IIS4 (and any version before that) = A joke IIS5 = Very Featurefull, but tended to be unstable when loaded with buggy third party apps, and due to it's design was almost impossible to *properly* secure. IIS6 = Complete rewrite from IIS5. The first secure version is IIS. Also MUCH faster and MUCH more stable. Extremely low discovered vulnerability count in the four years since it was released. IIS7 = I have no experience with it, but I've heard it's better than IIS6.
Even the middle tail light on your back window is put there by government mandate. It may be mandated, but apparently it doesn't have to actually work. I was rear-ended a couple of years ago and while my bumper was shot, my truck (Ranger) was still functional. The cop taking the report checked my tail lights to make sure they worked, and noted that the middle light was burnt out. He said to not worry about it; the law didn't require that it work, so my truck was still legal to drive.
If you had actually bothered to read the link you posted, you would see that Mozilla recommends you not remove IE because it can break many third party programs - the same reason you gave for not removing webkit from OSX.
but on Windows many parts of the system actually depend on IE so removing it can break a base install, where on OS X you may break third party applications that depend on Webkit but you won't break the main system. Care to cite any example of how removing IE will break the base install?
I'd love to take a poll and see how many OSX users have removed webkit from their OSX installs.
From the opening paragraph of webkit.org
WebKit is an open source web browser engine. WebKit is also the name of the Mac OS X system framework version of the engine that's used by Safari, Dashboard, Mail, and many other OS X applications. WebKit's HTML and JavaScript code began as a branch of the KHTML and KJS libraries from KDE. This website is also the home of S60's S60 WebKit development. I guess finder doesn't use it, but the built in mail does. Much like IE vulnerabilities in Windows have usually affected outlook express as well, Safari vulnerabilities usually affect mail too.
Your point will be valid when (and only when) Linus puts a browser into Linux. Until then, I can (and do) run Linux WITHOUT a browser. Great. Except that was not my point at all.
My point was that the integration of IE into Windows is nothing special, and the security implications of it are nothing special either. It is perfectly possible to run Windows without explorer.exe or IE or any of the dlls that they both share. You won't get any of the integrated goodness (or badness, depending on your view) and you will have to rely instead on third party apps, and glorious command line to do things like file management and administration, but it can be done. Most people don't do it because if they really wanted all that flexibility, they would not be running Windows in the first place.
Yours and other's complaints in this thread all read like, "Windows is not UNIX, therefore it is bad.". Sprinkle in ignorance of how Windows works, and in some cases ignorance of how UNIX works, and you get misinformed opinions on the issue if IE's integration.
And comparing the Linux kernel to the entirety of Windows as a whole is about a stupid as it gets.
Yeah, you could "remove" Safari but the libraries that provide all of Safari's functionality would remain. You could also remove IE from Windows, but most of it's functionality would remain as IE most just calls external dlls - dlls that other parts of the system share.
If you really wanted to remove Safari from OSX, you would have to remove the entire webkit framework that it and many other OSX applications rely on, and I really don't think you would want to do that.
Yes, because explorer has the ability to call the same libraries (dlls) that IE uses to render web pages. Other OS's exhibit the exact same ability/behavior.
When you open "My Computer" or "Windows Explorer" or even "Control Panel" on a Windows box you're opening IE. No, you are not. Explorer is explorer, not internet explorer. It uses some of the same dlls that Internet explorer uses, but that kind of library sharing is standard practice in any large desktop enviroment, weather it be OSX or KDE or Gnome.
Microsoft *could* reinvent the wheel 20 times in order to make sire every single app has their own libraries tpo use, but that would be stupid.
If it's so idiotic to "integrate the browser into the OS", then why does Apple do it with OSX and why does the KDE team do it with their desktop environment?
I fully comprehended what you said and I meant to say 'You're welcome'. I was just being an asshole, because zealots like you deserve to be treated like the useless pieces of shit you are.
I think I am "doing something right", since despite dickwads like you modding me down for no reason from time to time, I still have excellent karma. In fact, I could probably follow you round for month calling you a dickwad, and getting modded down for it, and still have excellent karma.
The parent is right. If you are not using scripting like wsh, powershell, or even batch to manage the majority of maintenance your Windows hosts, then you are a sub-par Windows admin.
When I say "fly by night" I just mean that they are not accredited by organizations like NAEYC. One is particular in my area that had room available is run by people that we know for a fact are former meth addicts. It's a church-based daycare, but still....
Thanks for the civics lesson, but I never said I wanted government subsidies, nor did I mean to imply that I think poor people shouldn't get them. I am just a bit miffed at the way benefits are doled out. For example, around here if you have one child and you make $2500 a month, they can go to preschool for free. If you make $2600 a month, you pay full price which can be from $500 to $1000 a month. Those hard cut-off lines are idiotic.
My issue is that I am prepared to PAY for quality day care, but it is simply not available in my area. The one quality daycare provider here specialized in poor kids, and as a result, you can't send your kid there unless you are poor. The others are fly-by-night operations that we simple don't trust.
And no, we don't want daycare so my wife can work so we can go on vacation in Aruba. I just want get her a break once in awhile.
The middle class is who gets screwed on child care (and everything else for that matter!). When you make just enough not to get subsidies from the government, the cost can be a huge chunk of your salary. Add to the fact that in some areas decent child care is not even avaiable if you are not poor. In my area, there is only one accredited (the only one we trust) child care center and they are full all year. They have a waiting list to get in, and you automatically get put at the bottom of the waiting list if you make too much money. For my wife and I, it means that we cannot get child care where we live. We are looking to move right now.
Just having access to their account does not necessarily grant you access to their sudo permissions. In Ubuntu, for all intents and purposes, it would.
The last time I checked, Ubuntu would, by default, cache sudo credentials for five minutes whenever the user would elevate. So malware running as a user with sudo access would only have to lurk in the background and wait for the user to elevate, after which it could silently grab root access.
It's cheaper overseas to have broadband because people typically live closer together and typically live in apartment dwellings, which make it MUCH cheaper to run fiber to everyone. A huge cost of high speed net access is laying down the media in which the data must travel.
a few minutes to walk back inside Well not in my case. The door to outside is literally 10 feet from my desk and the ashtray is five feet from the door. I guess if you were on the third floor and had to go down to the street, it might take awhile longer.
Slashdot Mirror
1) IIS need not be restarted to apply changed settings.
2) IIS's cofiguration is stored in a XML file, which can be edited by hand.
Who said the parent was relying on Microsoft for data? There are other places to do those comparisons.
Which version did you use?
IIS4 (and any version before that) = A joke
IIS5 = Very Featurefull, but tended to be unstable when loaded with buggy third party apps, and due to it's design was almost impossible to *properly* secure.
IIS6 = Complete rewrite from IIS5. The first secure version is IIS. Also MUCH faster and MUCH more stable. Extremely low discovered vulnerability count in the four years since it was released.
IIS7 = I have no experience with it, but I've heard it's better than IIS6.
I'd love to take a poll and see how many OSX users have removed webkit from their OSX installs.
My point was that the integration of IE into Windows is nothing special, and the security implications of it are nothing special either. It is perfectly possible to run Windows without explorer.exe or IE or any of the dlls that they both share. You won't get any of the integrated goodness (or badness, depending on your view) and you will have to rely instead on third party apps, and glorious command line to do things like file management and administration, but it can be done. Most people don't do it because if they really wanted all that flexibility, they would not be running Windows in the first place.
Yours and other's complaints in this thread all read like, "Windows is not UNIX, therefore it is bad.". Sprinkle in ignorance of how Windows works, and in some cases ignorance of how UNIX works, and you get misinformed opinions on the issue if IE's integration.
And comparing the Linux kernel to the entirety of Windows as a whole is about a stupid as it gets.
Yeah, you could "remove" Safari but the libraries that provide all of Safari's functionality would remain. You could also remove IE from Windows, but most of it's functionality would remain as IE most just calls external dlls - dlls that other parts of the system share.
If you really wanted to remove Safari from OSX, you would have to remove the entire webkit framework that it and many other OSX applications rely on, and I really don't think you would want to do that.
What point would that be? Internet explorer is not in the Windows kernel.
Yes, because explorer has the ability to call the same libraries (dlls) that IE uses to render web pages. Other OS's exhibit the exact same ability/behavior.
Microsoft *could* reinvent the wheel 20 times in order to make sire every single app has their own libraries tpo use, but that would be stupid.
If it's so idiotic to "integrate the browser into the OS", then why does Apple do it with OSX and why does the KDE team do it with their desktop environment?
Go to hell dickwad.
I fully comprehended what you said and I meant to say 'You're welcome'. I was just being an asshole, because zealots like you deserve to be treated like the useless pieces of shit you are.
I think I am "doing something right", since despite dickwads like you modding me down for no reason from time to time, I still have excellent karma. In fact, I could probably follow you round for month calling you a dickwad, and getting modded down for it, and still have excellent karma.
Dickwad.
You are welcome.
The parent is right. If you are not using scripting like wsh, powershell, or even batch to manage the majority of maintenance your Windows hosts, then you are a sub-par Windows admin.
Maybe we should rotate. Work 10 hours a day for 6 months and then work 6 hours a day for the next six.
Microsoft has never emulated chroot in Windows. Windows uses things like tokens and ACLs and policies to secure resources.
When I say "fly by night" I just mean that they are not accredited by organizations like NAEYC. One is particular in my area that had room available is run by people that we know for a fact are former meth addicts. It's a church-based daycare, but still....
Thanks for the civics lesson, but I never said I wanted government subsidies, nor did I mean to imply that I think poor people shouldn't get them. I am just a bit miffed at the way benefits are doled out. For example, around here if you have one child and you make $2500 a month, they can go to preschool for free. If you make $2600 a month, you pay full price which can be from $500 to $1000 a month. Those hard cut-off lines are idiotic.
My issue is that I am prepared to PAY for quality day care, but it is simply not available in my area. The one quality daycare provider here specialized in poor kids, and as a result, you can't send your kid there unless you are poor. The others are fly-by-night operations that we simple don't trust.
And no, we don't want daycare so my wife can work so we can go on vacation in Aruba. I just want get her a break once in awhile.
The middle class is who gets screwed on child care (and everything else for that matter!). When you make just enough not to get subsidies from the government, the cost can be a huge chunk of your salary. Add to the fact that in some areas decent child care is not even avaiable if you are not poor. In my area, there is only one accredited (the only one we trust) child care center and they are full all year. They have a waiting list to get in, and you automatically get put at the bottom of the waiting list if you make too much money. For my wife and I, it means that we cannot get child care where we live. We are looking to move right now.
The last time I checked, Ubuntu would, by default, cache sudo credentials for five minutes whenever the user would elevate. So malware running as a user with sudo access would only have to lurk in the background and wait for the user to elevate, after which it could silently grab root access.
It's cheaper overseas to have broadband because people typically live closer together and typically live in apartment dwellings, which make it MUCH cheaper to run fiber to everyone. A huge cost of high speed net access is laying down the media in which the data must travel.
I used to smoke and have a coworker who did (we both quit awhile back) and neither of us ever took more than three or four minutes to have a smoke.
If you think it's "typical" to take 15 minutes to smoke, then IMO, the smoking coworkers you've had were just unusually lazy.