And because they know that, they'll settle out of court before the case is even into court.
Well the last 2 fines by the EU has them reeling. They don't like having to pay $1 BILLION a year when they are trying to settle so many other lawsuits at the same time. And considering that this could be a class action by ALL Linux distros, this could force a major conclusion to the Microsoft monopoly. Separately, none of the distros has the time to fight Microsoft. With IBM, Novell, Redhat, Suse, Linspire, and others, this may mean the 800 lb gorilla has to fight a pack of wild dogs and no matter what happens, Microsoft is going to lose a hefty amount of flesh.
HAHA!
Seriously though, this was done while they were still under the antitrust agreement with the Justice Dept. This is in direct violation and if the court shows this, I'd suspect IBM, Redhat, Novell and others to go after Microsoft; worst case, it could be a class action on behalf of all businesses and Linux distros. This coupled with their shaky OS launch should make for an interesting 2007 for Microsoft.
It's usually more like "Hi I'm certified in this and that and this and that and this and have 6 months experience" vs "Hi, I've worked in the idustry for the last 8 yrs doing exactly what you are doing". These are the resumes I tend to see and the poin I was making. If you have to have a piece of paper saying you know something, you probably don't know it that well. It's the difference between spending 8 years to get that PHD and 8 years in the industry; that piece of paper from your college sure is nice but without working industry experience, it's worthless.
The only people I know who get certified are those who feel they need something to prove they can walk the walk. This usually comes out when you ask then to talk the talk. Mainly a certification only helps those who need help; those who know what they are talking about and know what they are doing rarely get certification and generally don't need them.
At least this is from all the interviews I have been in. It's usually experience that is the big qualifier and not certifications.
In which case, you don't even NEED to upgrade to VISTA, In fact, you don't even need to be on XP and could still be on 2000. This was an article for companies that ARE upgrading. If you are upgrading when you don't even need to and your needs are so minimal, you are just throwing money away at features you will never use.
The monitor DRM also will not play 'PLAYS FOR SURE' files and WMV files without said monitor. This is from statements released by Microsoft on several occasions. Also, they have stated that alot of software will have issues and have encouraged software development companies to release new versions for VISTA. So not only will you need more RAM, a better video card and new monitor, you will also require all new software.
The average user will be forced to buy a new computer, companies can opt out but in the long run due to presentations, media files on network share and other reasons, will eventually have to pay these prices as well. And that was the writers original statement... that these are the eventual costs for each user, not IMMEDIATE costs.
I didn't need to upgrade my monitor with XP or 2000. If fact no hardware changes were really required at all with the exception being additional RAM. VISTA actually requires you to upgrade several hardware components to the point that you would have to just buy a whole new computer.
Well duh. But their entire paychecks don't go to supporting those other projects nor does 100% of their time. The costs are less but you do have to pay for a fulltime person.
Exactly. That's precisely the point I was trying to make. If you need accountability, that's what you are getting with that high price tage. And even then, you don't have to have THAT high of a price tag and the support contract pricing varies on your companies needs. I've seen some companies just default to purchasing support on everything without even thinking as to whether they NEED it on that product or not. Some applications/frameworks/systems you may need it and on others you may not. And when your company evaluates something and decides they DO need it, you then have to evaluate the type of support contract you wish to purchase.
I'm honestly suprised that this question even comes up because any IT dept should know how to evaluate software, products and support before even getting to the point where they need to purchase $30,000 support contracts.
We run Jboss, Tomcat, Apache, MySQL, Asterisk, etc. Do we pay for support? Hell no. We have a knowledgable and competent staff.
You only need to pay for support and commercial products if you DON"T have a knowledgable and competent staff. You are basically paying someone else to be that staff. That's why you are paying the high price. That and the re-assurance that someone is responsible for the product you are paying for so that you have someone to bitch and whine to when it breaks. With an unsupported open source product, you are the only person responsible for maintaining everything.
These are the reasons why you pay the high price. But you always have the option NOT to pay and just support it yourself. Plus you are comparing HIGH END support contracts and their are low end support contracts that are a LOT less. It all depends on what you want.
Don't need one moron. If you can read, (which I sincerely doubt) you'd discover others saying precisely what I was eluding to. But since you tech experience seems limited to your Xbox, I just let you continue to dig your own hole deeper and deeper.:)
I think everyone else summed up your stupidity better than I. Man I love days like this on Slashdot when trolls make themselves look like special olympic rejects. Good luck with that high jump, moron.
It's the way the system runs (unless you are running as root all the time). But since you are running Ubuntu, there is no root (effectively). Basically, apps on Linux run as a user (usually named after the app itself). That user level only is able to changes it's own files and does not have privilege levels to be able to access anything else (unless given permission). In effect, it is sandboxed.
On a Windows system, ALL apps have root access and can directly overwrite system files. This is why the a Windows box can be exploited through the applications such as Word, Excel, IE, etc.
It's not hardware. it's software. Software uses hardware but hardware can't do anything without the software. Hardware is useless without software and software can code around the limitations of hardware in alot of cases. So yes, when Windows was created, hardware was NOT a limitation because these problems had long ago been solved.
So are you saying this is an issue with the processors gates? I'm assuming you are going this route. Though because you made such an outlandish statement, I can only guess.
LOL. I'm dying to hear the reason for this so I can laugh my ass off. Please, enlighten us o guru of hardware. Please tell us why hardware that existed on other systems limited the softwares ability to secure the Windows OS. Please tell me why hardware limitations limited software applications ability to secure themselves. I'm sitting by with laugh track handy.
UNIX and the UNIX variants all had similar structures and similar ways of handling security and they were considered the standard. And regardless of whther you could do it now, you could do it then at the inception of Windows. And as stated, it would require a rewrite of Windows in order to get in line with these security methodlogies (which is what they are attempting with VISTA).
So while they had the ability and arguably, the knowledge to implement these methodologies, they chose to ignore and deviate. As such, Windows (and their users) has always paid the price for this decision to which Microsoft has continually tried to create patch after patch and workaround after workaround without actually addressing the underlying issue that their methodlogy for handling security is broken.
Now though they are finally addressing this... too little too late IMHO. And even with the features that VISTA implements, it still won't be secure until secure enough to compete with Linux until at LEAST the next rewrite.
Well the funny thing is that alot of these security concepts existed prior to Microsoft in the UNIX operating system but Microsoft either decided to deviate from a standard or was ignorant of it. In both cases, they created their own problem and have never chosen to fix it. Maybe Vista is a step towards fixing this but they still have a LONG way to go.
Actually, in Windows, all applications have access to SYSTEM which would be the equivalent of running all apps as ROOT in Linux. Regardless of whether you run the app under a user account in Windows, the app still has direct access to SYSTEM and thus can do whatever the hell it wants; this has been shown time and time again through a variety of applications and is becoming the mode of operation for hackers everywhere now.
On Linux, this is not the case. Gaining access to the system via an application only gives you that users access and unlike Windows, most users do not run as ROOT by default. These little things that Linux does better do add up and overall, provide a more secure system regardless of whether people are targetting it or not. And considering Linux's market share on the server, using your logic, it should be just as hackable if not more... but it isn't. This is because it is more secure by default and has better security mechanism and engineering in place to allow for better security.
You keep spouting this nonsense, despite many people already correcting you.
Many people being you alone? Well I'm sure in your mind you count as many people (which is a condition which CAN be medicated by the way) but all I'm seeing are the mod points of the many others who have brains and use them more often than you.
Your comment is so wrong on so many levels, it's difficult to know where to start correcting you. Let's start here, though: Do you ever enter secret information like user ids and passwords using your browser? Do you do any banking or investing online?
Yes and oh god no.
How good does your sandbox sound now?
Still pretty damn good. Because while hacking the browser may get you limited access to my Linux box, it gives me UNLIMITEd access to your Windows box. Most applications on Windows (if not all) run with SYTEM access which is even higher than ROOT. They can do anything they want to your system. Sandboxed applications can only do what that user privilege level allows them. Unless youy are a moron and run as ROOT, sandboxed privileges are a nice way to limit damage. But I think you are trying to point out that they are not the end all be all of securitry... nor should they be. But they are a very large ingredient to keeping your system safe.
the "you're sandboxed" argument is nothing but poorly thought out rationalization when it comes to a comporomized browser
Actually it was a 'I'm sandboxed' rationale if you want to be that anal and browser security can only take into consideration threats on the client side; sandboxing your apps is step one of many. But in this case since it can comprimise a Windows system entirely and give ROOT access, I'd say sandboxing your app would have prevented this. Remember, keep the arguiment in context to the original discussion and you'll always sound like you know something about what you're talking about.
Slashdot Mirror
HAHA! Seriously though, this was done while they were still under the antitrust agreement with the Justice Dept. This is in direct violation and if the court shows this, I'd suspect IBM, Redhat, Novell and others to go after Microsoft; worst case, it could be a class action on behalf of all businesses and Linux distros. This coupled with their shaky OS launch should make for an interesting 2007 for Microsoft.
Raised the bar off the floor is how that sentenced goes I believe.
It's usually more like "Hi I'm certified in this and that and this and that and this and have 6 months experience" vs "Hi, I've worked in the idustry for the last 8 yrs doing exactly what you are doing". These are the resumes I tend to see and the poin I was making. If you have to have a piece of paper saying you know something, you probably don't know it that well. It's the difference between spending 8 years to get that PHD and 8 years in the industry; that piece of paper from your college sure is nice but without working industry experience, it's worthless.
The only people I know who get certified are those who feel they need something to prove they can walk the walk. This usually comes out when you ask then to talk the talk. Mainly a certification only helps those who need help; those who know what they are talking about and know what they are doing rarely get certification and generally don't need them. At least this is from all the interviews I have been in. It's usually experience that is the big qualifier and not certifications.
In which case, you don't even NEED to upgrade to VISTA, In fact, you don't even need to be on XP and could still be on 2000. This was an article for companies that ARE upgrading. If you are upgrading when you don't even need to and your needs are so minimal, you are just throwing money away at features you will never use.
The monitor DRM also will not play 'PLAYS FOR SURE' files and WMV files without said monitor. This is from statements released by Microsoft on several occasions. Also, they have stated that alot of software will have issues and have encouraged software development companies to release new versions for VISTA. So not only will you need more RAM, a better video card and new monitor, you will also require all new software. The average user will be forced to buy a new computer, companies can opt out but in the long run due to presentations, media files on network share and other reasons, will eventually have to pay these prices as well. And that was the writers original statement... that these are the eventual costs for each user, not IMMEDIATE costs.
I didn't need to upgrade my monitor with XP or 2000. If fact no hardware changes were really required at all with the exception being additional RAM. VISTA actually requires you to upgrade several hardware components to the point that you would have to just buy a whole new computer.
Well duh. But their entire paychecks don't go to supporting those other projects nor does 100% of their time. The costs are less but you do have to pay for a fulltime person.
Exactly. That's precisely the point I was trying to make. If you need accountability, that's what you are getting with that high price tage. And even then, you don't have to have THAT high of a price tag and the support contract pricing varies on your companies needs. I've seen some companies just default to purchasing support on everything without even thinking as to whether they NEED it on that product or not. Some applications/frameworks/systems you may need it and on others you may not. And when your company evaluates something and decides they DO need it, you then have to evaluate the type of support contract you wish to purchase. I'm honestly suprised that this question even comes up because any IT dept should know how to evaluate software, products and support before even getting to the point where they need to purchase $30,000 support contracts.
We run Jboss, Tomcat, Apache, MySQL, Asterisk, etc. Do we pay for support? Hell no. We have a knowledgable and competent staff. You only need to pay for support and commercial products if you DON"T have a knowledgable and competent staff. You are basically paying someone else to be that staff. That's why you are paying the high price. That and the re-assurance that someone is responsible for the product you are paying for so that you have someone to bitch and whine to when it breaks. With an unsupported open source product, you are the only person responsible for maintaining everything. These are the reasons why you pay the high price. But you always have the option NOT to pay and just support it yourself. Plus you are comparing HIGH END support contracts and their are low end support contracts that are a LOT less. It all depends on what you want.
MOD PARENT UP. I nearly puked I laughed so hard.
Let the speculation about whether this was FUD funded by our favorite Redmond-ians begin
Pray to your god all you want but it won't make you evolve any faster. I'm amazed that the zoo lets monkeys like you have keyboards.
Don't need one moron. If you can read, (which I sincerely doubt) you'd discover others saying precisely what I was eluding to. But since you tech experience seems limited to your Xbox, I just let you continue to dig your own hole deeper and deeper. :)
I think everyone else summed up your stupidity better than I. Man I love days like this on Slashdot when trolls make themselves look like special olympic rejects. Good luck with that high jump, moron.
It's the way the system runs (unless you are running as root all the time). But since you are running Ubuntu, there is no root (effectively). Basically, apps on Linux run as a user (usually named after the app itself). That user level only is able to changes it's own files and does not have privilege levels to be able to access anything else (unless given permission). In effect, it is sandboxed.
On a Windows system, ALL apps have root access and can directly overwrite system files. This is why the a Windows box can be exploited through the applications such as Word, Excel, IE, etc.
It's not hardware. it's software. Software uses hardware but hardware can't do anything without the software. Hardware is useless without software and software can code around the limitations of hardware in alot of cases. So yes, when Windows was created, hardware was NOT a limitation because these problems had long ago been solved.
So are you saying this is an issue with the processors gates? I'm assuming you are going this route. Though because you made such an outlandish statement, I can only guess.
LOL. I'm dying to hear the reason for this so I can laugh my ass off. Please, enlighten us o guru of hardware. Please tell us why hardware that existed on other systems limited the softwares ability to secure the Windows OS. Please tell me why hardware limitations limited software applications ability to secure themselves. I'm sitting by with laugh track handy.
UNIX and the UNIX variants all had similar structures and similar ways of handling security and they were considered the standard. And regardless of whther you could do it now, you could do it then at the inception of Windows. And as stated, it would require a rewrite of Windows in order to get in line with these security methodlogies (which is what they are attempting with VISTA).
... too little too late IMHO. And even with the features that VISTA implements, it still won't be secure until secure enough to compete with Linux until at LEAST the next rewrite.
So while they had the ability and arguably, the knowledge to implement these methodologies, they chose to ignore and deviate. As such, Windows (and their users) has always paid the price for this decision to which Microsoft has continually tried to create patch after patch and workaround after workaround without actually addressing the underlying issue that their methodlogy for handling security is broken.
Now though they are finally addressing this
Well the funny thing is that alot of these security concepts existed prior to Microsoft in the UNIX operating system but Microsoft either decided to deviate from a standard or was ignorant of it. In both cases, they created their own problem and have never chosen to fix it. Maybe Vista is a step towards fixing this but they still have a LONG way to go.
Actually, in Windows, all applications have access to SYSTEM which would be the equivalent of running all apps as ROOT in Linux. Regardless of whether you run the app under a user account in Windows, the app still has direct access to SYSTEM and thus can do whatever the hell it wants; this has been shown time and time again through a variety of applications and is becoming the mode of operation for hackers everywhere now.
On Linux, this is not the case. Gaining access to the system via an application only gives you that users access and unlike Windows, most users do not run as ROOT by default. These little things that Linux does better do add up and overall, provide a more secure system regardless of whether people are targetting it or not. And considering Linux's market share on the server, using your logic, it should be just as hackable if not more... but it isn't. This is because it is more secure by default and has better security mechanism and engineering in place to allow for better security.
Many people being you alone? Well I'm sure in your mind you count as many people (which is a condition which CAN be medicated by the way) but all I'm seeing are the mod points of the many others who have brains and use them more often than you.
Yes and oh god no.
Still pretty damn good. Because while hacking the browser may get you limited access to my Linux box, it gives me UNLIMITEd access to your Windows box. Most applications on Windows (if not all) run with SYTEM access which is even higher than ROOT. They can do anything they want to your system. Sandboxed applications can only do what that user privilege level allows them. Unless youy are a moron and run as ROOT, sandboxed privileges are a nice way to limit damage. But I think you are trying to point out that they are not the end all be all of securitry... nor should they be. But they are a very large ingredient to keeping your system safe.
Actually it was a 'I'm sandboxed' rationale if you want to be that anal and browser security can only take into consideration threats on the client side; sandboxing your apps is step one of many. But in this case since it can comprimise a Windows system entirely and give ROOT access, I'd say sandboxing your app would have prevented this. Remember, keep the arguiment in context to the original discussion and you'll always sound like you know something about what you're talking about.