe you should read my post again and try to notice whether the post was a. funny or b. a serious request about changing a practice with a person I know nothing about.
That said, I'd say the original post did not imply the people in question insisted on Win98 (considering the admin considered moving them to W2K). And I do consider it a security risk to run Win98 as long as it is unsupported (and therefore without security patches). I would certainly not advice that.
But I was probably wrong trying to say that in a funny way. Uptight people seem to think other people's opinion on slashdot is a raison d'être and the ultimate life achievement is good karma.
re-install of winderz 98. I'm thinkin' of puttin' them up to win2k, but WTF, they're not payin' that much. (they have an XP License, FWIW)
You sound like you are sysadmining these people. You should be fired. Windows 98 is no longer supported by Microsoft. It is not strange that Pest Patrol found xK "nasties" there. And they nasties will come back quite quickly unless they get Windows 2000, Windows XP SP2, with adequate virus software.
Then you wouldn't have to sysadmin them so much! Oh wait, you get paid?
I was able to get windows booting in safe mode up till a point though (which confused me if it was hardware related) and then it would freeze.
I've seen this a few times. It seems as though the boot process uses a different method of accessing the disk, but when Windows loads the real IDE/SCSI driver, the machine freezes.
This actually means that your entire drive is not dead, and recovery through Knoppix indeed could be a possibility. Maybe read-only, but then again, you don't wanna go changing those tax records!
This is BS. Unless you know a very special subset of the american people. Popular support for the war was 70-80% in the weeks surrounding the invasion. It did however drop quite quickly.
I'm against the war, but there were many people with the ability of coherent thought who were in favor of this war. Why?
Yeah, and there are lots of stuff for windows that doesn't have an.msi, but requires som archaic unzipping, or even manual copying. But most end-users (~95%, I'd guess) never has to. So it is for linux as well.
There is a slight difference, obviously, due to the fact that testing, unstable and beta versions are available in open source projects, and they are obviously often more on the tech side during installation as well.
The upside is that linux provides both, while in Windows you just can't install from source (well, of course you can, but it's hardly feasible). But the original point was that it was too hard to install Firefox on linux. Well, it just is not with any recent distribution, and the same goes for almost any popular software on linux.
Jesus. Almost all linux distros has a package manager, and almost all package managers have graphical frontends. Even I, a rather paranoid compile-freak, haven't "configure && make && make install"ed something for ages - i use gentoo. Even gentoo's portage has a graphical frontend if you prefer it (I don't).
We do not need more Windows-app-ish installing. Windows package manager is flawed, although this.msi thing works quite well. But.apts,.ebuilds and.rpms are definitely getting Linux "ready for the desktop", but aren't constrained to just desktop apps.
A lot of linux advocates try to make a BFD about the expense involved with using windows. Usually using such funny math as: XP at $300 + MS-Office at $350, etc. But, you can run OpenOffice on XP just as easially as Linux.
Still, the math is quite simple. $0 / 4 years = $0. $350/4 years = $87.5/year. Make that a lifetime (40 years), and the cost is $3500 vs. $0.
I've never seen anyone trying to add Office into such a mathpiece, but it would be relevant to add antivirus software. Using Windows without is dangerous.
Anyway, MS claims that Windows is cheaper to run than linux, because it is cheaper to get system administrators for it and such. I personally doubt it, mainly from personal experience, but then again, I'm that "rare" guy with *nix skills.
What? You can't drop all packets containing that short sequence of bytes which makes up the exploit signature. They could appear in other contexts, you know.
AND, to supplement this really important question:
WHY is the UNAID at the moment (oh, since Bush got the presidential seat) demanding from the developing countries it supports that they can't do condom advertising? This leaves the UNAID with a lot of blood on its hands.
But this illustrates a great problem in the US electoral college system! Say that there are two relatively similar conservative candidates, and one relatively liberal candidate, and say that the two first have 30% support each, while the latter has 40%.
If two candidates are too similar, their votes will spread out between them and the liberal candidate would "win it all", even though the politics of the two first candidates has got 60% popular support (even in the state).
MS however, has ZERO idea how the vendor modified the code, or how the rest of their app interacts with it, and if it is a security risk or not. The vendors DO know. They are the ones that should patch their own app.
Sanity check: can you modify Microsoft SDK libraries? No. They are distributed in binary, not source.
this is liked saying the since some Linux code may have been used in some 3rd party app like the Gimp [...] Linux should be responsible for checking the Gimp and any of a million and one other 3rd party apps, for any problematic code.
Not it is not. I don't even bother explaining why. Or maybe I'll do it anyway.
This situation is the equivalent of a car company getting parts (let's say the tires) from another company, and the tire company suddenly discovers that the tires might explode if you use them on asphalt. Who's responsible? Should the car company make the changes to the tires?
You need to re-read your book en elementary logic.
so does it follow that if it were an open source DLL and the 3rd party could alter it, then it wouldn't be MS' problem and security would therefore suffer?
Nitwit. If it was an open source DLL, Microsoft would not have any responsibility to fix it - you are correct. But the only possible project maintainer/patcher of this security problem is Microsoft - because it is closed source.
They can obviously opt to not fix it. That would hopefully lead to a situation where no software company dares to use Microsofts SDKs without seeing the sources themselves. That's, AFAIC, a rather terrible business strategy.
Similarly, the failure of the founding fathers to recognize the full implications of their rhetoric is not a stain on them. Again and again we apply their framework beyond what they envisioned, and again and again it proves successful. As with Maxwell, this looks very much like confirmation, rather than refutation.
Comparing political systems to physics theory is most certainly a new approach. Your statement proves nothing. It is in fact reducing the discussion to exactly idealism.
Your belief that the founding fathers' words are similar to Maxwell's discoveries imply that the founding fathers somehow has discovered a political theory, or at least some fact of life, that is correct. I strongly disagree with such a belief when it comes to politics.
Your belief is, in my (humble) opinion, dangerous, exactly because it provides such a ideological approach to politics. But who's to say what system the founding fathers would have chosen today? Who cares anyway? They did a terrific job. The american democracy has proven to be effective and prosperous. But so did the Roman democracy in its time. It deteriorated - and I think most Romans believed that they were only "applying the framework beyond what was envisioned" until the bitter end.
Jesus. The OSCE is reknown for being serious about their work. There are people and organizations who only care for democracy, not for the US' choice between two almost equal opponents.
The OSCE is such an organization, and they wouldn't dream of making the mistake of having a partisan as their representative.
I know nothing about Alcee Hastings, but he is not going to work by himself. He gets an entire team of (mostly) Europeans.
Slashdot Mirror
I've got two words for you, advertiser: hosts file.
I think he ment deep as an abyss. Which is an interesting use of the english language.
most people are perfectly happy with IE.
But most people are not aware of the link between IE and [spy|ad|mal]ware. Heck, most users are not aware of said wares. The Firefox ad should put emphasis on that.
hardly anyone bothers following the Transitional spec from 1997, considering it too difficult...
Actually, I find XHTML everywhere nowadays. Just not on big dynamic sites, like government agencies, newspapers and so on. But many smaller sites are converting/have been written in XHTML. Which is really good.
But then, we would let the terrorists win! Oh, wait...
I'm not sure what the behaviour of 4.0 Transitional and 4.0 Strict is supposed to be
It's kind of in the name. Transitional should best-guess. Strict should not.
You talk about relaxing? Maybe you should read my post again and try to notice whether the post was a. funny or b. a serious request about changing a practice with a person I know nothing about.
That said, I'd say the original post did not imply the people in question insisted on Win98 (considering the admin considered moving them to W2K). And I do consider it a security risk to run Win98 as long as it is unsupported (and therefore without security patches). I would certainly not advice that.
But I was probably wrong trying to say that in a funny way. Uptight people seem to think other people's opinion on slashdot is a raison d'être and the ultimate life achievement is good karma.
re-install of winderz 98. I'm thinkin' of puttin' them up to win2k, but WTF, they're not payin' that much. (they have an XP License, FWIW)
You sound like you are sysadmining these people. You should be fired. Windows 98 is no longer supported by Microsoft. It is not strange that Pest Patrol found xK "nasties" there. And they nasties will come back quite quickly unless they get Windows 2000, Windows XP SP2, with adequate virus software.
Then you wouldn't have to sysadmin them so much! Oh wait, you get paid?
So, it's like:
I've seen this a few times. It seems as though the boot process uses a different method of accessing the disk, but when Windows loads the real IDE/SCSI driver, the machine freezes.
This actually means that your entire drive is not dead, and recovery through Knoppix indeed could be a possibility. Maybe read-only, but then again, you don't wanna go changing those tax records!
And when running Windows Update. That's the sad part.
This is BS. Unless you know a very special subset of the american people. Popular support for the war was 70-80% in the weeks surrounding the invasion. It did however drop quite quickly.
I'm against the war, but there were many people with the ability of coherent thought who were in favor of this war. Why?
WTF? Your being paranoid. Noone accused USA of being the fault of this.
A little more money to aid the Haitians wouldn't hurt, though.
Yeah, and there are lots of stuff for windows that doesn't have an .msi, but requires som archaic unzipping, or even manual copying. But most end-users (~95%, I'd guess) never has to. So it is for linux as well.
There is a slight difference, obviously, due to the fact that testing, unstable and beta versions are available in open source projects, and they are obviously often more on the tech side during installation as well.
The upside is that linux provides both, while in Windows you just can't install from source (well, of course you can, but it's hardly feasible). But the original point was that it was too hard to install Firefox on linux. Well, it just is not with any recent distribution, and the same goes for almost any popular software on linux.
Jesus. Almost all linux distros has a package manager, and almost all package managers have graphical frontends. Even I, a rather paranoid compile-freak, haven't "configure && make && make install"ed something for ages - i use gentoo. Even gentoo's portage has a graphical frontend if you prefer it (I don't).
We do not need more Windows-app-ish installing. Windows package manager is flawed, although this .msi thing works quite well. But .apts, .ebuilds and .rpms are definitely getting Linux "ready for the desktop", but aren't constrained to just desktop apps.
Why is parent at Flamebait(0)? It is funny! Laugh!
AC, you have just won the award for "most off-topic flamebait ever" on Slashdot.
A lot of linux advocates try to make a BFD about the expense involved with using windows. Usually using such funny math as: XP at $300 + MS-Office at $350, etc. But, you can run OpenOffice on XP just as easially as Linux.
Still, the math is quite simple. $0 / 4 years = $0. $350/4 years = $87.5/year. Make that a lifetime (40 years), and the cost is $3500 vs. $0.
I've never seen anyone trying to add Office into such a mathpiece, but it would be relevant to add antivirus software. Using Windows without is dangerous.
Anyway, MS claims that Windows is cheaper to run than linux, because it is cheaper to get system administrators for it and such. I personally doubt it, mainly from personal experience, but then again, I'm that "rare" guy with *nix skills.
Now, exactly which part of the Internet will you be Exploring without any network connection?
What? You can't drop all packets containing that short sequence of bytes which makes up the exploit signature. They could appear in other contexts, you know.
Use virus scanners.
AND, to supplement this really important question:
WHY is the UNAID at the moment (oh, since Bush got the presidential seat) demanding from the developing countries it supports that they can't do condom advertising? This leaves the UNAID with a lot of blood on its hands.
But this illustrates a great problem in the US electoral college system! Say that there are two relatively similar conservative candidates, and one relatively liberal candidate, and say that the two first have 30% support each, while the latter has 40%.
If two candidates are too similar, their votes will spread out between them and the liberal candidate would "win it all", even though the politics of the two first candidates has got 60% popular support (even in the state).
MS however, has ZERO idea how the vendor modified the code, or how the rest of their app interacts with it, and if it is a security risk or not. The vendors DO know. They are the ones that should patch their own app.
Sanity check: can you modify Microsoft SDK libraries? No. They are distributed in binary, not source.
this is liked saying the since some Linux code may have been used in some 3rd party app like the Gimp [...] Linux should be responsible for checking the Gimp and any of a million and one other 3rd party apps, for any problematic code.
Not it is not. I don't even bother explaining why. Or maybe I'll do it anyway.
This situation is the equivalent of a car company getting parts (let's say the tires) from another company, and the tire company suddenly discovers that the tires might explode if you use them on asphalt. Who's responsible? Should the car company make the changes to the tires?
You need to re-read your book en elementary logic.
so does it follow that if it were an open source DLL and the 3rd party could alter it, then it wouldn't be MS' problem and security would therefore suffer?
Nitwit. If it was an open source DLL, Microsoft would not have any responsibility to fix it - you are correct. But the only possible project maintainer/patcher of this security problem is Microsoft - because it is closed source.
They can obviously opt to not fix it. That would hopefully lead to a situation where no software company dares to use Microsofts SDKs without seeing the sources themselves. That's, AFAIC, a rather terrible business strategy.
Similarly, the failure of the founding fathers to recognize the full implications of their rhetoric is not a stain on them. Again and again we apply their framework beyond what they envisioned, and again and again it proves successful. As with Maxwell, this looks very much like confirmation, rather than refutation.
Comparing political systems to physics theory is most certainly a new approach. Your statement proves nothing. It is in fact reducing the discussion to exactly idealism.
Your belief that the founding fathers' words are similar to Maxwell's discoveries imply that the founding fathers somehow has discovered a political theory, or at least some fact of life, that is correct. I strongly disagree with such a belief when it comes to politics.
Your belief is, in my (humble) opinion, dangerous, exactly because it provides such a ideological approach to politics. But who's to say what system the founding fathers would have chosen today? Who cares anyway? They did a terrific job. The american democracy has proven to be effective and prosperous. But so did the Roman democracy in its time. It deteriorated - and I think most Romans believed that they were only "applying the framework beyond what was envisioned" until the bitter end.
Jesus. The OSCE is reknown for being serious about their work. There are people and organizations who only care for democracy, not for the US' choice between two almost equal opponents.
The OSCE is such an organization, and they wouldn't dream of making the mistake of having a partisan as their representative.
I know nothing about Alcee Hastings, but he is not going to work by himself. He gets an entire team of (mostly) Europeans.