But remember (always) that patching protects you only from known, documented vulnerabilities. It does not protect you from undocumented vulnerabilities -- those which haven't been patched.
Of course, but until those vulnerabilities have been documented, they might as well not exist. One cannot ask for more than the knowledge that one's system is as secure as possible.
But wander from your desk long enough and chances are high that you'll come back to a telephone with that red voice-mail light glowing, meaning you've missed a call.
I tried to access the article on the Times site, was told to register, did so, was told to enter a "prize draw," did so (with false info), was told to pay for a subscription to the print edition, didn't do that.
Going through Lynx I managed to get to user login, and after logging in was greeted with a nearly blank page.
Anyone care to post the article, if they can even get to it?
As an OSS developer myself I have to say that it is not that I'm not willing to go all the way with a complete product it is often that the end users themselves are not willing to put in the effort to review it.
End users don't want to review products. They just want to learn the minimum necessary to use them, to get done what they need to.
Companies have teams of people that they pay to review and test products. This is the only way for them to get large amounts of feedback during development; if they just threw their unfinished product at end users and said "Here, find out what's wrong, and by the way, we won't pay you," the end users would go "Pshh, find out yourself. Then deliver it to us."
Other people being happy with your software, is just a bonus IMO.
With that attitude, how exactly is open-source software supposed to carve out a majority chunk of the desktop (or any) market? When people besides yourself being satisfied with your software is not a root goal, but a "bonus"?
46 percent of all journalists believe that within 15 years their publication will only be available online.
In that case, I hope the newspapers themselves are diligently archiving their electronic editions, hopefully in forms that would make an Orwellian rewriting of history impossible.
You hit the nail on the head. From the beginning, the Linux-on-Xbox challenge was never about functionality. It was an ideological statement against Microsoft, nothing more, nothing less. The point was to boot Linux, not to get any real software running on top of it.
It's worth nothing that to all but the most passionate anti-Microsoft and/or pro-Linux geeks, ideology isn't a good enough reason to spend $150 (or whatever the deals are at now) on an Xbox that they won't even use for its intended purpose. Nor is it logical to compare the cost of Xbox+Linux to the cost of a real computer running Windows XP, as I've seen done so many times, because a market for the use of Xbox+Linux as one's exclusive computing device simply does not exist.
Now that it has made some progress, it is more difficult for a closed-source company to compete with it.
What competition? Netscape and Opera have about the same market share as Mozilla with respect to Internet Explorer, i.e. not much at all.
It exists, and will be difficult to eliminate...
There has to be something to eliminate first. As of right now Mozilla isn't infringing on Internet Explorer's territory in any way that is either worrying Microsoft or causing a sweeping change in the way websites are designed.
I'll wait until the market shares are comparable before I think about Mozilla "competing" with anything.
Not meant as a knock against Serkis or anything, I think he did a fantastic job, but for me the definitive voice of Gollum has always been Brother Theodore from the animated films. It was rough, accented, relentless, and always carried a faint flavor of the disrepute that eventually overtook Gollum's character (under-the-surface foreshadowing, love it). By comparison I found Serkis' voice to be squeaky and just not quite as substantial, though very well-acted nevertheless.
If you're wondering who Brother Theodore is, here's his filmography. I remeber him best from The 'Burbs as the acerbic Uncle Reuben Klopek, for whom he uses nearly the same voice as he did for Gollum.
Slashdot Mirror
But remember (always) that patching protects you only from known, documented vulnerabilities. It does not protect you from undocumented vulnerabilities -- those which haven't been patched.
Of course, but until those vulnerabilities have been documented, they might as well not exist. One cannot ask for more than the knowledge that one's system is as secure as possible.
But wander from your desk long enough and chances are high that you'll come back to a telephone with that red voice-mail light glowing, meaning you've missed a call.
Sometimes that's the whole idea.
they will perform penetration testing both from inside and out
Can't get enough of that myself.
What do you consider to be a secure network?
A properly patched one, Linux or Windows.
I tried to access the article on the Times site, was told to register, did so, was told to enter a "prize draw," did so (with false info), was told to pay for a subscription to the print edition, didn't do that.
Going through Lynx I managed to get to user login, and after logging in was greeted with a nearly blank page.
Anyone care to post the article, if they can even get to it?
Linear, loop, and radial are the only ones I could find.
Damn that's impressive. I haven't discovered any myself...
If they are not willing to put in even the minimal amount of effort then they should pay for software.
And indeed that is just what most people do.
As an OSS developer myself I have to say that it is not that I'm not willing to go all the way with a complete product it is often that the end users themselves are not willing to put in the effort to review it.
End users don't want to review products. They just want to learn the minimum necessary to use them, to get done what they need to.
Companies have teams of people that they pay to review and test products. This is the only way for them to get large amounts of feedback during development; if they just threw their unfinished product at end users and said "Here, find out what's wrong, and by the way, we won't pay you," the end users would go "Pshh, find out yourself. Then deliver it to us."
Other people being happy with your software, is just a bonus IMO.
With that attitude, how exactly is open-source software supposed to carve out a majority chunk of the desktop (or any) market? When people besides yourself being satisfied with your software is not a root goal, but a "bonus"?
46 percent of all journalists believe that within 15 years their publication will only be available online.
In that case, I hope the newspapers themselves are diligently archiving their electronic editions, hopefully in forms that would make an Orwellian rewriting of history impossible.
You hit the nail on the head. From the beginning, the Linux-on-Xbox challenge was never about functionality. It was an ideological statement against Microsoft, nothing more, nothing less. The point was to boot Linux, not to get any real software running on top of it.
It's worth nothing that to all but the most passionate anti-Microsoft and/or pro-Linux geeks, ideology isn't a good enough reason to spend $150 (or whatever the deals are at now) on an Xbox that they won't even use for its intended purpose. Nor is it logical to compare the cost of Xbox+Linux to the cost of a real computer running Windows XP, as I've seen done so many times, because a market for the use of Xbox+Linux as one's exclusive computing device simply does not exist.
The lesson that complicated copy protection schemes don't work was apparently first learned in 1978.
Although, the lesson is apparently never learned, as they're still trying, aren't they?
It's nice to see that the more things change, the more they stay the same.
Indeed.
Perhaps it's just me being nostalgic, but I used to have an old HP Deskjet 500 maybe...
Nah, you're mistaken. A Deskjet isn't old enough for nostalgia.
Not even a dot matrix is.
No, it's not nostalgia until you've reached daisy wheel.
I know of a very simple way that takes just a small amount of skin-safe glow-in-the-dark paint.
"God."
Good thing the 20 computers I'm running it on aren't even mine!
Awesome. Hey, I hear a Defender port is upcoming...
Now that it has made some progress, it is more difficult for a closed-source company to compete with it.
What competition? Netscape and Opera have about the same market share as Mozilla with respect to Internet Explorer, i.e. not much at all.
It exists, and will be difficult to eliminate...
There has to be something to eliminate first. As of right now Mozilla isn't infringing on Internet Explorer's territory in any way that is either worrying Microsoft or causing a sweeping change in the way websites are designed.
I'll wait until the market shares are comparable before I think about Mozilla "competing" with anything.
If you're wondering who Brother Theodore is, here's his filmography. I remeber him best from The 'Burbs as the acerbic Uncle Reuben Klopek, for whom he uses nearly the same voice as he did for Gollum.
Now cops can search Google ultra-quickly for their criminals...
"Hey Frank! That the guy?"
"Hang on Burt, lemme do an Images search..."
I can't help but be amused that that was their first measurement standard for it.
Oh, they meant legit full-length DVD movies...
Is it easy to install?
... keeps everything as simple as possible.
* The answer to all your questions is no and that's exactly what makes Slackware so attractive.
* It
Trust me, i'm a computer engineer
;)
(Score:5, Funny)
My guess is that they don't even know that they are fighting aginst themselves. That would be typicial of a large organization.
I would agree, were it not for one simple truth:
Microsoft is not stupid.
"A long but interesting article"
;)
Ah, the true readership culture of Slashdot shows itself.