Linux has a long way to go to catch up with NT. Install NT, Visual C++, IIS, Back Office, MS Proxy, blah, blah.. and compare with a typical Linux distro.
If you want small, go make your own small distro, or check out Trinux.
Even if you create.web,.mag, etc.. That will mostly serve the registrars. Folks like myself who register domains for my company will have to register the new ones as a protection mechanism, even if we don't want to. If we don't, we have to go through the trademark dispute process, which isn't any fun. It's much cheaper to pay for the new domains.
The country TLDs are only of interest to foreigners (of that TLD's country) if they happen to spell out something cute like the.to domain. That, or folks like me who have to register company.* again for protection reasons. Not all countries have a trademark dispute, or even have trademarks!
Quantum computing factoring machines only serve to make obsolete current sizes of keys (512, 1024, 2048, etc..) This is significant, since it takes the world forever to abandon obsolete technology and standards.
However, this doesn't invalidate the facotring problem. Just use much larger numbers. Say, a billion digits. The same tech that makes factoring keys of a few thousand digits also enable use of billion digit keys.
You can't build a quantum machine that can factor numbers that it can enable use of.
P.S. Yes, It's easier to poke holes than make my own predictions.:)
As long as something is unexplainable a God will be put in place to explain it by the majority of people. The unexplicable is the Unknown, people fear the Unknown. The ability to attribute the Unknown to God changes it into faith which people can deal with.
If you don't believe that some people think this way, then try doing networking for a living. Any problem that can't be explained must be the fault of the network.
Some folks may remember the story here several months ago about theos.com.
Seems there is a software company called theos, that wanted the domain. Currently, i belongs to Theo De Raadt, leader of the OpenBSD project.
The short version of the story is that Theo got to keep it, I believe primarily because the software company realized that Theo was more popular than they, and they would be doing themselves PR damage.
How do I get my 99.9% uptime if I promptly install every service pack and hotfix from my single vendor, if I have to reboot each time? Last time I did SP5 on a dual PIII 500 machine, the install took 20 minutes, and the reboot 10.
It was looking like MS might be making a reasonable arguement. It didn't last past the first bullet item.
Myth: Linux performs better than Windows NT
Can't argue with most of these points. We'll likely not see a TPCC benchmark for Linux.. they're way expensive. And frankly, until the problems that hinder web serving and file & print sharing performance, there probably won't be a good reason to run a TPCC benchmark.
As other have noted though, thanks for the checklist. I'm sure MS will be flogged with it later when Linux catches up in performance.
Myth: Linux is more reliable than Windows NT Reality: Linux Needs Real World Proof Points Rather than Anecdotal Stories
(Followed by MS's anecdotal stories.) (presumably) factual items mentioned are no JFS (being fixed, as I recall) and no OEM guarantee of uptime. Of course, 99.9 percent is mentioned for NT. That's not too hard, it's 8 hours a year. MS dismisses the Linix clustering efforts. Wolfpack still does only 2 nodes, right?
Myth: Linux is Free
TCO discussion. Cites a report for a different OS vs. NT. States companies like Redhat charge for support (gasp!). States unix is complex because.. umm, well it's unix. How many certified Linux folks are there? (How many MCSEs can actually perform the job they are supposed to be certified for?)
Myth: Linux is more secure than Windows NT
Linux only has protection for file system... umm, yeah, that's all there is.:) No registry, guys. Says Linux is all or nothing for delegating administration. Go do a web search on sudo. States Linux doesn't meet any of the "key security accreditation standards" Like NT. Says NT meets C2, or british equiv. C2 isn't anything to be impressed by. Says Linux people must spend time understanding security issues. NT users can go to one spot for patches. Boy, I'm glad I don't have to actually *understand* anything when using NT. Says NT is easier to configure properly for security, using the SCE. You must be stoned. Have you looked at Sutton's NSA paper on what it takes to secure NT?
Myth: Linux can replace Windows on the desktop Says NT has more apps. This is probably correct. The only category that's really hurting on the Linux side, though, is games. Says NT has better hardware support. Says Linux doesn't do USB, APM, or plug & play. Ahem... NT4 doesn't either! If you want those, you have to buy a laptop from a vendor who has written their own! Again calls Linux complex, gives no reason why. Says Linux app support is limited. Linux app support is different, not neccessarily worse. I've recieved lots and lots of crappy support of Windows apps, thanks. Says more developers develop for Windows. Yes MS, relax, your fight for mind & marketshare has been working great. Why, are you worried about it?
Geeze. I thought MS was going to be more subtle about the FUD. Silly me.
At least we now have an offical MS statement to point to for the kind of BS MS spouts, for those capable of independent thought.
The CIH issue is important too. I'm still convinced that cDc was hacked -- by an insider -- in the same spirit of uncontrolled and possibly harmful mischief that pervades the entire group.
Not sure why you would be convinced of this when you have no evidence.
As I'm sure you're aware, you can't just "infect" the ISO image of a CD with a virus.
As you *should* be aware, CIH is an.exe infector.
You must do so at an earlier stage, while the.EXE file is still present in its original form. So, the idea that a machine used only to burn the disks contained the virus doesn't wash. The virus must have been present on the machine where the CD-R image was prepared.
Doesn't sound like you've done much CD burning. I haven't either, but even I know what's wrong with this statement. If, at any point, the files were copied to a writeable media (i.e. the harddrive) they could become infected. On a machine with one CD drive (the CDR) there are two choices: Make an image of the CD, or just copy the files to a temp directory on the harddrive.
For such a small image, I probably would have just copied them to a temp directory,too.
Computer security systems (real computer security systems) are becoming harder than even to break.
Not true. Real computer systems are becoming horribly more complex, and therefore have more holes. True, some of the low hanging fruit is gone, but I still see the same stupic mistakes being made all over the place, just usually not in the same place twice.
While movies like War Games inspired us all to crack to the launch mechanisms of the U.S. nuclear missile defense, those days are gone.
I disagree. We're seeing far more goverment sites broken into now than we have in the past.
Truly secure systems are only available for acces locally, while important national systems are better protected than ever by the crackers of yesteryear.
No, they're connecting them to the Internet as fast as they can. The level of clue relative to the number/ability of attackers is decreasing, not increasing.
What this all leads up to is that the only people left will truly be able to wreak havoc are the government and big corporations. Only they have the computing power and the money to be able to work past strong defense systems.
This would seem to demonstrate a lack of understaning about how hacking works. I only need lots of computing power to crack crypto. I can do any of the other hacking I need from a $299 PC. It's not about resources, it's about using your head. Resources never hurt, but they are certainly not required.
And at the same time, I see this electronic power becoming more and more important. So what kind of future do we have to look forward to? Well, I believe that electronic terrorism (or at/corporate action, when it comes down to it, there is really little difference beyod perspective) will bring the world to a standstill. My question, is will that bring about a world like that seen in rollerball (great movie) with Corporations splitting up the world between them, or a 1984 scenario with Big Brother becoming all powerful because all of our lives can be catalogued electronically.
If the corporations hold "the power" then they will be the victims of "terrorist attacks" rather than perpetrators, no?
When I think of conferences like DEF CON, I wonder if there purpose should not be to prevent futures like this. So while I am not in support a violently breaking the law, or causing others intentional hurt, I so long live the hackers and even the crackers, for they may be the only hope for a medium between two horrible futures.
The purpose is exchange of information, without regard to the intentions of those who receive it. The current game is very much "pay attention, or lose." The good guys can't find out without the bad guys knowing. So, be one of the good guys paying attention to what's being said.
The government has allowed the export rules to be relaxed in hopes that they will be able to keep some form of the crypto law intact. They hope that if they give a little, they won't be overturned entirely.
Screw 'em. Take it to the Supreme Court, and have the export law (and attempts at domestic controls) declared unconstitutional.
As several people have pointed out, yes the cat is out of the bag. You can get good crypto from other countries. You can get it all preconfigured on your OpenBSD CD from Theo in Canada. You can get 128-bit Netscape anywhere in the world from Fortify. You can get good SSH from Datafellows in Finland. RSA has shipped some of their development efforts to Australia.
You can print the code in a book, and ship that anywhere but the evil 7 countries. Then, someone can type that in, or scan it. That's how PGP officially got out of the country.
Hey Clinton, Reno, you lose. Why don't give up already?
You're just hurting the US crypto companies, and corporations like the one I work for who want to deploy VPNs and such.
Well, it doesn't hurt me that much... I just have my out-of-country counterparts buy out-of-country and distribute for me.
But hey, the US government is really inconvieniencing me... and it's annoying.
Suppose you are an Open Source Advocate. You want to see software released as real open source, and see the movement grow.
Here are the Open Source advantages Sun just stepped on:
-No need to wait for the vendor to produce patches. -Holes will be spotted quicker and patched sooner. -You can customize -Community support will increase
Plus, there is the advantage (for some) that you can produce your own distro and sell it (with appropriate royalties to Sun, of course.) So, I could produce Ryan's Super Solaris and sell it. Note: the article has implied this.. I haven't reviewed the SCSL to verify.
This gives Sun a real advantage (IMHO) of getting slowly more secure.
I guess that begs the question of whether Open Source OSes will get less attention due to time being spent on Solaris. I tend to think not, as enough people want a really free OS, and there are plenty of coders to go around. People who run Solaris now will still run Solaris, and now they can enjoy some advantages, too.
Articles about how someone had an easier time installing one OS versus another are pretty pointless. Unless they're doing some massive multi-model, multi-OS, multi add-on test, it's just anecdotal evidence. And as with any anecdotal evidence, people will use it to support their favorite side of the arguement.
I've had really bad installs with many OSes. Windows has the real-world advantage that Windows is the first OS vendors write drivers for. It's also the one they maintain best. Often, you'll find your hardware driver on the Windows CD.
This does not make Windows a better OS, it means that vendors favor it because of marketshare, therefore feeding the marketshare.
Windows also does a decent job of maintaining backwards compatibility.
However, if your hardware isn't supported by Windows, chances are good your recourse is NIL. You could write your own drivers, but you won't find source as a starting point, or a community of Windows device driver developers waiting to give you help.
My opinion is that one would have a much better time trying to write for obscure hardware under Linux than Windows.
It also means, if my observation is correct, that Linux will catch up to Windows for device support, and will take that advantage away.
Think armageddon will occur? That's 1,000,000-1 odds, though even if you win, I think collecting on that bet would be a bit pointless.
You don't place that bet to win, you place it so you can tell your friends "I told you so." and have the bet ticket to prove it. What if armageddon came, and no one believed you when you said "I knew it!"?
As I recall, the GPL requires publishing modifications to GPL code.
Two issues here:
One: If Corel produces new code (that doesn't include GPL'd code, of course) they can do what they like. We can request opening of code, but we may not get. Even if they plan to GPL it, they hold their full copyright until they do.
Two: If anyone works on GPL'd code, they are required to publish, right? When? How often? If I add a comment to a piece of GPL code, do I have to run out and post it on a web page, and submit the link to Slashdot? I hope not, because that's going to screw up the revision check-in a bit.
However, if I release the binaries, even if I call them beta, and seems pretty clear that I should make the source available by then, no?
(Note: I'm not accusing Corel of the latter... However, they have been accused of that by assumption...)
We use Vertias on our Sun E10000. We had some conflicts with a commercial SMB product, and couldn't use it. (For whatever reason, the SysAdmins didn't care for my suggestion to use Samba.)
So, this looks like a very welcome addition, and it looks like I get my way.:)
I think some folks miss why this is potentially scary.
I think that if the guy is guilty, then he ought to be punished, using some *reasonable* definition of guilty.
Problem is, few folks agree on what's reasonable in terms of child sex/porn. Some think 18 is an unreasonably high age for consent. Some think child porn shouldn't neccessarily be illegal to own.
Most think it should be illegal to have sex with 13 year olds, or produce photographic child porn (i.e. take pictures of). It's illegal in the US to own pictures of a 17 year-old taken in a country where it was legal.
In between, it's a bit gray.
Even if the laws are unreasonable, just try to compaign for allowing certain forms of child porn, and see how far you get. It will take a case like this going to the Supreme Court for a different precedent.
I expect that if the guy gets charged with even just chatting, he will get nailed with a major crime. The minimum would be contributing to deliquency.. The most would be the same as if he actually had sex with a 13 year-old, despite there being no actual teenager involved.
If you think the US doesn't prosecute thought crimes, or intent, then you haven't been watching the hacking cases. Bernie S. got nailed for having a red box, not using it. In many states, you can get prosecuted for carrying anything that might be considered a burglary tool, unless you're a locksmith.
We're already well past the point where you can get arrested because you *might* commit a crime.
*IF* you use Microsoft products (and if you use Visio, chances are you do) then this may be good for you. AFAIK, Visio has no plans to do other platforms anyway - and they were way deep into the Office model. I don't see how they could do other platforms without a major re-write. The Office integration has been a nice feature, if you're an Office user. I can only imagine MS would make that more so. I expect Visio would become a piece of one of the Office flavors? We can even hope the cost will go down.
For Microsoft: There is a little bit of a hole in their product lineup this fills nicely. It even functions as a baby CAD package. There is a Pro version that does things like network autodiscovery and database diagramming (Informix and Oracle at present, no Sybase or MS SQL. I imagine the latter will be fixed soon) which is a new market for MS. It's not like Visio was competeing with anything at MS, and it's very complimentary to lots of MS products. Heck, MS probably just wants the revenue.
For the general populace/Anti-MS crowd: Well, it's yet another good product that is no owned by MS. I suspect some folks would have written it off anyway, given how heavily MS/Office it is. Overall, I don't think it changes much. MS owns one more particular market. That marekt was previosuly owned by Visio, so at least they didn't kill anyone off.
Slashdot Mirror
If you want small, go make your own small distro, or check out Trinux.
US $75
They also have more along the same line:
http://www.sharperimage.com/Search.jsp?keywords=kn ife
Where can I read the impromptu interview with Theo?
New TLDs won't help much. Everyone wants a .com.
.web, .mag, etc.. That will mostly serve the registrars. Folks like myself who register domains for my company will have to register the new ones as a protection mechanism, even if we don't want to. If we don't, we have to go through the trademark dispute process, which isn't any fun. It's much cheaper to pay for the new domains.
.to domain. That, or folks like me who have to register company.* again for protection reasons. Not all countries have a trademark dispute, or even have trademarks!
Even if you create
The country TLDs are only of interest to foreigners (of that TLD's country) if they happen to spell out something cute like the
And I don't think it's me.
:)
Quantum computing factoring machines only serve to make obsolete current sizes of keys (512, 1024, 2048, etc..) This is significant, since it takes the world forever to abandon obsolete technology and standards.
However, this doesn't invalidate the facotring problem. Just use much larger numbers. Say, a billion digits. The same tech that makes factoring keys of a few thousand digits also enable use of billion digit keys.
You can't build a quantum machine that can factor numbers that it can enable use of.
P.S. Yes, It's easier to poke holes than make my own predictions.
If you don't believe that some people think this way, then try doing networking for a living. Any problem that can't be explained must be the fault of the network.
Some folks may remember the story here several months ago about theos.com.
Seems there is a software company called theos, that wanted the domain. Currently, i belongs to Theo De Raadt, leader of the OpenBSD project.
The short version of the story is that Theo got to keep it, I believe primarily because the software company realized that Theo was more popular than they, and they would be doing themselves PR damage.
How do I get my 99.9% uptime if I promptly install every service pack and hotfix from my single vendor, if I have to reboot each time? Last time I did SP5 on a dual PIII 500 machine, the install took 20 minutes, and the reboot 10.
It was looking like MS might be making a reasonable arguement. It didn't last past the first bullet item.
:) No registry, guys. Says Linux is all or nothing for delegating administration. Go do a web search on sudo. States Linux doesn't meet any of the "key security accreditation standards" Like NT. Says NT meets C2, or british equiv. C2 isn't anything to be impressed by. Says Linux people must spend time understanding security issues. NT users can go to one spot for patches. Boy, I'm glad I don't have to actually *understand* anything when using NT. Says NT is easier to configure properly for security, using the SCE. You must be stoned. Have you looked at Sutton's NSA paper on what it takes to secure NT?
Myth: Linux performs better than Windows NT
Can't argue with most of these points. We'll likely not see a TPCC benchmark for Linux.. they're way expensive. And frankly, until the problems that hinder web serving and file & print sharing performance, there probably won't be a good reason to run a TPCC benchmark.
As other have noted though, thanks for the checklist. I'm sure MS will be flogged with it later when Linux catches up in performance.
Myth: Linux is more reliable than Windows NT
Reality: Linux Needs Real World Proof Points Rather than Anecdotal Stories
(Followed by MS's anecdotal stories.)
(presumably) factual items mentioned are no JFS (being fixed, as I recall) and no OEM guarantee of uptime. Of course, 99.9 percent is mentioned for NT. That's not too hard, it's 8 hours a year. MS dismisses the Linix clustering efforts. Wolfpack still does only 2 nodes, right?
Myth: Linux is Free
TCO discussion. Cites a report for a different OS vs. NT. States companies like Redhat charge for support (gasp!). States unix is complex because.. umm, well it's unix. How many certified Linux folks are there? (How many MCSEs can actually perform the job they are supposed to be certified for?)
Myth: Linux is more secure than Windows NT
Linux only has protection for file system... umm, yeah, that's all there is.
Myth: Linux can replace Windows on the desktop
Says NT has more apps. This is probably correct. The only category that's really hurting on the Linux side, though, is games. Says NT has better hardware support. Says Linux doesn't do USB, APM, or plug & play. Ahem... NT4 doesn't either! If you want those, you have to buy a laptop from a vendor who has written their own! Again calls Linux complex, gives no reason why. Says Linux app support is limited. Linux app support is different, not neccessarily worse. I've recieved lots and lots of crappy support of Windows apps, thanks. Says more developers develop for Windows. Yes MS, relax, your fight for mind & marketshare has been working great. Why, are you worried about it?
Geeze. I thought MS was going to be more subtle about the FUD. Silly me.
At least we now have an offical MS statement to point to for the kind of BS MS spouts, for those capable of independent thought.
Not sure why you would be convinced of this when you have no evidence.
As I'm sure you're aware, you can't just "infect" the ISO image of a CD with a virus.
As you *should* be aware, CIH is an .exe infector.
You must do so at an earlier stage, while the .EXE file is still present in its original form. So, the idea that a machine used only to burn the disks contained the virus doesn't wash. The virus must have been present on the machine where the CD-R image was prepared.
Doesn't sound like you've done much CD burning. I haven't either, but even I know what's wrong with this statement. If, at any point, the files were copied to a writeable media (i.e. the harddrive) they could become infected. On a machine with one CD drive (the CDR) there are two choices: Make an image of the CD, or just copy the files to a temp directory on the harddrive.
For such a small image, I probably would have just copied them to a temp directory,too.
Not picking NT soley because BO2K exists is being as ignorant as Brett.
The BO equivalent for Unix has been there for years. We call it "telnetd" and "X".
Not true. Real computer systems are becoming horribly more complex, and therefore have more holes. True, some of the low hanging fruit is gone, but I still see the same stupic mistakes being made all over the place, just usually not in the same place twice.
While movies like War Games inspired us all to crack to the launch mechanisms of the U.S. nuclear missile defense, those days are gone.
I disagree. We're seeing far more goverment sites broken into now than we have in the past.
Truly secure systems are only available for acces locally, while important national systems are better protected than ever by the crackers of yesteryear.
No, they're connecting them to the Internet as fast as they can. The level of clue relative to the number/ability of attackers is decreasing, not increasing.
What this all leads up to is that the only people left will truly be able to wreak havoc are the government and big corporations. Only they have the computing power and the money to be able to work past strong defense systems.
This would seem to demonstrate a lack of understaning about how hacking works. I only need lots of computing power to crack crypto. I can do any of the other hacking I need from a $299 PC. It's not about resources, it's about using your head. Resources never hurt, but they are certainly not required.
And at the same time, I see this electronic power becoming more and more important. So what kind of future do we have to look forward to? Well, I believe that electronic terrorism (or at/corporate action, when it comes down to it, there is really little difference beyod perspective) will bring the world to a standstill. My question, is will that bring about a world like that seen in rollerball (great movie) with Corporations splitting up the world between them, or a 1984 scenario with Big Brother becoming all powerful because all of our lives can be catalogued electronically.
If the corporations hold "the power" then they will be the victims of "terrorist attacks" rather than perpetrators, no?
When I think of conferences like DEF CON, I wonder if there purpose should not be to prevent futures like this. So while I am not in support a violently breaking the law, or causing others intentional hurt, I so long live the hackers and even the crackers, for they may be the only hope for a medium between two horrible futures.
The purpose is exchange of information, without regard to the intentions of those who receive it. The current game is very much "pay attention, or lose." The good guys can't find out without the bad guys knowing. So, be one of the good guys paying attention to what's being said.
The government has allowed the export rules to be relaxed in hopes that they will be able to keep some form of the crypto law intact. They hope that if they give a little, they won't be overturned entirely.
Screw 'em. Take it to the Supreme Court, and have the export law (and attempts at domestic controls) declared unconstitutional.
As several people have pointed out, yes the cat is out of the bag. You can get good crypto from other countries. You can get it all preconfigured on your OpenBSD CD from Theo in Canada. You can get 128-bit Netscape anywhere in the world from Fortify. You can get good SSH from Datafellows in Finland. RSA has shipped some of their development efforts to Australia.
You can print the code in a book, and ship that anywhere but the evil 7 countries. Then, someone can type that in, or scan it. That's how PGP officially got out of the country.
Hey Clinton, Reno, you lose. Why don't give up already?
You're just hurting the US crypto companies, and corporations like the one I work for who want to deploy VPNs and such.
Well, it doesn't hurt me that much... I just have my out-of-country counterparts buy out-of-country and distribute for me.
But hey, the US government is really inconvieniencing me... and it's annoying.
But now you don't have to wait for Sun. I can now release a patch along with my exploit, same as I can now for Linux or *BSD.
Is there a real danger of confusion?
Suppose you are an Open Source Advocate. You want to see software released as real open source, and see the movement grow.
Here are the Open Source advantages Sun just stepped on:
-No need to wait for the vendor to produce patches.
-Holes will be spotted quicker and patched sooner.
-You can customize
-Community support will increase
Plus, there is the advantage (for some) that you can produce your own distro and sell it (with appropriate royalties to Sun, of course.) So, I could produce Ryan's Super Solaris and sell it.
Note: the article has implied this.. I haven't reviewed the SCSL to verify.
This gives Sun a real advantage (IMHO) of getting slowly more secure.
I guess that begs the question of whether Open Source OSes will get less attention due to time being spent on Solaris. I tend to think not, as enough people want a really free OS, and there are plenty of coders to go around. People who run Solaris now will still run Solaris, and now they can enjoy some advantages, too.
Articles about how someone had an easier time installing one OS versus another are pretty pointless. Unless they're doing some massive multi-model, multi-OS, multi add-on test, it's just anecdotal evidence. And as with any anecdotal evidence, people will use it to support their favorite side of the arguement.
I've had really bad installs with many OSes. Windows has the real-world advantage that Windows is the first OS vendors write drivers for. It's also the one they maintain best. Often, you'll find your hardware driver on the Windows CD.
This does not make Windows a better OS, it means that vendors favor it because of marketshare, therefore feeding the marketshare.
Windows also does a decent job of maintaining backwards compatibility.
However, if your hardware isn't supported by Windows, chances are good your recourse is NIL. You could write your own drivers, but you won't find source as a starting point, or a community of Windows device driver developers waiting to give you help.
My opinion is that one would have a much better time trying to write for obscure hardware under Linux than Windows.
It also means, if my observation is correct, that Linux will catch up to Windows for device support, and will take that advantage away.
Does it also do ass recognition, so that they can track me down when I run up and do a pressed ham on the plexiglass cover?
You don't place that bet to win, you place it so you can tell your friends "I told you so." and have the bet ticket to prove it. What if armageddon came, and no one believed you when you said "I knew it!"?
New Linux cracking contest. Do I get to keep it if I win?
As I recall, the GPL requires publishing modifications to GPL code.
Two issues here:
One: If Corel produces new code (that doesn't include GPL'd code, of course) they can do what they like. We can request opening of code, but we may not get. Even if they plan to GPL it, they hold their full copyright until they do.
Two: If anyone works on GPL'd code, they are required to publish, right? When? How often? If I add a comment to a piece of GPL code, do I have to run out and post it on a web page, and submit the link to Slashdot? I hope not, because that's going to screw up the revision check-in a bit.
However, if I release the binaries, even if I call them beta, and seems pretty clear that I should make the source available by then, no?
(Note: I'm not accusing Corel of the latter... However, they have been accused of that by assumption...)
We use Vertias on our Sun E10000. We had some conflicts with a commercial SMB product, and couldn't use it. (For whatever reason, the SysAdmins didn't care for my suggestion to use Samba.)
:)
So, this looks like a very welcome addition, and it looks like I get my way.
But what happens when the bears get one of these suits? The larger weight and superior strength of the bear will enable it to prevail still.
It's just another escalating arms race. Peace Now!
No Suits! No Suits! No Suits!
I think some folks miss why this is potentially scary.
I think that if the guy is guilty, then he ought to be punished, using some *reasonable* definition of guilty.
Problem is, few folks agree on what's reasonable in terms of child sex/porn. Some think 18 is an unreasonably high age for consent. Some think child porn shouldn't neccessarily be illegal to own.
Most think it should be illegal to have sex with 13 year olds, or produce photographic child porn (i.e. take pictures of). It's illegal in the US to own pictures of a 17 year-old taken in a country where it was legal.
In between, it's a bit gray.
Even if the laws are unreasonable, just try to compaign for allowing certain forms of child porn, and see how far you get. It will take a case like this going to the Supreme Court for a different precedent.
I expect that if the guy gets charged with even just chatting, he will get nailed with a major crime. The minimum would be contributing to deliquency.. The most would be the same as if he actually had sex with a 13 year-old, despite there being no actual teenager involved.
If you think the US doesn't prosecute thought crimes, or intent, then you haven't been watching the hacking cases. Bernie S. got nailed for having a red box, not using it. In many states, you can get prosecuted for carrying anything that might be considered a burglary tool, unless you're a locksmith.
We're already well past the point where you can get arrested because you *might* commit a crime.
Instead of the usual family picture in the hallway, will all of the LCD panels read:
"d00d! y3r h0u53 B3 0wn3d by th3 Oreo Cr3w!"
For the consumer:
*IF* you use Microsoft products (and if you use Visio, chances are you do) then this may be good for you. AFAIK, Visio has no plans to do other platforms anyway - and they were way deep into the Office model. I don't see how they could do other platforms without a major re-write. The Office integration has been a nice feature, if you're an Office user. I can only imagine MS would make that more so. I expect Visio would become a piece of one of the Office flavors? We can even hope the cost will go down.
For Microsoft:
There is a little bit of a hole in their product lineup this fills nicely. It even functions as a baby CAD package. There is a Pro version that does things like network autodiscovery and database diagramming (Informix and Oracle at present, no Sybase or MS SQL. I imagine the latter will be fixed soon) which is a new market for MS. It's not like Visio was competeing with anything at MS, and it's very complimentary to lots of MS products. Heck, MS probably just wants the revenue.
For the general populace/Anti-MS crowd:
Well, it's yet another good product that is no owned by MS. I suspect some folks would have written it off anyway, given how heavily MS/Office it is. Overall, I don't think it changes much. MS owns one more particular market. That marekt was previosuly owned by Visio, so at least they didn't kill anyone off.