reason that malware is not "popular" on Linux is not due to it's lack of popularity, but more to do with the way executables are handled in Linux compared to the way they are handled in Windows.. Both in general, and in a browser with active-x... Windows has gotten better at it, but the ironic thing is that the whole "ease of use" click and run that made it so vulnerable, had to be shored up and has turned it into a dialog popup fiasco.. Linux beats it all to hell in user experience when installing software.
Can malware be written for Linux ?.. of course it can.. It's just a bit more difficult.
Ridiculous. Explain what exactly you mean by the "way executables are handled"
Look, it boils down to this: let's say you're sending out malware via email attachment. You send it to 1 million people. how many of those computers are running windows versus osx versus linux? I don't know, but I'm 100% sure that the vast majority are running windows.
Similarly for a website I run for a small company, I just checked google analytics:
Not a huge sample by any means nor probably representative of the internet as a whole, but probably representative of the traffic many sites get. If you have an exploited site that is hosting malicious content, what OS are you going to target?
Why isn't Linux targeted? 1.5% is the reason why. Maybe you can also applaud linux's greater security. On the other hand, the only people dedicated enough to run linux desktops tend to be people who are good at computers (cue anecdotes about grandma's linux computer, etc) and know more than the average user. Almost all of the spyware/malware/adware/etc infections I've had to remove in the past 2-3 years have been USER error. User downloading and installing something they shouldn't have. User opening a bad email attachment when they shouldn't have (the IRS emailed you an attachment? really?), etc. NOT the kind of attacks we used to see where just by visiting a webpage or being on the network could you get infected by a worm, etc.
So let's go back to that hypothetical 1 million people sent malware. Let's say 5% of the windows users (85%) get infected--42500 people. Let's say 1% of the linux users (1.5%) get infected--150 people.
42,500 vs 150. Even if you assume my percentages are off (which I'm sure they are--I would assume less linux users would get infected for one thing) we're talking orders of magnitude. Simple calculus for malware and worm authors.
There are constant changes to the model, but nothing HUGE
Perhaps. Then again, one rarely sees the huge discoveries before they are made.
I've taken to reading several climate blogs over the past 1-2 years such as RealClimate (run by climate scientists) and Climate Audit (examines statistics etc from climate papers). It's very interesting. I don't think the science on a lot of these issues is nearly as settled as you/others make it out to be. Being completely honest, I don't know enough to judge on my own many of the statistical issues, but small changes in the data--small changes in algorithm CAN make a big difference in the predictions.
Yeah, I know... and I get why Anderson Cooper would think that's hilarious.
What I don't understand is why your average garden variety left-winger on the internet (where you tend to hear/see it the most)--whether it be slashdot, kos, wherever else--thinks it's so hilarious. I guess what it boils down to for me is, I think it's downright odd how the Democratic party which wholeheartedly embraced liberty, freedom, and the "common man" at its core a generation ago--and still pays lip service to such things--has of late become so dominated by primarily the upper middle classes and the highly educated who are perfectly content to just trust in the government (and ad hom those who don't). I don't understand the scorn for the lower middle class / poor / etc who seem to be at these kind of rallies.
I'll be the first to admit that there are a lot of things I don't understand... but the pure vitriol and loathing of the populist townhall protestors and tax protestors is just... weird!... to me.
The problem many people (or at least I!) have with PARTS of the GW / global climate change conversation is that it's clear that we have at best a minimalistic understanding of climate. I don't even think most climate scientists would deny this... Like you point out--this is a great example of a really interesting (and fundamental!) discover. New discoveries in terms of carbon sequestration (or lack thereof in many cases), cloud vapour / temperature interactions, etc are being found all the time. The technology we have available to monitor global temperatures and carbon levels, arctic ice, etc, and the tools (better satellites, etc) are likewise exponentially improving.
I don't think you can find a person out there who would deny that strong scientific progress is being made.
The problem is with the non-science aspects of the movement. Heck, the problem is that it IS a movement. Things like Gore's An Inconvenient Truth, and some scientists who do seem to be more interested in a political agenda more than a scientific one do not help. That is to say, of all the parts of what you call the "hoopla about GW" (nice desc!) we can really do without the hysteria and the partisan politicking (why is global warming even a partisan issue to begin with?! -- and I'm fully expecting a partisan respose;-) )
That's crazy, and CLEARLY not what any coiners of the term botnet would have intended.
If you have a hundred computers -- running malicious software that allows you unauthorized remote control (and usually more specifically the ability to do things like run DDoS attacks, distributed portans scans, send spam, etc) -- it's a botnet. Does it matter if the installed exploit was automated or done "by hand"? No.
One of the most common usages of the term robot is that of a factory robot. These machines perform a function or functions that is highly automated and yet ultimately totally controlled. Think of the machines in the botnet (with the malicious software installed) as the individual assembly line robots. They are robots because they are controlled and perform specific tasks. Not a perfect analogy, but I hope that helps clarify it.
Looks like you've talked yourself into an insane corner here and now just can't admit that you're wrong. Being wrong isn't the worse thing in the world!
I read posts like yours and barely know what to say (beyond a Joe wilsonesque "LIAR!!" moment)
you don't buy video games now because of the "drm" that requires you to put the DVD in the drive? So I guess you've been similiarly boycotting games for, what.... The last 30-40 years? Were you enraged when games asked you quesions from the manual--a particularly insidious form of drm if you ask me.
And punkbuster? What game kicked you improperly? You wouldn't be making that up would you?
I don't know why I am bothering to respond to someone who thinks putting a $ in windows is clever, but please, if you've got an answer, let's hear it.
Safari on the mac does not render the same as Safari on the PC
I've found a number of instances where Safari/Firefox differ, but I have never tested Safari Mac versus Safari PC -- do you happen to have an example of this?
Ok, so you've hit on the best evidence out there--left-wing news sites.
What they're referring to is the 1994 Riegle Report. The text of the report is available online, and reading it one gets a very different image from the interpretive news sources above.
You may also want to look at documents like Iraq's 98 declaration of weapons programs. Begins to make sense as to who opposed the war?
Yes it does, and teens/youth almost always have an entire collection of slang and what not--this is global and historic. Parts of those slang ARE incorporated into common language, much is not. This is obvious.
And there's the rub: It's not a reflection of a person's intelligence, but rather their background, if they don't have a certain linguistic skillset.
All the reason more why opining the virtues of Internet-speak and text messaging slang is so appalling!
I grew up in the south, in a majority-minority area. Anybody can overcome their backgrounds, and people do so every day. It's tough, and probably not fair, but just the way it is. Willful ignorance is worse, agreed.
Again, like I said--completely without judgement--there's no problem with communicating intelligibly with other people, and 99.9% of people manage to communicate with other people. Unless you're brain damaged or have some serious developmental / physiological issues, being able to communicate with SOMEONE usually isn't an issue.
If I'm hiring you for a job though, I need to know that you're going to be able to (e.g.) write a coherent email that ANYBODY will understand--not just your personal social clique. If I wrote for technical support to a company, my bank, etc and got bank an email in my teenage sister's slang, I wouldn't have a clue what it all meant. Likewise if I got a reply back in old english, it would be equally unintelligible. Societies work by being mutually intelligible! Proper english--like it or not--is the standard. You can speak southern, ebonics, internet slang, whatever you want to those who understand it, but it's useless if the recipient doesn't.
The problem with the Humanity 2.0 types that you seem to be describing is that those people who are constantly bragging about multitasking, tend to be REALLY bad at it without realizing. Sometimes being able to twitter, facebook, and look up facts on wikipedia at the same time is NOT the desired or needed skillset. In my experience, the younger generations (self included) DO hate traditional hierarchies--with good cause! I quit my government job that I enjoyed because the bureaucracy was just unbearable. They currently have a HUGE attrition rate of 20-somethings who feel the same way. Yet, I've also found that those who rail the most against the hierarchies and authority frequently seem to be the ones who need the most oversight to get anything accomplished. Ironic?
Your most telling statement:
And they bitch about people being 10 minutes late to their shift -- and think that's more important than the fact that they're doing about twenty different jobs, holding six conversations at once on several different mediums at the same time and doing it well.
Maybe you just THINK you're doing it well. Being late to a shift/work IS a big deal (if consistently so). It's pretty selfish to think otherwise. You're absolutely right that we are living in an "accelerated" world and that a lot of older practices are obsolete and diminishing as we speak. The inward facing solipsism you express is troubling though--ever think that there might be value in other ways of working, other people's viewpoints, beyond your preconceived notions of how the World 2.0 ought to work?
When you say
Our generation has an excellent strength: Balancing many often competing objectives while working in a very socially fluid environment
I'd agree and add:
Our generation has an horrible weakness: Actually getting things done
You may have seen several slashdot articles relating to this (first one is pretty interesting IMHO)
You (girlintraining) are absolutely right about slangs, argots, etc. On the other hand I have to agree to some degree with plasmacutter--using a slang/argot etc in casual conversation is one thing, the INABILITY to speak or write proper language is another one. There are many, many people out there now with a complete inability to do either.
What happened even ten years ago now has only limited importance.
With all due respect, that's a horrendously dumb statement. If you really do mean that, I think you've just perfectly illustrated one of the issues with current generations!
Don't judge people based on their memory or caring for esoteric issues that might have affected life in the "distant" past (for people my age, that's anything more than about 30 years ago) -- they know just as many fungible facts as their older counterparts, it's just about a smaller period of time.
That's just the thing. Humans have been around a long time, we've done a lot of things, and we've thought about a lot of things. If you limit yourself to only caring about things that happened in the last decade (or as you later expand it, the last 30 years) you're missing out on the vast majority of the human experience! Art, music, literature, philosophy. If you don't care about any of those things > 30 years old, you're both ignorant and missing out (IMHO of course).
It's this exact same kind of myopic "ignore all but the present" viewpoint that makes people make the same mistakes over and over and over again. Moreover, to people who don't have such a myopic view, the myopes are just really uninteresting people by and by.
I'm in my late-20s. I'm not one to claim that certain generations are better or not, because as one historiographer wrote (roughly paraphrased) each generation is less than the one before it, the youth today are merely shadows of their parents. Everybody has ALWAYS felt the next generation is going to hell, and we've done ok so far. Or take the ancient Greeks who lamented the anemic memories of students who learned reading and writing. Etc. My concerns are more along the lines that I think that the MASSES of the facebook-texting-always in contact-always on the grid-don't have to remember ANYTHING because I can look it up instantly generations (of which I am a solid member) are prone to change society in ways I personally don't like and don't think are positive. Thus is life though.
Ok, so even if you're looking at multiple software packages, where are the equivalents?
Your basic IMAP server doesn't have all the mail functionality that exchange does, but it's good enough for us. What about shared / global / etc address books? OpenLDAP? Well, adding and updating from client email software is a pain with any LDAP I know? Shared calendaring software?
I don't doubt that Exchange is awful to administer -- I know that it's (imho) ridiculously expensive. My question is, what's the alternative? I've been waiting 10 years for there be open source software that is group calendaring/email/addressing, that has good client software, and more recently, has mobile integration. I work at a shop with Macs and PC user computers and FreeBSD servers. I would LOVE to have a a program that we could use instead of Exchange (which we don't havE)
Slashdot Mirror
reason that malware is not "popular" on Linux is not due to it's lack of popularity, but more to do with the way executables are handled in Linux compared to the way they are handled in Windows.. Both in general, and in a browser with active-x... Windows has gotten better at it, but the ironic thing is that the whole "ease of use" click and run that made it so vulnerable, had to be shored up and has turned it into a dialog popup fiasco.. Linux beats it all to hell in user experience when installing software.
Can malware be written for Linux ?.. of course it can.. It's just a bit more difficult.
Ridiculous. Explain what exactly you mean by the "way executables are handled"
Look, it boils down to this: let's say you're sending out malware via email attachment. You send it to 1 million people. how many of those computers are running windows versus osx versus linux? I don't know, but I'm 100% sure that the vast majority are running windows.
Similarly for a website I run for a small company, I just checked google analytics:
85% windows, 13% mac, 1.5% linux, 1% iphone (.05% android FWIW)
Not a huge sample by any means nor probably representative of the internet as a whole, but probably representative of the traffic many sites get. If you have an exploited site that is hosting malicious content, what OS are you going to target?
Why isn't Linux targeted? 1.5% is the reason why. Maybe you can also applaud linux's greater security. On the other hand, the only people dedicated enough to run linux desktops tend to be people who are good at computers (cue anecdotes about grandma's linux computer, etc) and know more than the average user. Almost all of the spyware/malware/adware/etc infections I've had to remove in the past 2-3 years have been USER error. User downloading and installing something they shouldn't have. User opening a bad email attachment when they shouldn't have (the IRS emailed you an attachment? really?), etc. NOT the kind of attacks we used to see where just by visiting a webpage or being on the network could you get infected by a worm, etc.
So let's go back to that hypothetical 1 million people sent malware. Let's say 5% of the windows users (85%) get infected--42500 people. Let's say 1% of the linux users (1.5%) get infected--150 people.
42,500 vs 150. Even if you assume my percentages are off (which I'm sure they are--I would assume less linux users would get infected for one thing) we're talking orders of magnitude. Simple calculus for malware and worm authors.
There are constant changes to the model, but nothing HUGE
Perhaps. Then again, one rarely sees the huge discoveries before they are made.
I've taken to reading several climate blogs over the past 1-2 years such as RealClimate (run by climate scientists) and Climate Audit (examines statistics etc from climate papers). It's very interesting. I don't think the science on a lot of these issues is nearly as settled as you/others make it out to be. Being completely honest, I don't know enough to judge on my own many of the statistical issues, but small changes in the data--small changes in algorithm CAN make a big difference in the predictions.
See, there's the partisan response I was looking for!
Lust for gold!
Yeah, I know... and I get why Anderson Cooper would think that's hilarious.
What I don't understand is why your average garden variety left-winger on the internet (where you tend to hear/see it the most)--whether it be slashdot, kos, wherever else--thinks it's so hilarious. I guess what it boils down to for me is, I think it's downright odd how the Democratic party which wholeheartedly embraced liberty, freedom, and the "common man" at its core a generation ago--and still pays lip service to such things--has of late become so dominated by primarily the upper middle classes and the highly educated who are perfectly content to just trust in the government (and ad hom those who don't). I don't understand the scorn for the lower middle class / poor / etc who seem to be at these kind of rallies.
I'll be the first to admit that there are a lot of things I don't understand... but the pure vitriol and loathing of the populist townhall protestors and tax protestors is just ... weird! ... to me.
On the contrary, I think you've hit upon the only logical answer...
The problem many people (or at least I!) have with PARTS of the GW / global climate change conversation is that it's clear that we have at best a minimalistic understanding of climate. I don't even think most climate scientists would deny this... Like you point out--this is a great example of a really interesting (and fundamental!) discover. New discoveries in terms of carbon sequestration (or lack thereof in many cases), cloud vapour / temperature interactions, etc are being found all the time. The technology we have available to monitor global temperatures and carbon levels, arctic ice, etc, and the tools (better satellites, etc) are likewise exponentially improving.
I don't think you can find a person out there who would deny that strong scientific progress is being made.
The problem is with the non-science aspects of the movement. Heck, the problem is that it IS a movement. Things like Gore's An Inconvenient Truth, and some scientists who do seem to be more interested in a political agenda more than a scientific one do not help. That is to say, of all the parts of what you call the "hoopla about GW" (nice desc!) we can really do without the hysteria and the partisan politicking (why is global warming even a partisan issue to begin with?! -- and I'm fully expecting a partisan respose ;-) )
well, not the teabaggers
I really don't understand why that's supposed to be funny...
I mean, I get why one regularly sees "M$" and "window$" and other equally stupid things on slashdot, but that one I don't get.
Sheesh, you're quite blustery in this thread! Could you specifically show where anybody claims that robot's etymology is from Latin?
Given that Czech isn't a Romance language, it seems even more of a stretch to claim...
That's crazy, and CLEARLY not what any coiners of the term botnet would have intended.
If you have a hundred computers -- running malicious software that allows you unauthorized remote control (and usually more specifically the ability to do things like run DDoS attacks, distributed portans scans, send spam, etc) -- it's a botnet. Does it matter if the installed exploit was automated or done "by hand"? No.
One of the most common usages of the term robot is that of a factory robot. These machines perform a function or functions that is highly automated and yet ultimately totally controlled. Think of the machines in the botnet (with the malicious software installed) as the individual assembly line robots. They are robots because they are controlled and perform specific tasks. Not a perfect analogy, but I hope that helps clarify it.
Looks like you've talked yourself into an insane corner here and now just can't admit that you're wrong. Being wrong isn't the worse thing in the world!
I read posts like yours and barely know what to say (beyond a Joe wilsonesque "LIAR!!" moment)
you don't buy video games now because of the "drm" that requires you to put the DVD in the drive? So I guess you've been similiarly boycotting games for, what. ... The last 30-40 years? Were you enraged when games asked you quesions from the manual--a particularly insidious form of drm if you ask me.
And punkbuster? What game kicked you improperly? You wouldn't be making that up would you?
I don't know why I am bothering to respond to someone who thinks putting a $ in windows is clever, but please, if you've got an answer, let's hear it.
Safari on the mac does not render the same as Safari on the PC
I've found a number of instances where Safari/Firefox differ, but I have never tested Safari Mac versus Safari PC -- do you happen to have an example of this?
Ok, so you've hit on the best evidence out there--left-wing news sites.
What they're referring to is the 1994 Riegle Report. The text of the report is available online, and reading it one gets a very different image from the interpretive news sources above.
You may also want to look at documents like Iraq's 98 declaration of weapons programs. Begins to make sense as to who opposed the war?
Yes it does, and teens/youth almost always have an entire collection of slang and what not--this is global and historic. Parts of those slang ARE incorporated into common language, much is not. This is obvious.
Iraq definitely had WMD at one time. The US government should know, they sold them to Iraq to fight Iran.
Which weapons are you referring to? Add a reference to please.
more reliable sources like the UN weapons inspectors.
Hahahahaha.
Well our imap server doesn't have public folders and as far as I can tell, Thunderbird doesn't support shared address books (nor editing ldap)
If there was an opensource server replacement for Exchange, I bet you money it would be one of the most popular projects in no time at all.
And there's the rub: It's not a reflection of a person's intelligence, but rather their background, if they don't have a certain linguistic skillset.
All the reason more why opining the virtues of Internet-speak and text messaging slang is so appalling!
I grew up in the south, in a majority-minority area. Anybody can overcome their backgrounds, and people do so every day. It's tough, and probably not fair, but just the way it is. Willful ignorance is worse, agreed.
Again, like I said--completely without judgement--there's no problem with communicating intelligibly with other people, and 99.9% of people manage to communicate with other people. Unless you're brain damaged or have some serious developmental / physiological issues, being able to communicate with SOMEONE usually isn't an issue.
If I'm hiring you for a job though, I need to know that you're going to be able to (e.g.) write a coherent email that ANYBODY will understand--not just your personal social clique. If I wrote for technical support to a company, my bank, etc and got bank an email in my teenage sister's slang, I wouldn't have a clue what it all meant. Likewise if I got a reply back in old english, it would be equally unintelligible. Societies work by being mutually intelligible! Proper english--like it or not--is the standard. You can speak southern, ebonics, internet slang, whatever you want to those who understand it, but it's useless if the recipient doesn't.
I work with a lot of < 30 year olds. I am < 30.
The problem with the Humanity 2.0 types that you seem to be describing is that those people who are constantly bragging about multitasking, tend to be REALLY bad at it without realizing. Sometimes being able to twitter, facebook, and look up facts on wikipedia at the same time is NOT the desired or needed skillset. In my experience, the younger generations (self included) DO hate traditional hierarchies--with good cause! I quit my government job that I enjoyed because the bureaucracy was just unbearable. They currently have a HUGE attrition rate of 20-somethings who feel the same way. Yet, I've also found that those who rail the most against the hierarchies and authority frequently seem to be the ones who need the most oversight to get anything accomplished. Ironic?
Your most telling statement:
And they bitch about people being 10 minutes late to their shift -- and think that's more important than the fact that they're doing about twenty different jobs, holding six conversations at once on several different mediums at the same time and doing it well.
Maybe you just THINK you're doing it well. Being late to a shift/work IS a big deal (if consistently so). It's pretty selfish to think otherwise. You're absolutely right that we are living in an "accelerated" world and that a lot of older practices are obsolete and diminishing as we speak. The inward facing solipsism you express is troubling though--ever think that there might be value in other ways of working, other people's viewpoints, beyond your preconceived notions of how the World 2.0 ought to work?
When you say
Our generation has an excellent strength: Balancing many often competing objectives while working in a very socially fluid environment
I'd agree and add:
Our generation has an horrible weakness: Actually getting things done
You may have seen several slashdot articles relating to this (first one is pretty interesting IMHO)
Habitual Multitaskers Do It Badly
http://slashdot.org/story/09/08/25/1245221/Habitual-Multitaskers-Do-It
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/01/27/2221228
You both have a point.
You (girlintraining) are absolutely right about slangs, argots, etc. On the other hand I have to agree to some degree with plasmacutter--using a slang/argot etc in casual conversation is one thing, the INABILITY to speak or write proper language is another one. There are many, many people out there now with a complete inability to do either.
What happened even ten years ago now has only limited importance.
With all due respect, that's a horrendously dumb statement. If you really do mean that, I think you've just perfectly illustrated one of the issues with current generations!
Don't judge people based on their memory or caring for esoteric issues that might have affected life in the "distant" past (for people my age, that's anything more than about 30 years ago) -- they know just as many fungible facts as their older counterparts, it's just about a smaller period of time.
That's just the thing. Humans have been around a long time, we've done a lot of things, and we've thought about a lot of things. If you limit yourself to only caring about things that happened in the last decade (or as you later expand it, the last 30 years) you're missing out on the vast majority of the human experience! Art, music, literature, philosophy. If you don't care about any of those things > 30 years old, you're both ignorant and missing out (IMHO of course).
It's this exact same kind of myopic "ignore all but the present" viewpoint that makes people make the same mistakes over and over and over again. Moreover, to people who don't have such a myopic view, the myopes are just really uninteresting people by and by.
I'm in my late-20s. I'm not one to claim that certain generations are better or not, because as one historiographer wrote (roughly paraphrased) each generation is less than the one before it, the youth today are merely shadows of their parents. Everybody has ALWAYS felt the next generation is going to hell, and we've done ok so far. Or take the ancient Greeks who lamented the anemic memories of students who learned reading and writing. Etc. My concerns are more along the lines that I think that the MASSES of the facebook-texting-always in contact-always on the grid-don't have to remember ANYTHING because I can look it up instantly generations (of which I am a solid member) are prone to change society in ways I personally don't like and don't think are positive. Thus is life though.
Likewise, there are no new shiny bits to be found in Snow Leopard
Dock icon expose, multitude of new Finder animations, expose blue borders, etc. There are a FEW shiny bits ;-)
3) Scalable OpenGroupware.org. - This has potential
Sounds very interesting and I hadn't seen it before -- I'll take a look. Thanks!
Ok, so even if you're looking at multiple software packages, where are the equivalents?
Your basic IMAP server doesn't have all the mail functionality that exchange does, but it's good enough for us. What about shared / global / etc address books? OpenLDAP? Well, adding and updating from client email software is a pain with any LDAP I know? Shared calendaring software?
I don't doubt that Exchange is awful to administer -- I know that it's (imho) ridiculously expensive. My question is, what's the alternative? I've been waiting 10 years for there be open source software that is group calendaring/email/addressing, that has good client software, and more recently, has mobile integration. I work at a shop with Macs and PC user computers and FreeBSD servers. I would LOVE to have a a program that we could use instead of Exchange (which we don't havE)
So, what's the alternative? Lotus?
I have yet to see it--any suggestions?