Actually you can comment on it as Symantec and others have mentioned this several times. They often comment about how it takes them 6 months to even acknowledge that the hole exists.
Second, having the browser integrated into the OS has made many non-critical holes even more critical as a result. Not opinion when every security agency tells you to dumb IE because of it's threat to your OS.
Yes, by default, all applications run as root. In XP, they tried to fix this but it causes issues with several programs so the default is STILL to run as root (or more precisely as SYSTEM which has unlimited privileges)
And I'm afraid I disagree. When your roof is leaking, a bucket is not a permanent fix. Yopu fix the roof so you don't need the bucket. Maybe in your house, you like having a whole bunch of buckets around but not me.
Responsible? Wouldn't responsible be defined as fixing critical security holes that have been open for over 2 years? Wouldn't responsible be not integrating the browser into the OS? Wouldn't responsible be not running all applications as root?
You have a wierd definition of responsible my friend. Personally, I'd find it more responsible of them to fix inherent problems with the OS. The 'band-aid' of the antivirus system is nice but by no means is it a permanent fix. Still, this is the way Microsoft will pitch it and then go right back to sitting on all those critical security holes.
Actually, that's not really doing something about security... it's a bandaid. Fixinf their OS would handle most security problems. Not integrating their products into the OS would fix the other half.
Slapping anti-virus and anti-spyware tools on top of it is just a bandaid and another excuse not to fix the inherent flaws in the OS.
Well I'm sorry about you being a neanderthal but perhaps cage life is the bet thing for you. And I'm glad that you finally admit to being a fesces throwing FUD monger. See, now don't you feel so much better?:)
Sure you aren't. If you say so there Captain Retardo. That's about as believable as your 99% stat. Got an yother stories you wish to entertain us with?
Wow. That blow to the head must have given you memory loss as well. Let us recap for the mentally challenged, shall we?
99% of the people that donate time to OSS are amateurs. Its a matter of precentages. 1% does not make the *group* a bunch of professionals.
Now's your chance to claim to be someone else and not the original poster... which obviously is yet another lie in your tapestry of fabrications. But hey, it's worked worked so well for you now, why stop?:)
Yeah right. Our money is the only thing that keeps it afloat... but of course, we are taking out loans with all of these countries in order to support our war on Iraq. But still it's the fact that we are in debt up to our eyeballs with these guys thats makes us so much better than them, right?
It looks as if one of your two brain cells slept in this morning.
So when do we get to see where that 99% stat came from? Or should we all just assume you made it up? Naturally, we already do but I just wanted to point it out yet again.:)
I understand your inability to comprehend this considering the the fact that your family tree is a straight line.
But the fact remains that in your earlier post, you asserted that 99% of open source developers were amateurs; a fake statistic which you stil refuse to backup. Since you haven't the capacity to read or just have never made the effort, I have recapped it for you. It's be nice to dumb animals day so I figured what the hell.
So indeed, you did say they were amateurs because they were open source developers. How else is that supposed to be interpretted? Did you mean that they were all cantalopes? Did you mean they were all flying butt monkeys resembling your mother?
If so then you should have said so. But in fact you didn't.
Wow this is like having an argument with a 3 year old.
You are so right. They must lack professional skill because they program open source applications. That alone proves they don't have skill. Not the fact that they may be paid for it.
Do you realize how stupid you sound or is this some kind of joke? What short bus driver put you up to this?
I'm beginning to feel bad for teasing a retarded little boy but hey, if you play with the big dogs, 99% of the time you are going to get fucked. Of course 99% of the time, people can generally back of there stats with facts. Those that can't are 99% of the time, complete liars.
Mah I take it back, this is still funny as hell. Though I believe there is a 99% chance that you were aborted and survived. But 99% brain loss is still pretty good after all you managed to figure out how to turn on your Windows machine. But then again, 99% of terminally ill patients can run Windows.
It also turns out that 99% of FUD mongers don't understand simple dictionary definitions. So here you go, let me teach you at least one thing today and hope it sinks in.
amateur n.
1. A person who engages in an art, science, study, or athletic activity as a pastime rather than as a profession.
So all one of these guys has to do is get paid at some time to code. And hence, not amateurs. This definition does not apply to the project they work on but whether they have EVER gotten paid to write code.
I'll bet there is a 99% chance that you still won't understand this. And I'll bet there is a 99% chance that you still won't be able to find that made-up stat you keep quoting.
But hey, if it weren't for people as stupid as yourself, I'd never be able to laugh this hard.:)
Or should I say that there is a 99% chance that I would never laugh this hard.:)
Whatever you say Mr 'I make up stats'. It's not my fault that you make assumptions. Besides, my point still stands that it's an open source project and you have openly admitted that they are not amateurs. Hence the contradiction. But then 99% of FUD mongers like yourself lack the intellect to detect their own contradictions.
This is mainly due to the fact that 99% of Fud mongers suffer from a form of premature retardation. This
See? It's amazing how easy it is to make up stats. 99% of people can do it.
Of course 99% of all people will call it FUD. But then 99% of FUD is a non-fat dairy substitute.
So when do we get to see where that 99% stat came from, hmmm? Which body cavity did you plummet to come up with it? Inquiring minds want to know.:)
Earth calling moron. PHP was an apache foundation project until within the last year when it was released to Zend to watch over the project. It is still released under an open source license (while the Zend engine is NOT).
And I like the way you admit that they are not amateurs and then contradict yourself yet again.
Let me know when you make up your mind or if you ever find out whose ass you are pulling this 99% stat from. I love the fact that you keep repeating it without saying where it comes from. Makes you look all the more like a Microsoft shill spreading FUD.
Do you know nothing? Apache, PHP and several other projects under the Apache foundation are ALL open source. God you are an imbecile. But then again, you are an 'anonymous coward' so I should expect as much.
Still waiting to see where that 99% comes from. Though it is ever so clear that it was made-up as FUD.
Gee ya think? Must be why I specified the Apache foundation as well because I was well aware of that. Think next time before attempting a flame. It makes you look like less of a moron:)
Nice dodge. Avoid valid points by demeaning the poster. Of course, they don't make the points less valid, just you.
And I like the point that you love to throw stats into the air but neglect to point out where you pull them from; I suspect it's your ass? Show us where 99% of the Apache Foundation are amateurs. Show me where 99% of Linux developers are amateurs. I would LOVE to see what you base these stats on.
Until then, you are still blowing hot air. Show us where you are pulling those figures from. I can easily show you a list of names of people who contribute to the Linux kernel and then look up each and every one of them and tell you their job. Anyone can. It's made openly available by the Open Source Development Labs and most often it's even listed in development docs, on blogs, wikis and several other places. And all of them have full time jobs doing what they do.
So please, indulge the rest of us who call you on your bullshit. List your sources for this 99% figure... we could all use a laugh at your expense.:)
Clueless amateurs eh? Wasn't Bill Gates an amateur when he created Basic? Wasn't the world wide web created by an amateur? While you try to debase them, they continually show up Microsoft and now Microsoft has taken to COPYING these so called 'clueless amateurs'.
Aside from that, these so called clueless amateurs as you call them are actually professionals who do this in the spare time or are being sponsored by corporations to generate open source code.
So I have yet to see how these people are either clueless or amateurs. But I do see how you yourself fit that mold for so blindly denegrating others without factual basis to backup up your clueless theories.
Well you neglect to see the point that open source applications (especially popular ones) has 10x the number of eyeballs on the code that Microsoft has. Microsoft can only have it's developers looking at their code and then only developers who are ASSIGNED to work on the code.
In an open source application, EVERYONE can be looking at the source code (and alot do). So effectively, it can easily be argued that Linux has more people working on securing it than Microsoft at any given time.
I think that's the point that the original author was trying to make.
George Ou tends to constantly rag on Open Source projects and always slants his articles in a pro-Microsoft way. I tend to take everything he says with a pilar of salt.
I have yet to see him say anything POSITIVE about open source in an article so I find him constantly suspect.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually you can comment on it as Symantec and others have mentioned this several times. They often comment about how it takes them 6 months to even acknowledge that the hole exists.
Second, having the browser integrated into the OS has made many non-critical holes even more critical as a result. Not opinion when every security agency tells you to dumb IE because of it's threat to your OS.
Yes, by default, all applications run as root. In XP, they tried to fix this but it causes issues with several programs so the default is STILL to run as root (or more precisely as SYSTEM which has unlimited privileges)
And I'm afraid I disagree. When your roof is leaking, a bucket is not a permanent fix. Yopu fix the roof so you don't need the bucket. Maybe in your house, you like having a whole bunch of buckets around but not me.
I say if it's broke, fix it.
Responsible? Wouldn't responsible be defined as fixing critical security holes that have been open for over 2 years? Wouldn't responsible be not integrating the browser into the OS? Wouldn't responsible be not running all applications as root?
You have a wierd definition of responsible my friend. Personally, I'd find it more responsible of them to fix inherent problems with the OS. The 'band-aid' of the antivirus system is nice but by no means is it a permanent fix. Still, this is the way Microsoft will pitch it and then go right back to sitting on all those critical security holes.
Actually, that's not really doing something about security... it's a bandaid. Fixinf their OS would handle most security problems. Not integrating their products into the OS would fix the other half.
Slapping anti-virus and anti-spyware tools on top of it is just a bandaid and another excuse not to fix the inherent flaws in the OS.
Well I'm sorry about you being a neanderthal but perhaps cage life is the bet thing for you. And I'm glad that you finally admit to being a fesces throwing FUD monger. See, now don't you feel so much better? :)
Sure you aren't. If you say so there Captain Retardo. That's about as believable as your 99% stat. Got an yother stories you wish to entertain us with?
Now's your chance to claim to be someone else and not the original poster... which obviously is yet another lie in your tapestry of fabrications. But hey, it's worked worked so well for you now, why stop?
Yeah right. Our money is the only thing that keeps it afloat... but of course, we are taking out loans with all of these countries in order to support our war on Iraq. But still it's the fact that we are in debt up to our eyeballs with these guys thats makes us so much better than them, right?
It looks as if one of your two brain cells slept in this morning.
So when do we get to see where that 99% stat came from? Or should we all just assume you made it up? Naturally, we already do but I just wanted to point it out yet again. :)
I understand your inability to comprehend this considering the the fact that your family tree is a straight line.
But the fact remains that in your earlier post, you asserted that 99% of open source developers were amateurs; a fake statistic which you stil refuse to backup. Since you haven't the capacity to read or just have never made the effort, I have recapped it for you. It's be nice to dumb animals day so I figured what the hell.
So indeed, you did say they were amateurs because they were open source developers. How else is that supposed to be interpretted? Did you mean that they were all cantalopes? Did you mean they were all flying butt monkeys resembling your mother?
If so then you should have said so. But in fact you didn't.
So tell us, did the labotomy hurt much?
Wow this is like having an argument with a 3 year old.
:)
You are so right. They must lack professional skill because they program open source applications. That alone proves they don't have skill. Not the fact that they may be paid for it.
Do you realize how stupid you sound or is this some kind of joke? What short bus driver put you up to this?
I'm beginning to feel bad for teasing a retarded little boy but hey, if you play with the big dogs, 99% of the time you are going to get fucked. Of course 99% of the time, people can generally back of there stats with facts. Those that can't are 99% of the time, complete liars.
Mah I take it back, this is still funny as hell. Though I believe there is a 99% chance that you were aborted and survived. But 99% brain loss is still pretty good after all you managed to figure out how to turn on your Windows machine. But then again, 99% of terminally ill patients can run Windows.
LOL. Go home little boy.
It also turns out that 99% of FUD mongers don't understand simple dictionary definitions. So here you go, let me teach you at least one thing today and hope it sinks in.
:)
:)
amateur n.
1. A person who engages in an art, science, study, or athletic activity as a pastime rather than as a profession.
So all one of these guys has to do is get paid at some time to code. And hence, not amateurs. This definition does not apply to the project they work on but whether they have EVER gotten paid to write code.
I'll bet there is a 99% chance that you still won't understand this. And I'll bet there is a 99% chance that you still won't be able to find that made-up stat you keep quoting.
But hey, if it weren't for people as stupid as yourself, I'd never be able to laugh this hard.
Or should I say that there is a 99% chance that I would never laugh this hard.
Still waiting on where you found that 99% stat? Methinks the lady doth FUD too much.
Whatever you say Mr 'I make up stats'. It's not my fault that you make assumptions. Besides, my point still stands that it's an open source project and you have openly admitted that they are not amateurs. Hence the contradiction. But then 99% of FUD mongers like yourself lack the intellect to detect their own contradictions.
:)
This is mainly due to the fact that 99% of Fud mongers suffer from a form of premature retardation. This
See? It's amazing how easy it is to make up stats. 99% of people can do it.
Of course 99% of all people will call it FUD. But then 99% of FUD is a non-fat dairy substitute.
So when do we get to see where that 99% stat came from, hmmm? Which body cavity did you plummet to come up with it? Inquiring minds want to know.
Earth calling moron. PHP was an apache foundation project until within the last year when it was released to Zend to watch over the project. It is still released under an open source license (while the Zend engine is NOT).
And I like the way you admit that they are not amateurs and then contradict yourself yet again.
Let me know when you make up your mind or if you ever find out whose ass you are pulling this 99% stat from. I love the fact that you keep repeating it without saying where it comes from. Makes you look all the more like a Microsoft shill spreading FUD.
Being funny while asking it to be modded up :)
:)
Parent had a good point but I doubt the Microsoft hounds that circle around Slashdot would have found it interesting.
mod parent up... inciteful
Do you know nothing? Apache, PHP and several other projects under the Apache foundation are ALL open source. God you are an imbecile. But then again, you are an 'anonymous coward' so I should expect as much.
Still waiting to see where that 99% comes from. Though it is ever so clear that it was made-up as FUD.
Gee ya think? Must be why I specified the Apache foundation as well because I was well aware of that. Think next time before attempting a flame. It makes you look like less of a moron :)
Nice dodge. Avoid valid points by demeaning the poster. Of course, they don't make the points less valid, just you.
:)
And I like the point that you love to throw stats into the air but neglect to point out where you pull them from; I suspect it's your ass? Show us where 99% of the Apache Foundation are amateurs. Show me where 99% of Linux developers are amateurs. I would LOVE to see what you base these stats on.
Until then, you are still blowing hot air. Show us where you are pulling those figures from. I can easily show you a list of names of people who contribute to the Linux kernel and then look up each and every one of them and tell you their job. Anyone can. It's made openly available by the Open Source Development Labs and most often it's even listed in development docs, on blogs, wikis and several other places. And all of them have full time jobs doing what they do.
So please, indulge the rest of us who call you on your bullshit. List your sources for this 99% figure... we could all use a laugh at your expense.
Clueless amateurs eh? Wasn't Bill Gates an amateur when he created Basic? Wasn't the world wide web created by an amateur? While you try to debase them, they continually show up Microsoft and now Microsoft has taken to COPYING these so called 'clueless amateurs'.
Aside from that, these so called clueless amateurs as you call them are actually professionals who do this in the spare time or are being sponsored by corporations to generate open source code.
So I have yet to see how these people are either clueless or amateurs. But I do see how you yourself fit that mold for so blindly denegrating others without factual basis to backup up your clueless theories.
mod parent up
Well you neglect to see the point that open source applications (especially popular ones) has 10x the number of eyeballs on the code that Microsoft has. Microsoft can only have it's developers looking at their code and then only developers who are ASSIGNED to work on the code.
In an open source application, EVERYONE can be looking at the source code (and alot do). So effectively, it can easily be argued that Linux has more people working on securing it than Microsoft at any given time.
I think that's the point that the original author was trying to make.
Well my Fedora desktop has a flying pig screensaver. So I guess you're right :)
Indeed but most Microsoft zealots are. Open standards and open source threaten their monopoly.
George Ou tends to constantly rag on Open Source projects and always slants his articles in a pro-Microsoft way. I tend to take everything he says with a pilar of salt.
I have yet to see him say anything POSITIVE about open source in an article so I find him constantly suspect.