We'll see how it plays out. Methinks it will cause much less problems than such as Code Red. Looks like the *BSDs may have had it pretty well patched for a year or so. Guess the closed-source don't have very good eyes.
Right.
There's a reason for the K.I.S.S. principle. So far the self-healing features seem to insure that Microsoft Windows stays a safe breeding ground for worms.
"But they're supposed to heal themselves!"
Yeah, like an office of Microsoft Windows computers will heal itself from a virus/worm outbreak.
Methinks the worst security risk is a false sense of security.
Nope. Far too lazy to take that much effort.
Download RPMs from random mirrors. Might check dates or file sizes or that duplicates are really duplicates. Investigate if I spot something that looks fishy.
Much safer. Much less effort. (I'm not the only one doing a bit of looking)
if a linux distro had a license agreement which stated "At any time we can root your box and replace any packages we want" I would expect to be paying several thousand a year minimum for the privilege. And have copies of the exact same software on several other boxes for which I pay nothing and they do not have access.
Re:Once again, Slashdotters want to have it both w
on
Read the Fine Print
·
· Score: 2
Says.
Does.
Microsoft quite often says one thing and does another. And does not say what it is doing.
Remember the time-bomb in the auto-update feature of Red Hat 7.0. Did anyone actually get bitten by it?
Re:Once again, Slashdotters want to have it both w
on
Read the Fine Print
·
· Score: 2
The mind boggles.
It's a lot easier to fix these things before they get let loose.
Afterwards, Microsoft is between a rock and a hard place. Nothing they can do will make everything all right again. Everything Microsoft does and can do will have problems and concerns. Do you really expect/. to keep quiet about such?
I've also got access to the sources and diagnostic tools. If there is a problem I'm not totally dependent on the vendor to find and fix the problem. By withholding the sources, it seems that the vendor is assuming responsibility for what the customer could do if the customer had the sources.
First, you say free software needs a waiver. Why? Why should free software have a waiver?
My word-processor has never crashed on me - but if it did I'd be fine with it because of the cost. Looks like you answered your own question.
Microsoft has hypothisized that their system is programming language neutral Rubbish.
The rules of the virtual machine itself are expressable as a language. It must of necessity favor languages "closer" to itself.
Slashdot Mirror
We'll see how it plays out. Methinks it will cause much less problems than such as Code Red. Looks like the *BSDs may have had it pretty well patched for a year or so. Guess the closed-source don't have very good eyes.
Kindergarden lesson.
Don't talk to strangers.
And this means you do not connect a vulnerable server to the internet to download patches.
Right.
There's a reason for the K.I.S.S. principle. So far the self-healing features seem to insure that Microsoft Windows stays a safe breeding ground for worms.
That's the way. You build reliable systems out of unreliable components. Part of the recipe is that one demented bee can't take out the hive.
"But they're supposed to heal themselves!"
Yeah, like an office of Microsoft Windows computers will heal itself from a virus/worm outbreak.
Methinks the worst security risk is a false sense of security.
It is the building and the cement that matters more than the brick for good design.
Try building a skyscraper out of adobe.
Nope. Far too lazy to take that much effort.
Download RPMs from random mirrors. Might check dates or file sizes or that duplicates are really duplicates. Investigate if I spot something that looks fishy.
Much safer. Much less effort. (I'm not the only one doing a bit of looking)
Yep. It's a lesson all right.
Unstable OSS beats Microsoft.
(Systems can now be atched quite quickly).
Precisely!
An X-client! Actually many X-clients.
It's sure not an X-server.
It's a matter of who is in control.
Up.
Down.
Master.
Slave.
Up is the controlling entity.
Down is the controlled entity.
"that will be automatically downloaded to your Workstation Computer."
Not only are you outranked, but you have no say in the matter.
Now, do you always trust Microsoft?
And where else would we get timely and useful info on the latest Microsoft wormage?
How? A little extra attached to the next solitaire game. Many ways.
Fear Uncertainty Doubt
What will Microsoft do to your computer today?
Under whose control?
I do not run unknown binaries and resent anything that attempts to run them for me without my consent or knowledge.
I had IIS running on NT4.
Did not get Code Red.
Not patched.
Not firewalled.
(no gateway)
if a linux distro had a license agreement which stated "At any time we can root your box and replace any packages we want"
I would expect to be paying several thousand a year minimum for the privilege. And have copies of the exact same software on several other boxes for which I pay nothing and they do not have access.
Says.
Does.
Microsoft quite often says one thing and does another. And does not say what it is doing.
Remember the time-bomb in the auto-update feature of Red Hat 7.0. Did anyone actually get bitten by it?
The mind boggles. /. to keep quiet about such?
It's a lot easier to fix these things before they get let loose.
Afterwards, Microsoft is between a rock and a hard place. Nothing they can do will make everything all right again. Everything Microsoft does and can do will have problems and concerns. Do you really expect
FUD.
Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt.
What is Microsoft doing to your computer today?
That's FUD alright!
I've also got access to the sources and diagnostic tools. If there is a problem I'm not totally dependent on the vendor to find and fix the problem. By withholding the sources, it seems that the vendor is assuming responsibility for what the customer could do if the customer had the sources.
Huh?
The only thing similar I've seen was with Microsoft's bastardized "Java", ant that was due to Sun's restrictions.
First, you say free software needs a waiver. Why? Why should free software have a waiver?
My word-processor has never crashed on me - but if it did I'd be fine with it because of the cost.
Looks like you answered your own question.
Business, right. You have to pay to get screwed.
Microsoft has hypothisized that their system is programming language neutral
Rubbish.
The rules of the virtual machine itself are expressable as a language. It must of necessity favor languages "closer" to itself.