Ahhh... The overclocked (overrotated?) Hard Disk. Make sure your platters are perfectly balanced and aligned, though, or risk shattering them all due to rotational discrepancy flow. Use a Sharpie pen for miniscule adjustments to the hyperfluid spindle bearing.
Your point is well taken, and certainly valid, regarding the LCD (or any other kind of display) pager and fuel cutoff. In fact, most factory security systems (not alarm systems) will cut off the fuel and/or ignition when it's started without the proper key. At this point, it's safe to assume that someone is trying to take your car and an alarm would be a great idea. My truck will start flashing the lights and honking the horn when this happens. The items inside my vehicle are pretty much fair game as there's no glass-breakage sensor or interior motion detector. But I figure that if a thief wants whatever is in my vehicle, he'll get it regardless of the noise that's being made. I just play it smart and keep those items I can't live without on my person when I leave my truck for any significant length of time.
On that note, newer cars and trucks have keys with static IDs that are programmed into the vehicle itself. That makes it much more difficult for someone to drive away with your vehicle by mistake and prevents your car/truck from being taken by your average car theif as the vehicle will verify not only the cut of the key, but it's unique electronic signature. No electonic ID? No fuel or ignition for you, key or not!
However, this will not stop a determined theif.
Any idiot with a tow-truck can take your vehicle, with or without an alarm and/or security system. I've said it before: Unless you make it more difficult and/or costly for a theif to take your vehicle than it's worth, they're going to take it. Someone with the proper skills and the desire to take what is yours will accomplish their goal with enough knowledge, time, planning, and effort. The best you can do is make the process of taking whatever it is they want more difficult, expensive, or time-consuming than they think it's worth.
Is it worth chaining your vehicle down inside your garage every night to prevent someone towing it away? Probably not. Armed guards on duty 24x7? Very expensive and a bit of overkill (pardon the pun), but very effective. You get the idea...
How much money do you want to spend to secure your vehicle (or anything else)? How much time? How much effort? Take that information and compare it against how each solution will deter a theif. Try to strike a balance between lower cost/time/effort on your side and higher cost/time/effort on the theif's side. This is what we call "risk mitigation" and tends to be fairly effective. Ask your local insurance agent to explain further, and get some information about policy discounts for proper security setups while you're there.
Re:Or, this can IMPROVE your car
on
Hack Your Car
·
· Score: 1
It's actually easier for someone to tow your vehicle away and replace the locks and electronics later, at their own pace. Ride with a few manufacturer-hired repo-men for a while to get an idea of how easily this works.
The most sophistocated security system made won't prevent your car from being towed, unless you made it more costly to tow the vehicle than the vehicle (or contract) is worth.
I don't think it's about the Open Source vs. Closed Source, or even about discovering the "secrets" in their hardware design. There's no reason why they couldn't write a binary-only driver specifically for Linux. The fact that they haven't done so already is probably a clue pointing at their true motives. Chipzilla and M$ have been "in bed" together for many years, and we all know how Microsoft feels about Linux.
I'm still not sure I'd like to do the V8 kit, though. And, IIRC, it's called the "Monster Miata" from a few of the ads I've seen of it. It *does* throw the balance towards a more front-heavy car, which tends to cause understeer when at-speed (inertia, and all). Many people that have done this to their cars have reported this to be noticeable, but manageable. Unfortunately, all Miatas started getting suspension setups in about '94 that caused the same behavior, anyway, and would tend to further this behavior. Luckily, mine is a really early model made before they crippled the suspension setup to a more stable, slight understeer setup that the average driver could more easily predict.
And don't anyone get the idea that the Miata is just a cute/girly car in need of some testos- *AHEM* I mean horsepower. There's a whole class of racing in the SCCA just for the Miata, and many people just put a rollbar or rollcage in/on their daily-drivers for use in these events. The best bang-for-buck speed upgrade is almost always a professional driving school, and I could still give those Corvettes a run for their money if we're not limited to light-to-light drag racing. The light weight of the Miata is what allows it to keep up in the twisties. The fastest car is not always the most powerful car.
Although the Miata is a finely balanced car, and a hoot to just throw around during the daily commute (when it's warm, anyway), I am looking for something that just gives a little more kick in the pants but handles just as well.
I'll get off the Miata soapbox, now...
I was looking at making my winter vehicle, an '01 Silverado, into just such a "sleeper" that you mention. I've got a cold air box with an upgraded filter, a cat-back 3" O.D. exhaust system with a straight-through "turbo" muffler, and an engine computer reprogrammer box (more for the tranny shift improvement than anything else, but it will allow the engine to take advantage of higher octane gas, if I'm feeling generous enough to spring for the additional cost). The next step would be to go with a set of quality headers and a less restrictive catalytic converter and intermediate pipes. All of this is to help the engine "breathe" better, obviously. I'm trying to avoid going to forced-induction, if possible, just to keep the truck useful as a hauler when it needs to do real work. A turbo/supercharger seems like it would cause more problems than I'd like to deal with for the performance gains it might give me (extra heat/pressure for about 40 extra HP). Other than the 3" single, side-outlet exhaust pipe, which isn't much of a giveaway itself, there's nothing else that would cause anyone to figure that it's more than what came stock. It's got the 5.3L with 3.73 ratios that I *may* want switched to the 4.10's that were optional. My milage will suffer, however. Other than that, I'm pretty much where I want to be. It's got some factory-optional fender flares and some dealer-installed splashguards to give it some understated eye-candy, but it generally blends into traffic pretty well and doesn't ever stand out, visually or aurally.
Ah, well. Cars are definitely an expensive hobby, but they sure are fun!
I've been toying with the idea of putting an all-aluminum Ford 5.0L V8 (in kit form, believe it or not) into my '91 Miata. 2200 pounds of car, 300+ HP and probably 280+ lb/ft of torque... Mmmmmmmm......
Sure, it'll screw up the front/rear balance a bit (more front-heavy), but that's why it's block and heads are all aluminum. It's not cheap, and it's not terribly fun to drive in the twisties (not as much fun as, say, a turbo-/supercharged stock motor) due to the F/R balance, but it's certainly fun to surprise the guy in the 'Vette next to you at each and every stoplight!
I would like to point out that a new, high-end TV does NOT need to be made in a 16x9 ratio. I've got a 61" 4x3 ratio RP TV that I use exclusively for DVD and hi-def TV service. Because I'm still watching "normal" TV channels (broadcast in 4x3, 480i), I prefer to have a TV that won't cut the top and bottom off the picture, nor will stretch it out horizontally making everything look "fat". The TV has a 16x9 mode that will compress the scanlines into what looks like a letterbox mode, and looks beautiful with all of the hi-def content I can find.
The TV I have isn't the only model with this feature, either. Until all broadcasts are made in 16x9, there's no real reason to make the switch.
In addition, most hi-def receivers (cable, DirecTV, etc.) will give you options for what resolution and aspect ratio you'd like to output to, with 1080i being forced to a 16x9 ratio. I can tell you with certainty that an analog cable signal at 4x3 480i, up-converted to 480p, is a major improvement in image quality.
The point I'd like to make is that you've got options if you'd like to keep watching "regular" TV as you upgrade to hi-def. It's usually less expensive for the 4x3 hi-def units, too.
And before anyone starts getting a burr up their butts about how a 16x9 TV is better and that I don't know what I'm talking about, I also pikced up a 42" 16x9 RP TV for the rec room dedicated to DVDs only. It's just as good as my 2 year-old 61" mentioned above.
You're confusing your units. What they're advertizing is actually 3Mbps - that's 3 megabits per second. (I live in TWC territory, too, and I happen to know one of the RR head-end techs. It's 3Mbps for residential service) Translated into megabytes, that's about 384 kilobits per second. Most programs that show you download speeds (like IE's download window) will give you a reading in bytes, whether that's kilo- mega- or giga-. It's a simple formula, really:
1 byte = 8 bits Therefore: 1 megabyte = 8 megabits See the pattern?
A 1 Mbps connection (note, the small "b" indicates bits, not bytes) is a transfer of 1/8th megabyte per second, or 128 kilobytes per second (1024 / 8 = 128)
Extrapolation for additional speeds will be left as an exercise to the reader/previous poster.
The final issue will be phone portability, can you take your phone with you from one carrier to another? I don't think it will matter in the end, cell phones are little more than an pocket calculator connected to a lithium ion battery.
Actually, the software that's been installed on the phones is more important than the hardware. It's the frequencies and codes (the "C" in CDMA) that are the guts of the service. The reason I can't use a Sprint phone on another network is because my phone doesn't know what frequencies and codes to use for, say, Verizon. Usually, phones more than a year old will need an update to the software/firmware anyway because the carrier changes the frequencies and codes used by each tower. The phone will continue to work without the update, but you'll notice the range and quality decrease over time. This is done for a variety of reasons, but mostly due to either newer services being offered or to further optimize the use of bandwidth on their network.
Now consider that most phones are being packed full of extras, like games and internet-based programs, and there's little room left over for anything else.
Add to that the confusion you're going to get from end-users when you explain that their phone won't work on another network because it doesn't recognize their network.
Add to that the fact that carriers don't want to support equipment that they didn't produce or authorize.
There are more problems with equipment portability than one might initially realize, and I don't think that this will become a reality for a number of years. A multi-phase plan will probably work, starting with a mandate of common hardware/software so that the foundation is there for the future. But until that happens, don't hold your breath.
I completely agree on your point regarding the 2-year contract complaint. Sprint even has a no-contract option (not to be confused with pre-paid plans) on all of their calling plans, but it'll cost you an additional $10/mo or so to do it.
Almost all carriers offer 1-year agreements, but they prefer to lock you in with the 2-year agreement. Usually they offer some sort of incentive like discounted or free equipment or a number of months free or at a reduced rate.
If you didn't read the fine print before you agreed to the contract terms, it's your own fault. Stop whining.
As for number portability, it has great advantages for a limited number of users. I don't see most personal/home users taking advantage of it except for the convenience. Business users rely on a single number more often, and this gives them the opportunity to shop around while maintaining a single "point-of-presence" with their phone.
This is something that should have been mandated from the start. I'm all for equipment portability, too. (By that I mean using any phone with any carrier, not just taking your phone out and about) But I think there are far more problems in doing that, and they're not all technical in nature. Try explaining to end-users that their older phone won't work 'cause it's TDMA-only or that it needs a software/firmware update to recognize the frequencies and codes for a different carrier.
I'm well aware of the privacy statement, but that doesn't stop particular government agencies from gaining access to the system whenever they feel like it.
What about "Due-Process" you ask? The good ol' Patriot Act took care of *that* roadblock. Reasonable suspicion of any wrongdoing (that would cause a blip on the FBI's radar, anyway) seems to be enough to get the job done.
OnStar doesn't need to give their OK for the FBI to tap the system. If the FBI has a way in, they'll use it.
The real point is that I *don't* feel Safe and Secure knowing that someone can pinpoint my location at any time. I like knowing that I can go places without having someone else know that I'm gonig there. I don't have anything to hide, per se. It's just that I don't like being tracked like a bear through the forest. It's also a technology that I don't find all that useful, and that there's more harm than good in it for my taste.
And in case you're wondering: I don't have a credit card. Not because I can be tracked with it, but because it's one less bill I have to worry about at the end of the month. I do make regular use of my debit card, however, becuase the loss of anonymity doesn't outweigh the convenience of using it. I've had 2 cell phones over the 4 years I've had service, and the switch was due to changing providers (I moved to an area that wasn't covered as well by the previous provider). I keep my current phone upgraded with all the software/firmware updates I can get the carrier to provide me with, but it's getting long in the tooth. I may not have a choice in what's included in my next phone, however. But I'm not too worried about it, as I can always turn the phone off if I'm *that* worried about it.
I purchased a 2001 Chevrolet Silverado in May of that year and I *intentionally* chose NOT to add the OnStar "feature" for this very reason. It was offered as standard equipment on all the newest models, but the early 2001's didn't have it standard (from about Mar/Apr onwards, I think).
At the time, the dealer I was working with thought I was paranoid. Just a few short years later, I turn out to be the sane one...
I'm not going to harp on the same issue as everyone else, I'm going to pick a new one:
This is a great solution for people that already have a DirecTV account and want digital satellite radio for their car but don't want to pay for the new service (they tend to lose money on the equipment just to make it back in spades on your monthly payment). The digital music channels from DTV are decent, although you don't have the talk-radio stations that XM and Sirrius offer.
Speaking as a person that takes long road trips bi-annually, this is also an advantage, as it's possible to receive "real" TV programming while out in the middle of nowhere (as opposed to fuzzy, OTA local broadcasts that you'll get only when in range).
Of course, there's a few drawbacks. Clearly this won't work unless there's line-of-sight to the actual satellite. And you won't be able to order PPVs. (remember that a dedicated phone line connection is required for the unit to phone home with. Hrm: maybe OnStar can offer this?)
There is clearly some demand for this product, else it wouldn't have been developed. However, the price is higher than most would be willing to pay, and it's still a fairly large unit to install, so SUVs and RVs are the only real candidates at present. The two problems seem to cancel each other out though: People with SUVs and RVs tend to have a little extra disposable income.
I wouldn't mind this on my vehicle for those long road trips, but it doesn't make sense as I only do this every other year. I'll wait until it's smaller and cheaper before I get one.
True, most level-1 techs are good at what they do, and they typically don't enjoy it too much. In fact, it's all they (we) can do to keep from saying, "Take this job and shove it."
And I don't think that 5-10 minutes of tech support will work for a large number of people. Don't believe me? Read some of the stories at Tech Support Comedy. Every time I feel bad that I've got to deal with some of the dumbest people on the planet, I just read some of the stories on this site. I suddenly feel much better and realize that it could always be worse.
Yes, never underestimate the stupidity of the general public. I don't exactly remember the source of the quote (although I'm sure it's from a movie of some sort), but it sure seems to fit: "A person is smart. People are dumb."
Never mind that the common microwave oven and the majority of cordless telephones found in the parents' homes are stronger than a computer's wireless NIC. I'll put even more money on the fact that most of them have one of each. Heck, I get knocked off of my.11b network at home every few hours when my Moto-branded 2.4GHz phone decides to scan for unused channels while it has nothing else better to do. I'm close to switching one or the other to the 5GHz spectrum, and it'll probably the phone (hello.11g!).
I think someone at the school needs to do some FUD-bashing in a hurry before this catches on in other districts across the land. Anyone else remember the big deal with high-voltage, high tension power lines running through neighborhoods allegedly causing all sorts of medical problems in children a number of years back? As I recall, cancer, birth defects, learning disabilities, etc., were all blamed on them because there was no other commonality (and placebo and dumb-luck never crossed their minds). Is it just me, or is technology inherently bad until proven otherwise to some people? Sheesh!
Yeah, I know. That's not always how things are done, but it can be reasonably pointed out (even to a non-techie) that an additional point of access to a system is less secure than just not letting them have access to it in the first place. Obviously, compromises can be made regarding times of day, certain directories/files, etc., but in no way should senior management automatically be entitled to unrestricted access just because they're "the boss(es)". The IS/IT security policies apply to everyone, not just the lowest people on the corporate org-chart. If there's a reason for access to be granted, then by all means make it so. A hole is a hole is a hole, boss or otherwise, and holes should be kept to a minimum. Not that I'm ranting or anything... Any reasonable boss should agree when you put it in terms of cost of convenience. They're always dealing with how much things cost to the company and should understand your point when rationalized as a "cost".
As for how the stolen code set Valve back 4 months, I'm not completely sure. I can make a few edjumakated guesses, though: 1: They're going through a code-review looking for any changes made by the suspect. 2: They're cleaning out any trace of the trojans/worms/backdoors that the suspect put onto any systems that are used for development and/or testing, possibly leading to #1, as well. With development systems down prior to the code being completed/tweaked, additional time is required for systems/services to be restored so that coding work may continue as before. Test systems are probably cloned (think Norton Ghost or Virtual PC) so as to test new builds on fresh systems without having to deal with the full install process, and would be easy to restore to pre-breach configurations. Certainly not 4 months worth of work.
I'm sure there are more possibilities, and I may be nowhere on target. We're on their schedule for release no matter what the circumstances, and I'm sure we'll get a detailed report after any sort of investigation has been completed (possibly another cause of the delay). All I know for sure is that I'm really looking forward to the release date, whenever that might be.
Good point. The developers can, to a certain extent, make demands regarding their development environment. However, network security is totally in the hands of their IS/IT department, if they even have one. It's the responsibility of the IS/IT staff to maintain the computing environment everyone works in. That applies to developers, the CEO, marketing, even the secretary. The head of IS/IT must set balanced policies regarding access and security. Access should be granted on an as-needed basis, not on an as-wanted-by-CEO basis (like some companies I've worked for). [RANT]I've never understood the reasoning behind the CEO or other major department heads getting unrestricted access to everything. The people that are most visible in the company, and thus the biggest targets, are these department heads. Often, these are the same people that don't even understand the technology they've been given access to, which makes them just that more dangerous to the security and integrity of the network. I try to point out that they should have just as much access as they need to do their job, and that usually means less than their own secretary.[/RANT]
If it were me, I would have mandated a separate firewalled subnet for the developers systems and done away with Exchange/Outlook company-wide in favor of a more stable mail server. It wouldn't be completely out of the question to maintain a second mail server just for the developers inside their subnet. An enterprise-grade network-enabled virus scanning package would have been installed at the primary switch on both networks. Accessibility from the outside, including from the other subnet used by the general office staff, would be restricted to what would be absolutly required. These connections, once enabled, would be monitored and restricted to certain times of day. I'd even go so far as to implement a one-time password system with rotating keys.
With just these simple policies in place, connectivity to the outside from within is maintained, virii and trojans are dealt with (mitigated to reasonable extent, anyway), and the biggest external threats are those with the "absolutly required" access to the developer subnet from outside. It wouldn't have been totally secured against outside traffic, obviously, but the traffic that would come through should be easier to manage and detect. If it were an inside job, as some have speculated on due to lack of faith in the accounting of events Gabe provided, this would have been easier to detect, as well. Covering one's tracks is much more difficult to do if everything is separated and monitored more closely than the general traffic. Sneakernet is the only method that I have not addressed, and I can't see any reason to do anything about it. The developers would be the only staff that have regular physical access to the project's systems, so "outsiders" accessibility would be almost out of the question, assuming that the building has adequate access controls (i.e. card keys active for only certain times of day). And securing it any further would be tipping the balance of security/accessibility too far.
Also note that I'm not saying that what happened at Valve could have been prevented. A determined individual could still bypass the security measures outlined above with enough time and resources, but it would be much harder to do so. As an IS/IT manager, the focus is more on balancing security with accessibility. If the code were completely secured to outside access, development time and costs increase to the point where, possibly, it would make no business sense to even develop the game.
Good point! I use the OmniStudio (it's their 2496 card with a breakout box instead of the pigtails for other external connections). I've been using it for getting audio off of my psudo-studio's Emu Darwin primarily, but since it's in my main system I use it for gaming, too. Damn clean sound (balanced outs to a Mackie 1402, main outs to 250w RMS x2 Carver amp, to a set of passive Event 20/20s), but there's no option for EAX or other hardware environmental sound processing for games.
As for software, I generally stick to an older version of Sound Forge for editing. The multitrack HD-based Darwin, mixer, and a decent microphone is more than enough for my composition needs as I don't do much from the PC side other than final editing and mastering. I've tried Acid, but it just doesn't feel right. Other software packages seem to be lacking in one regard or another, as well. Upon reading this thread, I'm going to try FruityLoops again. Perhaps my impression will change...
However, I can't see that laptops will ever reach the level of flexibility that their larger desktop cousins enjoy in the area of professional-level audio hardware. There's more than enough solutions for the desktop system that fit on a PCI card. Heck, there are even some USB solutions (but I don't generally recommend them due to the bandwidth limit on the USB 1/1.1 bus, nor do I completely trust that the latency is low enough over the USB connection, either). There are some PC-Card/Cardbus solutions out there, but they tend to be rather expensive, even for professional audio gear. I guess there's always a solution, but it just depends on how much you're willing to spend.
In the float-up-the-DRM-balloon phase, most average people aren't likely to react. And that's fine. Right now, all it does is enable the use/play of protected content. And, as noted many times in this discussion thread and in the article itself, it's an add-on to the OS. Don't want it? Don't use it.
However, we've seen many instances of MS rolling an add-on into a service pack and then requiring that the service pack be installed for any future updates. It's then possible to enable the DRM package to restrict the legitimate use of non-protected content and/or software because the end-user won't have any other choice. MS will be holding all the cards. But I think that this will be their undoing.
If an unwitting user was able to use unprotected content both with and without the patch, then can't after MS sends the kill-code to the DRM package, most people will simply say that their computer is broken. They won't know that the DRM software is to blame unless someone tells them. And if a user's computer is "broken" due to some patch that was installed for them by MS, you can bet that those people will start looking for alternatives. Add all of that to the bad publicity MS will get about being "Big Brother", and more and more users will start to think of alternatives to MS software. (Ok, they've already started getting that reputation on their own with the Product Activation snafu, but it certainly doesn't help their situation.)
The first likely route an affected customer will go is to buy a Mac, assuming that there's $1500 or more to spend in the family budget. Another option may or may not be Linux. It very much depends on how much it has progressed in terms of instant usability (can the family make the transition with little- to no difficulty?), and whether or not money is an issue. But I bet that Apple might step in at some point and start offering it's own OS to upset owners of "broken" PCs as an alternative.
That is, of course, assuming that they even want to release it for the ix86 chipset to begin with. My fingers are crossed.
Well, if it's a honeypot, it is probably monitored at least somewhat regularly. If it ever does become a problem, someone would be able to pull the plug on the machine, both logically and physically, in pretty short order. Yes, 10 minutes is enough time for someone to do some serious damage with and/or to a compromised system. But a close eye on things should keep the damage to minimum.
I think the general consensus is that "service" needs to be separated from "carrier". Regulation for the purpose of limiting or encouraging competition should continue to apply to the carriers but not the service providers, much like ISPs aren't regulated but the telephone companies are. However, I don't think anyone would argue that there should be something in writing to guarantee a minimum level of service from each type of provider. In the information age, communication is critical. Signals need to be routed to their destination appropriately, and on schedule. I mean, what would happen if your VoIP 911 call if it were handled by a good carrier provider, but a poor service provider? Would a connection ever be established? How can you be sure that it's available when you need it? What about a poor carrier and a decent service? That might be an intermittent connection, but would be just as effective as not getting through at all.
Of course, this is a hypothetical scenario. But it does make sense to draft some new rules to guarantee minimum levels of service for VoIP service providers, if for no other reason than emergencies. Without some framework-like guidelines, there's no reason why a company couldn't accept your money and not provide the level of service as we've all been accustomed to when the service and carrier are tied together as a unit.
Well said. I'd like to "second" your comment, even thought working through NAT is a terrible PITA. Despite this, I run all of my own systems through a NAT device of some sort, as the single IP is all I really need. Since NAT is here to stay, and rather popular due to broadband carriers' stupid self-imposed limitations ("You only get 1 IP address, and it's from our DHCP server. That's it."), it only makes sense to work the bugs out of the system now. When (not if) IPv6 isn't enough to handle everyone's needs, we'll be looking for yet another solution.
Here's a possible solution: Every person is assigned a single static IPv6 address that they're able to use for personal, non-profit reasons, just like an apartment building has only a single street address. For the individual systems (apartments), private addresses (unit numbers) are assigned behind the NAT box. It may not be elegant. It may not even be pleasing to work with. But it's a solution that works and won't over-allocate public IP addresses.
Before I say anything more, I should make everyone aware (again) that I almost exclusively use some version of Windows in my day-to-day tasks. Is this because I'm pro-MS and/or anti-*nix? No. I find that Windows is easier to maintain in the short-term. As my systems usually don't go more than a month or two without a backup/wipe/reinstall due to various hardware upgrades that I like to do, this makes lots of sense for me. I'm very comfortable as a Linux and *BSD user, and do maintain at least one system with either Linux or some form of BSD at any given time, so don't start another Linux/Windows arguement based on this. And, hopefully, my prejudices are now out of the equation of this MS vs. *nix that this thread has apparently turned into.
I do understand that nobody will actually dig into a 6-year-old Linux kernel, realistically. However, the fact that the option is available from day one and remains feasable after 6 years gives the Linux proposal a decided advantage due to it's inherent flexibility. If there's a security hole in the aforementioned e-mail server application (in my previous message), and the company it was purchased from is unable and/or unwilling to fix it in a reasonable ammount of time, the City of Munich will have the option of hiring an outside company or using it's own in-house staff to fix the affected code if they go with the IBM/SuSE Linux solution. If MS is unable or unwilling to make a repair, they're almost completely screwed as their only two options are to hound MS for a speedy repair or stop using the application altogether.
I didn't mean to imply that MS is faster or slower than the open source community in providing fixes to bugs (although anecdotal evidence suggests that the open source community is quicker to respond than MS is). My actual point was that the option of having the source code available opens avenues of repair that would not be available otherwise. That advantage is clearly one that was communicated through the article as being desireable to the City of Munich.
That will end my long-winded flamebait post. Say what you will, I won't get into any more "system X is better than system Y" arguements again.
Slashdot Mirror
Ahhh... The overclocked (overrotated?) Hard Disk. Make sure your platters are perfectly balanced and aligned, though, or risk shattering them all due to rotational discrepancy flow. Use a Sharpie pen for miniscule adjustments to the hyperfluid spindle bearing.
Don't forget to water-cool it, too.
Your point is well taken, and certainly valid, regarding the LCD (or any other kind of display) pager and fuel cutoff. In fact, most factory security systems (not alarm systems) will cut off the fuel and/or ignition when it's started without the proper key. At this point, it's safe to assume that someone is trying to take your car and an alarm would be a great idea. My truck will start flashing the lights and honking the horn when this happens. The items inside my vehicle are pretty much fair game as there's no glass-breakage sensor or interior motion detector. But I figure that if a thief wants whatever is in my vehicle, he'll get it regardless of the noise that's being made. I just play it smart and keep those items I can't live without on my person when I leave my truck for any significant length of time.
On that note, newer cars and trucks have keys with static IDs that are programmed into the vehicle itself. That makes it much more difficult for someone to drive away with your vehicle by mistake and prevents your car/truck from being taken by your average car theif as the vehicle will verify not only the cut of the key, but it's unique electronic signature. No electonic ID? No fuel or ignition for you, key or not!
However, this will not stop a determined theif.
Any idiot with a tow-truck can take your vehicle, with or without an alarm and/or security system. I've said it before: Unless you make it more difficult and/or costly for a theif to take your vehicle than it's worth, they're going to take it. Someone with the proper skills and the desire to take what is yours will accomplish their goal with enough knowledge, time, planning, and effort. The best you can do is make the process of taking whatever it is they want more difficult, expensive, or time-consuming than they think it's worth.
Is it worth chaining your vehicle down inside your garage every night to prevent someone towing it away? Probably not. Armed guards on duty 24x7? Very expensive and a bit of overkill (pardon the pun), but very effective. You get the idea...
How much money do you want to spend to secure your vehicle (or anything else)? How much time? How much effort? Take that information and compare it against how each solution will deter a theif. Try to strike a balance between lower cost/time/effort on your side and higher cost/time/effort on the theif's side. This is what we call "risk mitigation" and tends to be fairly effective. Ask your local insurance agent to explain further, and get some information about policy discounts for proper security setups while you're there.
It's actually easier for someone to tow your vehicle away and replace the locks and electronics later, at their own pace. Ride with a few manufacturer-hired repo-men for a while to get an idea of how easily this works.
The most sophistocated security system made won't prevent your car from being towed, unless you made it more costly to tow the vehicle than the vehicle (or contract) is worth.
I don't think it's about the Open Source vs. Closed Source, or even about discovering the "secrets" in their hardware design. There's no reason why they couldn't write a binary-only driver specifically for Linux. The fact that they haven't done so already is probably a clue pointing at their true motives. Chipzilla and M$ have been "in bed" together for many years, and we all know how Microsoft feels about Linux.
I'll let you do the math...
I'm still not sure I'd like to do the V8 kit, though. And, IIRC, it's called the "Monster Miata" from a few of the ads I've seen of it. It *does* throw the balance towards a more front-heavy car, which tends to cause understeer when at-speed (inertia, and all). Many people that have done this to their cars have reported this to be noticeable, but manageable. Unfortunately, all Miatas started getting suspension setups in about '94 that caused the same behavior, anyway, and would tend to further this behavior. Luckily, mine is a really early model made before they crippled the suspension setup to a more stable, slight understeer setup that the average driver could more easily predict.
And don't anyone get the idea that the Miata is just a cute/girly car in need of some testos- *AHEM* I mean horsepower. There's a whole class of racing in the SCCA just for the Miata, and many people just put a rollbar or rollcage in/on their daily-drivers for use in these events. The best bang-for-buck speed upgrade is almost always a professional driving school, and I could still give those Corvettes a run for their money if we're not limited to light-to-light drag racing. The light weight of the Miata is what allows it to keep up in the twisties. The fastest car is not always the most powerful car.
Although the Miata is a finely balanced car, and a hoot to just throw around during the daily commute (when it's warm, anyway), I am looking for something that just gives a little more kick in the pants but handles just as well.
I'll get off the Miata soapbox, now...
I was looking at making my winter vehicle, an '01 Silverado, into just such a "sleeper" that you mention. I've got a cold air box with an upgraded filter, a cat-back 3" O.D. exhaust system with a straight-through "turbo" muffler, and an engine computer reprogrammer box (more for the tranny shift improvement than anything else, but it will allow the engine to take advantage of higher octane gas, if I'm feeling generous enough to spring for the additional cost). The next step would be to go with a set of quality headers and a less restrictive catalytic converter and intermediate pipes. All of this is to help the engine "breathe" better, obviously. I'm trying to avoid going to forced-induction, if possible, just to keep the truck useful as a hauler when it needs to do real work. A turbo/supercharger seems like it would cause more problems than I'd like to deal with for the performance gains it might give me (extra heat/pressure for about 40 extra HP). Other than the 3" single, side-outlet exhaust pipe, which isn't much of a giveaway itself, there's nothing else that would cause anyone to figure that it's more than what came stock. It's got the 5.3L with 3.73 ratios that I *may* want switched to the 4.10's that were optional. My milage will suffer, however. Other than that, I'm pretty much where I want to be. It's got some factory-optional fender flares and some dealer-installed splashguards to give it some understated eye-candy, but it generally blends into traffic pretty well and doesn't ever stand out, visually or aurally.
Ah, well. Cars are definitely an expensive hobby, but they sure are fun!
Power-to-weight ratio... So true.
I've been toying with the idea of putting an all-aluminum Ford 5.0L V8 (in kit form, believe it or not) into my '91 Miata. 2200 pounds of car, 300+ HP and probably 280+ lb/ft of torque... Mmmmmmmm......
Sure, it'll screw up the front/rear balance a bit (more front-heavy), but that's why it's block and heads are all aluminum. It's not cheap, and it's not terribly fun to drive in the twisties (not as much fun as, say, a turbo-/supercharged stock motor) due to the F/R balance, but it's certainly fun to surprise the guy in the 'Vette next to you at each and every stoplight!
Taking this into off-topic territory...
I would like to point out that a new, high-end TV does NOT need to be made in a 16x9 ratio. I've got a 61" 4x3 ratio RP TV that I use exclusively for DVD and hi-def TV service. Because I'm still watching "normal" TV channels (broadcast in 4x3, 480i), I prefer to have a TV that won't cut the top and bottom off the picture, nor will stretch it out horizontally making everything look "fat". The TV has a 16x9 mode that will compress the scanlines into what looks like a letterbox mode, and looks beautiful with all of the hi-def content I can find.
The TV I have isn't the only model with this feature, either. Until all broadcasts are made in 16x9, there's no real reason to make the switch.
In addition, most hi-def receivers (cable, DirecTV, etc.) will give you options for what resolution and aspect ratio you'd like to output to, with 1080i being forced to a 16x9 ratio. I can tell you with certainty that an analog cable signal at 4x3 480i, up-converted to 480p, is a major improvement in image quality.
The point I'd like to make is that you've got options if you'd like to keep watching "regular" TV as you upgrade to hi-def. It's usually less expensive for the 4x3 hi-def units, too.
And before anyone starts getting a burr up their butts about how a 16x9 TV is better and that I don't know what I'm talking about, I also pikced up a 42" 16x9 RP TV for the rec room dedicated to DVDs only. It's just as good as my 2 year-old 61" mentioned above.
You're confusing your units. What they're advertizing is actually 3Mbps - that's 3 megabits per second. (I live in TWC territory, too, and I happen to know one of the RR head-end techs. It's 3Mbps for residential service) Translated into megabytes, that's about 384 kilobits per second. Most programs that show you download speeds (like IE's download window) will give you a reading in bytes, whether that's kilo- mega- or giga-. It's a simple formula, really:
1 byte = 8 bits
Therefore:
1 megabyte = 8 megabits
See the pattern?
A 1 Mbps connection (note, the small "b" indicates bits, not bytes) is a transfer of 1/8th megabyte per second, or 128 kilobytes per second (1024 / 8 = 128)
Extrapolation for additional speeds will be left as an exercise to the reader/previous poster.
I'm interested in knowing how they respond, if at all. Keep us all up-to-date?
The final issue will be phone portability, can you take your phone with you from one carrier to another? I don't think it will matter in the end, cell phones are little more than an pocket calculator connected to a lithium ion battery.
Actually, the software that's been installed on the phones is more important than the hardware. It's the frequencies and codes (the "C" in CDMA) that are the guts of the service. The reason I can't use a Sprint phone on another network is because my phone doesn't know what frequencies and codes to use for, say, Verizon. Usually, phones more than a year old will need an update to the software/firmware anyway because the carrier changes the frequencies and codes used by each tower. The phone will continue to work without the update, but you'll notice the range and quality decrease over time. This is done for a variety of reasons, but mostly due to either newer services being offered or to further optimize the use of bandwidth on their network.
Now consider that most phones are being packed full of extras, like games and internet-based programs, and there's little room left over for anything else.
Add to that the confusion you're going to get from end-users when you explain that their phone won't work on another network because it doesn't recognize their network.
Add to that the fact that carriers don't want to support equipment that they didn't produce or authorize.
There are more problems with equipment portability than one might initially realize, and I don't think that this will become a reality for a number of years. A multi-phase plan will probably work, starting with a mandate of common hardware/software so that the foundation is there for the future. But until that happens, don't hold your breath.
I completely agree on your point regarding the 2-year contract complaint. Sprint even has a no-contract option (not to be confused with pre-paid plans) on all of their calling plans, but it'll cost you an additional $10/mo or so to do it.
Almost all carriers offer 1-year agreements, but they prefer to lock you in with the 2-year agreement. Usually they offer some sort of incentive like discounted or free equipment or a number of months free or at a reduced rate.
If you didn't read the fine print before you agreed to the contract terms, it's your own fault. Stop whining.
As for number portability, it has great advantages for a limited number of users. I don't see most personal/home users taking advantage of it except for the convenience. Business users rely on a single number more often, and this gives them the opportunity to shop around while maintaining a single "point-of-presence" with their phone.
This is something that should have been mandated from the start. I'm all for equipment portability, too. (By that I mean using any phone with any carrier, not just taking your phone out and about) But I think there are far more problems in doing that, and they're not all technical in nature. Try explaining to end-users that their older phone won't work 'cause it's TDMA-only or that it needs a software/firmware update to recognize the frequencies and codes for a different carrier.
Yuk!
I'm well aware of the privacy statement, but that doesn't stop particular government agencies from gaining access to the system whenever they feel like it.
What about "Due-Process" you ask? The good ol' Patriot Act took care of *that* roadblock. Reasonable suspicion of any wrongdoing (that would cause a blip on the FBI's radar, anyway) seems to be enough to get the job done.
OnStar doesn't need to give their OK for the FBI to tap the system. If the FBI has a way in, they'll use it.
The real point is that I *don't* feel Safe and Secure knowing that someone can pinpoint my location at any time. I like knowing that I can go places without having someone else know that I'm gonig there. I don't have anything to hide, per se. It's just that I don't like being tracked like a bear through the forest. It's also a technology that I don't find all that useful, and that there's more harm than good in it for my taste.
And in case you're wondering:
I don't have a credit card. Not because I can be tracked with it, but because it's one less bill I have to worry about at the end of the month.
I do make regular use of my debit card, however, becuase the loss of anonymity doesn't outweigh the convenience of using it.
I've had 2 cell phones over the 4 years I've had service, and the switch was due to changing providers (I moved to an area that wasn't covered as well by the previous provider). I keep my current phone upgraded with all the software/firmware updates I can get the carrier to provide me with, but it's getting long in the tooth. I may not have a choice in what's included in my next phone, however. But I'm not too worried about it, as I can always turn the phone off if I'm *that* worried about it.
I purchased a 2001 Chevrolet Silverado in May of that year and I *intentionally* chose NOT to add the OnStar "feature" for this very reason. It was offered as standard equipment on all the newest models, but the early 2001's didn't have it standard (from about Mar/Apr onwards, I think).
At the time, the dealer I was working with thought I was paranoid. Just a few short years later, I turn out to be the sane one...
I'm not going to harp on the same issue as everyone else, I'm going to pick a new one:
This is a great solution for people that already have a DirecTV account and want digital satellite radio for their car but don't want to pay for the new service (they tend to lose money on the equipment just to make it back in spades on your monthly payment). The digital music channels from DTV are decent, although you don't have the talk-radio stations that XM and Sirrius offer.
Speaking as a person that takes long road trips bi-annually, this is also an advantage, as it's possible to receive "real" TV programming while out in the middle of nowhere (as opposed to fuzzy, OTA local broadcasts that you'll get only when in range).
Of course, there's a few drawbacks. Clearly this won't work unless there's line-of-sight to the actual satellite. And you won't be able to order PPVs. (remember that a dedicated phone line connection is required for the unit to phone home with. Hrm: maybe OnStar can offer this?)
There is clearly some demand for this product, else it wouldn't have been developed. However, the price is higher than most would be willing to pay, and it's still a fairly large unit to install, so SUVs and RVs are the only real candidates at present. The two problems seem to cancel each other out though: People with SUVs and RVs tend to have a little extra disposable income.
I wouldn't mind this on my vehicle for those long road trips, but it doesn't make sense as I only do this every other year. I'll wait until it's smaller and cheaper before I get one.
True, most level-1 techs are good at what they do, and they typically don't enjoy it too much. In fact, it's all they (we) can do to keep from saying, "Take this job and shove it."
And I don't think that 5-10 minutes of tech support will work for a large number of people. Don't believe me? Read some of the stories at Tech Support Comedy. Every time I feel bad that I've got to deal with some of the dumbest people on the planet, I just read some of the stories on this site. I suddenly feel much better and realize that it could always be worse.
Yes, never underestimate the stupidity of the general public. I don't exactly remember the source of the quote (although I'm sure it's from a movie of some sort), but it sure seems to fit: "A person is smart. People are dumb."
Never mind that the common microwave oven and the majority of cordless telephones found in the parents' homes are stronger than a computer's wireless NIC. I'll put even more money on the fact that most of them have one of each. Heck, I get knocked off of my .11b network at home every few hours when my Moto-branded 2.4GHz phone decides to scan for unused channels while it has nothing else better to do. I'm close to switching one or the other to the 5GHz spectrum, and it'll probably the phone (hello .11g!).
I think someone at the school needs to do some FUD-bashing in a hurry before this catches on in other districts across the land. Anyone else remember the big deal with high-voltage, high tension power lines running through neighborhoods allegedly causing all sorts of medical problems in children a number of years back? As I recall, cancer, birth defects, learning disabilities, etc., were all blamed on them because there was no other commonality (and placebo and dumb-luck never crossed their minds). Is it just me, or is technology inherently bad until proven otherwise to some people? Sheesh!
Yeah, I know. That's not always how things are done, but it can be reasonably pointed out (even to a non-techie) that an additional point of access to a system is less secure than just not letting them have access to it in the first place. Obviously, compromises can be made regarding times of day, certain directories/files, etc., but in no way should senior management automatically be entitled to unrestricted access just because they're "the boss(es)". The IS/IT security policies apply to everyone, not just the lowest people on the corporate org-chart. If there's a reason for access to be granted, then by all means make it so. A hole is a hole is a hole, boss or otherwise, and holes should be kept to a minimum. Not that I'm ranting or anything... Any reasonable boss should agree when you put it in terms of cost of convenience. They're always dealing with how much things cost to the company and should understand your point when rationalized as a "cost".
As for how the stolen code set Valve back 4 months, I'm not completely sure. I can make a few edjumakated guesses, though:
1: They're going through a code-review looking for any changes made by the suspect.
2: They're cleaning out any trace of the trojans/worms/backdoors that the suspect put onto any systems that are used for development and/or testing, possibly leading to #1, as well. With development systems down prior to the code being completed/tweaked, additional time is required for systems/services to be restored so that coding work may continue as before. Test systems are probably cloned (think Norton Ghost or Virtual PC) so as to test new builds on fresh systems without having to deal with the full install process, and would be easy to restore to pre-breach configurations. Certainly not 4 months worth of work.
I'm sure there are more possibilities, and I may be nowhere on target. We're on their schedule for release no matter what the circumstances, and I'm sure we'll get a detailed report after any sort of investigation has been completed (possibly another cause of the delay). All I know for sure is that I'm really looking forward to the release date, whenever that might be.
Good point. The developers can, to a certain extent, make demands regarding their development environment. However, network security is totally in the hands of their IS/IT department, if they even have one. It's the responsibility of the IS/IT staff to maintain the computing environment everyone works in. That applies to developers, the CEO, marketing, even the secretary. The head of IS/IT must set balanced policies regarding access and security. Access should be granted on an as-needed basis, not on an as-wanted-by-CEO basis (like some companies I've worked for). [RANT]I've never understood the reasoning behind the CEO or other major department heads getting unrestricted access to everything. The people that are most visible in the company, and thus the biggest targets, are these department heads. Often, these are the same people that don't even understand the technology they've been given access to, which makes them just that more dangerous to the security and integrity of the network. I try to point out that they should have just as much access as they need to do their job, and that usually means less than their own secretary.[/RANT]
If it were me, I would have mandated a separate firewalled subnet for the developers systems and done away with Exchange/Outlook company-wide in favor of a more stable mail server. It wouldn't be completely out of the question to maintain a second mail server just for the developers inside their subnet. An enterprise-grade network-enabled virus scanning package would have been installed at the primary switch on both networks. Accessibility from the outside, including from the other subnet used by the general office staff, would be restricted to what would be absolutly required. These connections, once enabled, would be monitored and restricted to certain times of day. I'd even go so far as to implement a one-time password system with rotating keys.
With just these simple policies in place, connectivity to the outside from within is maintained, virii and trojans are dealt with (mitigated to reasonable extent, anyway), and the biggest external threats are those with the "absolutly required" access to the developer subnet from outside. It wouldn't have been totally secured against outside traffic, obviously, but the traffic that would come through should be easier to manage and detect. If it were an inside job, as some have speculated on due to lack of faith in the accounting of events Gabe provided, this would have been easier to detect, as well. Covering one's tracks is much more difficult to do if everything is separated and monitored more closely than the general traffic. Sneakernet is the only method that I have not addressed, and I can't see any reason to do anything about it. The developers would be the only staff that have regular physical access to the project's systems, so "outsiders" accessibility would be almost out of the question, assuming that the building has adequate access controls (i.e. card keys active for only certain times of day). And securing it any further would be tipping the balance of security/accessibility too far.
Also note that I'm not saying that what happened at Valve could have been prevented. A determined individual could still bypass the security measures outlined above with enough time and resources, but it would be much harder to do so. As an IS/IT manager, the focus is more on balancing security with accessibility. If the code were completely secured to outside access, development time and costs increase to the point where, possibly, it would make no business sense to even develop the game.
Good point! I use the OmniStudio (it's their 2496 card with a breakout box instead of the pigtails for other external connections). I've been using it for getting audio off of my psudo-studio's Emu Darwin primarily, but since it's in my main system I use it for gaming, too. Damn clean sound (balanced outs to a Mackie 1402, main outs to 250w RMS x2 Carver amp, to a set of passive Event 20/20s), but there's no option for EAX or other hardware environmental sound processing for games.
As for software, I generally stick to an older version of Sound Forge for editing. The multitrack HD-based Darwin, mixer, and a decent microphone is more than enough for my composition needs as I don't do much from the PC side other than final editing and mastering. I've tried Acid, but it just doesn't feel right. Other software packages seem to be lacking in one regard or another, as well. Upon reading this thread, I'm going to try FruityLoops again. Perhaps my impression will change...
However, I can't see that laptops will ever reach the level of flexibility that their larger desktop cousins enjoy in the area of professional-level audio hardware. There's more than enough solutions for the desktop system that fit on a PCI card. Heck, there are even some USB solutions (but I don't generally recommend them due to the bandwidth limit on the USB 1/1.1 bus, nor do I completely trust that the latency is low enough over the USB connection, either). There are some PC-Card/Cardbus solutions out there, but they tend to be rather expensive, even for professional audio gear. I guess there's always a solution, but it just depends on how much you're willing to spend.
"Mmmmmmm.... Toaster Patches.... Gaahghghaaghghghaaghhgh..."
- HJS
In the float-up-the-DRM-balloon phase, most average people aren't likely to react. And that's fine. Right now, all it does is enable the use/play of protected content. And, as noted many times in this discussion thread and in the article itself, it's an add-on to the OS. Don't want it? Don't use it.
However, we've seen many instances of MS rolling an add-on into a service pack and then requiring that the service pack be installed for any future updates. It's then possible to enable the DRM package to restrict the legitimate use of non-protected content and/or software because the end-user won't have any other choice. MS will be holding all the cards. But I think that this will be their undoing.
If an unwitting user was able to use unprotected content both with and without the patch, then can't after MS sends the kill-code to the DRM package, most people will simply say that their computer is broken. They won't know that the DRM software is to blame unless someone tells them. And if a user's computer is "broken" due to some patch that was installed for them by MS, you can bet that those people will start looking for alternatives. Add all of that to the bad publicity MS will get about being "Big Brother", and more and more users will start to think of alternatives to MS software. (Ok, they've already started getting that reputation on their own with the Product Activation snafu, but it certainly doesn't help their situation.)
The first likely route an affected customer will go is to buy a Mac, assuming that there's $1500 or more to spend in the family budget. Another option may or may not be Linux. It very much depends on how much it has progressed in terms of instant usability (can the family make the transition with little- to no difficulty?), and whether or not money is an issue. But I bet that Apple might step in at some point and start offering it's own OS to upset owners of "broken" PCs as an alternative.
That is, of course, assuming that they even want to release it for the ix86 chipset to begin with. My fingers are crossed.
Well, if it's a honeypot, it is probably monitored at least somewhat regularly. If it ever does become a problem, someone would be able to pull the plug on the machine, both logically and physically, in pretty short order. Yes, 10 minutes is enough time for someone to do some serious damage with and/or to a compromised system. But a close eye on things should keep the damage to minimum.
I think the general consensus is that "service" needs to be separated from "carrier". Regulation for the purpose of limiting or encouraging competition should continue to apply to the carriers but not the service providers, much like ISPs aren't regulated but the telephone companies are. However, I don't think anyone would argue that there should be something in writing to guarantee a minimum level of service from each type of provider. In the information age, communication is critical. Signals need to be routed to their destination appropriately, and on schedule. I mean, what would happen if your VoIP 911 call if it were handled by a good carrier provider, but a poor service provider? Would a connection ever be established? How can you be sure that it's available when you need it? What about a poor carrier and a decent service? That might be an intermittent connection, but would be just as effective as not getting through at all.
Of course, this is a hypothetical scenario. But it does make sense to draft some new rules to guarantee minimum levels of service for VoIP service providers, if for no other reason than emergencies. Without some framework-like guidelines, there's no reason why a company couldn't accept your money and not provide the level of service as we've all been accustomed to when the service and carrier are tied together as a unit.
Well said. I'd like to "second" your comment, even thought working through NAT is a terrible PITA. Despite this, I run all of my own systems through a NAT device of some sort, as the single IP is all I really need. Since NAT is here to stay, and rather popular due to broadband carriers' stupid self-imposed limitations ("You only get 1 IP address, and it's from our DHCP server. That's it."), it only makes sense to work the bugs out of the system now. When (not if) IPv6 isn't enough to handle everyone's needs, we'll be looking for yet another solution.
Here's a possible solution: Every person is assigned a single static IPv6 address that they're able to use for personal, non-profit reasons, just like an apartment building has only a single street address. For the individual systems (apartments), private addresses (unit numbers) are assigned behind the NAT box. It may not be elegant. It may not even be pleasing to work with. But it's a solution that works and won't over-allocate public IP addresses.
Before I say anything more, I should make everyone aware (again) that I almost exclusively use some version of Windows in my day-to-day tasks. Is this because I'm pro-MS and/or anti-*nix? No. I find that Windows is easier to maintain in the short-term. As my systems usually don't go more than a month or two without a backup/wipe/reinstall due to various hardware upgrades that I like to do, this makes lots of sense for me. I'm very comfortable as a Linux and *BSD user, and do maintain at least one system with either Linux or some form of BSD at any given time, so don't start another Linux/Windows arguement based on this. And, hopefully, my prejudices are now out of the equation of this MS vs. *nix that this thread has apparently turned into.
I do understand that nobody will actually dig into a 6-year-old Linux kernel, realistically. However, the fact that the option is available from day one and remains feasable after 6 years gives the Linux proposal a decided advantage due to it's inherent flexibility. If there's a security hole in the aforementioned e-mail server application (in my previous message), and the company it was purchased from is unable and/or unwilling to fix it in a reasonable ammount of time, the City of Munich will have the option of hiring an outside company or using it's own in-house staff to fix the affected code if they go with the IBM/SuSE Linux solution. If MS is unable or unwilling to make a repair, they're almost completely screwed as their only two options are to hound MS for a speedy repair or stop using the application altogether.
I didn't mean to imply that MS is faster or slower than the open source community in providing fixes to bugs (although anecdotal evidence suggests that the open source community is quicker to respond than MS is). My actual point was that the option of having the source code available opens avenues of repair that would not be available otherwise. That advantage is clearly one that was communicated through the article as being desireable to the City of Munich.
That will end my long-winded flamebait post. Say what you will, I won't get into any more "system X is better than system Y" arguements again.