Paden said that the 2006 attack presented no threat to customers using the most recent versions of Symantec's software.
Hmm... this too rather begs the question of why they didn't tell people.
Either they wanted to mitigate possible security threats by not letting the bad guys know they were vulnerable, or it was a marketing ploy that put customers in danger. Either way, maybe not so good...
Horrible analogy, because the scenario is adversarial in nature.
A far better one would be that the other team just stole your playbook. Your QB still throws the same, your receivers run just as fast, your linebackers still do their thing, but now the other team can anticipate all your plays and outwit you far more often.
Even our capitalistic society has agreed that monopolies are not beneficial. We allow corporations and competition because they push us forward; monopolies do not do that. Thus, we have anti-trust laws and such to prevent them. If a single entity winds up with all the rights to build a certain thing, you can guarantee that thing will stop getting better.
The problem with the whole "survival of the fittest" model is that eventually a single entity fills the niche. With copyright and patent laws such as they are, it becomes impossible to dislodge that entity from the niche, or for anyone else to compete. This is not the goal of allowing the sort of competition that our economy, in theory, is supposed to be based upon.
Finally, the argument that "they're doing it too, so I should be able too" is beside the point. (Note, however, that I do not believe that Android has anything near the same power over the market that MS does. See also all the comments about "fragmentation" - after all, Android releases the source for the providers to mod; MS most certainly does not.)
Yeah - except... see the post at the same level as yours, indicating that Disney is already trying to do what I (only partially facetiously) suggested that they might do.
Also - no, I don't think that at this juncture in history it's a good idea to sit back on the hopes that it'll all just work out. Things just aren't trending in the direction of "all working out". At all.
Competes means you ship a better product that wins on its own merits.
What we're seeing here is abuse of monopolistic powers.
It may have started with IE, but it's happened again and again since.
PS: Android may be a platform, but it is hardly monolithic like Microsoft is. Lots of independent OEMs, and more importantly, lots of competing vendor/providers. Very different model than MS.
Also notice the phrase, "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts"?
Modern copyright and patent law only enhances the patronage system, stifles the arts and hampers the sciences. Not to mention crushing possible and healthy competition.
Our corporate citizens are finally not being quite so discriminated against!
However, though this small battle has been won, the war is far from over. There are still a few rights that the so-called "natural citizens" have that are unjustly denied to the corporate citizens.
Furthermore, there is still a chance that Them The People might take back the instrument of the People (the government), and stop it from being turned to its proper use (the tool of the corporate fiefs).
They'll call it the "mea est ergo meus" principle (it is mine, therefore it is mine).
The argument will go like this:
We (Disney) own the modern canonical version of Snow White. Therefore, we own all previous versions, otherwise, our trademark and copyrights would be weakened, and there would be confusion in the marketplace. And by extension, everything else by the Brothers Grimm is ours, too.
Where Linux is strong (and very important) are the server farms of Facebook, Amazon and AWS, Google and such. All of those are Linux based. And those aren't counted into the desktop numbers that go to make up your over-cited 1% figure.
Another place not counted in your desktop 1% is research server farms, academic use, and so forth. There's an awful lot of distributed computing that gets done on Linux that MS cannot support.
That's the thing. You won't be able to. The main board will be locked into a given OS if this goes forward. And it's possible that the ARM driven video cards and such may be locked into a given driver as well.
The days of Computer Shopper style homebuilds are already pretty faded, and I doubt that it would be a viable alternative here.
The sad thing is, as a US citizen, I'd like to see Microsoft succeed. The US has so few industries left that bring money into the country that we can ill afford to lose many more.
But they just keep insisting on doing stupid shit like this that absolutely needs to be slapped down (though, given the relative amount of money the MS lobby and the Linux lobby [1] contribute to congress, and the lessons MS learned the last time around, I have doubts that it will happen...)
No, not really. Linux is a far smaller market share (the only place where it dominates is 'net servers, and server farms like Google's, Amazon's, etc).
The problem with this bit by bit elimination of Linux is that it makes it harder and harder to develop Linux; it is slowly but surely squeezing Linux out.
The OEM's will play along; that's where the lion's share of the money is. Linux will wither a bit more, despite being a better tool in certain applications.
And this won't be the final push to bind hardware to the Big Name Corporation software. If this is allowed to move forward, I'd give it a decade before you'll be able to only buy any computing device as effectively an embedded system; hardware and software, with no re-purposing.
Slashdot Mirror
Paden said that the 2006 attack presented no threat to customers using the most recent versions of Symantec's software.
Hmm... this too rather begs the question of why they didn't tell people.
Either they wanted to mitigate possible security threats by not letting the bad guys know they were vulnerable, or it was a marketing ploy that put customers in danger. Either way, maybe not so good...
I still don't understand how code can have baby smooth skin...
Horrible analogy, because the scenario is adversarial in nature.
A far better one would be that the other team just stole your playbook. Your QB still throws the same, your receivers run just as fast, your linebackers still do their thing, but now the other team can anticipate all your plays and outwit you far more often.
State variables are your friend.
And provide fodder for the pro-SOPA camp all at the same time... sigh...
Even our capitalistic society has agreed that monopolies are not beneficial. We allow corporations and competition because they push us forward; monopolies do not do that. Thus, we have anti-trust laws and such to prevent them. If a single entity winds up with all the rights to build a certain thing, you can guarantee that thing will stop getting better.
The problem with the whole "survival of the fittest" model is that eventually a single entity fills the niche. With copyright and patent laws such as they are, it becomes impossible to dislodge that entity from the niche, or for anyone else to compete. This is not the goal of allowing the sort of competition that our economy, in theory, is supposed to be based upon.
Finally, the argument that "they're doing it too, so I should be able too" is beside the point. (Note, however, that I do not believe that Android has anything near the same power over the market that MS does. See also all the comments about "fragmentation" - after all, Android releases the source for the providers to mod; MS most certainly does not.)
Not this shit again...
Yeah - except... see the post at the same level as yours, indicating that Disney is already trying to do what I (only partially facetiously) suggested that they might do.
Also - no, I don't think that at this juncture in history it's a good idea to sit back on the hopes that it'll all just work out. Things just aren't trending in the direction of "all working out". At all.
Competes != makes it impossible to exist.
As does putting draconian demands on the OEM's.
Competes means you ship a better product that wins on its own merits.
What we're seeing here is abuse of monopolistic powers.
It may have started with IE, but it's happened again and again since.
PS: Android may be a platform, but it is hardly monolithic like Microsoft is. Lots of independent OEMs, and more importantly, lots of competing vendor/providers. Very different model than MS.
... when the Bible, Torah and Koran all get copyrighted...
Well, guess it won't be pending much longer.
I wonder how many millions of people have had that thought as they're led away to imprisonment, slavery or death.
Also notice the phrase, "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts"?
Modern copyright and patent law only enhances the patronage system, stifles the arts and hampers the sciences. Not to mention crushing possible and healthy competition.
Chief Justice Roberts was appointed by Bush. So, one of the Bush appointees - the Chief Justice - went for the ruling.
Alito was also appointed by Bush - so you're right there.
Breyer was appointed by Clinton.
So - yeah. I see the BushCo folks haven't gotten any better grasp of facts since Bush was in office.
But I'm sure you'll find your reality basis soon. It's probably north, south, east, west of here...
Not really that strange.
Not torturing people does not make a profit, nor does it enhance the existing power structure.
Handing yet more property rights to the corporations does.
What do you mean?
Our corporate citizens are finally not being quite so discriminated against!
However, though this small battle has been won, the war is far from over. There are still a few rights that the so-called "natural citizens" have that are unjustly denied to the corporate citizens.
Furthermore, there is still a chance that Them The People might take back the instrument of the People (the government), and stop it from being turned to its proper use (the tool of the corporate fiefs).
They'll call it the "mea est ergo meus" principle (it is mine, therefore it is mine).
The argument will go like this:
We (Disney) own the modern canonical version of Snow White. Therefore, we own all previous versions, otherwise, our trademark and copyrights would be weakened, and there would be confusion in the marketplace. And by extension, everything else by the Brothers Grimm is ours, too.
Note that's the desktop market.
Where Linux is strong (and very important) are the server farms of Facebook, Amazon and AWS, Google and such. All of those are Linux based. And those aren't counted into the desktop numbers that go to make up your over-cited 1% figure.
Another place not counted in your desktop 1% is research server farms, academic use, and so forth. There's an awful lot of distributed computing that gets done on Linux that MS cannot support.
So that 1% number really is rubbish.
I guess they figure they can afford the risk.
That's the thing. You won't be able to. The main board will be locked into a given OS if this goes forward. And it's possible that the ARM driven video cards and such may be locked into a given driver as well.
The days of Computer Shopper style homebuilds are already pretty faded, and I doubt that it would be a viable alternative here.
The sad thing is, as a US citizen, I'd like to see Microsoft succeed. The US has so few industries left that bring money into the country that we can ill afford to lose many more.
But they just keep insisting on doing stupid shit like this that absolutely needs to be slapped down (though, given the relative amount of money the MS lobby and the Linux lobby [1] contribute to congress, and the lessons MS learned the last time around, I have doubts that it will happen...)
[1] I know. It made the point, though, didn't it.
It's also the ruggedized hardware that the military often requires. This is a chunk of the ever growing military software market.
Nice non sequitur.
No, not really. Linux is a far smaller market share (the only place where it dominates is 'net servers, and server farms like Google's, Amazon's, etc).
The problem with this bit by bit elimination of Linux is that it makes it harder and harder to develop Linux; it is slowly but surely squeezing Linux out.
The OEM's will play along; that's where the lion's share of the money is. Linux will wither a bit more, despite being a better tool in certain applications.
And this won't be the final push to bind hardware to the Big Name Corporation software. If this is allowed to move forward, I'd give it a decade before you'll be able to only buy any computing device as effectively an embedded system; hardware and software, with no re-purposing.
Camel's nose, meet tent. Tent, meet Camel's nose.