think about what you're saying. Whether something is effective or not is clearly not an issue; GP isn't currently buying blueray/hd, despite what is also ineffective DRM.
I know this has been mentioned before a million times, but...have dvd sales really been hurt that bad by the encryption for dvd being broken years ago? Those that will rip, will find a way to rip. The rest will buy the blueray/hd dvds.
Unless the industry is wanting to try a dramatic price hike, which would cause those on and near the fence to rip too...?
I use both ethereal and nmap multiple times a week to help debug problems. I also use lots of trace programs for the same thing. I'm not checking for security, nor trying to hack myself...I'm trying to debug a problem. Yet, the tools are the same.
they do not have the developers necessary to fork everything that will be GPL3.
Think about what you're saying. SuSE is going to have a team dedicated to their fork of GCC? Glibc? emacs? binutils? Ah hell, why am I individually listing the hundreds of gnu packages in use that will very quickly be shifted to GPL3?
Not going to happen, and SuSE would die very, very quickly if they had a product freeze for more than just a couple weeks.
absolutely every software patent that Fry's has that they have offered indemnifications for if someone buys a particular product that is GPL3 and is integrated with their product will, if they choose to sell it, be subject to the same patent weakening. Yes.
You're not really looking at the whole picture, if you're going to make a comparison like that. Take a couple steps back.
MS is giving away a coupon for a specific item. By so doing, they are involved in the distribution of that item. If MS gives out the coupons after the point that Novell is distributing GPL3 software, there is more than a reasonable expectation said coupon will be used for GPL3 software, which involves MS in the purveyance of said GPL3 software, which means MS is sanctioning it.
If instead MS gives the coupons to people prior to GPL3 software within SuSE, and then people use the coupons after the GPL3 software is there, it becomes less clear-cut...but could still be argued as a sanctioning.
The issue at hand is that MS has indemnified coupon-bearers, and the coupons have no expiration. They cannot, per the GPL3, indemnify only one person....and here we are.
MS (effectively) bought a bunch of coupons for SuSE. MS is who will be handing out those coupons.
So either MS just shrugs its shoulders, and counts the money they paid to Novell as a loss (meaning - they don't give away the coupons), or they somehow give away all the coupons before anything in SuSE uses GPL3 (which is the only way what you're saying would matter), or..., and the point of the GP, MS uses the coupons realistically, and by so doing sanctions the GPL3 as it is Microsoft giving out the coupons, not Novell.
Incompetently because the report writer doesn't appear to have a clue why the attacks in that province are decreasing which tends to suggest that the administration has no clear idea what is actually driving the attacks or why they're happening.
"the report writer" != "the administration."
"the report writer" is not a higher up, they just gather data, and make suggestions. The higher-ups then read the reports from all the sources they have - not just the reports from this one writer, but from others as well - and try to make an accurate picture of what is going on.
What makes you think "the report writer" should know all "the administration" knows about what is happening?
"Motif is a widget toolkit for building graphical user interfaces under the X Window System on Unix and other POSIX-compliant systems. It emerged in the 1980s as Unix workstations were on the rise, as a competitor to the OPEN LOOK GUI."
Windows 3.0 came out in 1990. According to the way I use the calendar, the 1980's were prior to 1990.;)
I'm waiting for your point here. I state that the OSs have differences in how they view security, and that, more than number of installs, is why it is hacked. You then make some odd, unreleated statement about apache httpd, and say my claim is wrong. Now you're splitting hairs about apache, when ya know...I've been around long enough such that I still call the damn thing apache. Sorry. I call Tomcat Tomcat as well, not the Apache Tomcat partial java servelet engine, or whatever.
So I suppose my question ends up being...were you going to get around to making a point? And if so, what exactly was that point you were gona make? Are you trying to suggest that Windows is designed with the same amount of security in mind that Linux is? Because if you are, you're wrong.
Usability has always been at odds with security. Doesn't have to be, but for $X amount of money spent coding, the balance is important. Windows went with the usability option. Does that make them inferior? No, just means the approach was different. Happens that people value usability FAAAR more highly than they value security. Security is starting to come on the average-joe's radar now, but that's a very recent development.
I just find the argument that Windows is hacked far far more often per-install than Linux because it is a more tempting target to be absurd, and not based in any sort of logic at all.
I challenge you to write something that will install itself as part of my average web surfing, daily computer use experience, and will then change how other layers operate.
Unless you're saying you use your debian box logged in as root to surf and do work?
maybe you're not aware of this, so I'll let you know. apache isn't an operating system - it's a web server. In fact, it's a web server that will run on almost all the operating systems out there. Linux, Solaris, Windows, OS/X, HPUX...on and on.
and yet, people still believe this crap - that MS is only hit far more often per install because it's a more tempting target due to numbers alone, not lack of security as part of the design process.
and if all you're doing is bragging about the size of it, I really don't care. Unless you're doing something with it, it isn't a security threat to my non-windows boxes now is it.
the "unless" is cyclical, then. You're saying people go after windows instead of *nix because they want mass trauma unless it's of something of high importance...which is the *nix you were saying they don't go after in the first place.
no offense taken, I've just heard that silly argument for 10 years now, and it has been proven wrong for just as long. Plenty of attempts are made against *nix boxes, there just simply aren't as many successes.
"Once it's more of a target, you'll see a gain in attacks." you don't still believe that, do you?
After all, a suicide bomber doesn't waste his time blowing up a single person unless they're of high importance.
A vast majority of the systems of "high importance" are *nix boxes. Do you really think the PCs owned by soccer moms across the country have more important data on them than bank servers,.mil servers, or the bulk of non-fluff on the net?
One doesn't need to be "stupid" to get a virus in Windows. One merely needs to install a recent copy of the OS, and connect it to the internet. If they're NAT'd, then fine - they merely need to go to a few web pages, or watch a movie. Nothing stupid about any of that.
If you don't think so... (which I don't)...consider the fact that any tech company that becomes successful enough to show up on the radar immediately gets attacked and ends up spending more on the resource sinkhole of lawyers than they spend on R&D for improving their products.
Like IBM? Oracle? Google? EA? Symantek? CDC? And now that I'm using google to do a search...here's a list (hey, I got a few of the big ones, that was hard).
examples? Please filter out all examples from when the customers knew specifically what patents were being violated, and how, yet bought the product anyway. Suing the customer in that scenario is defined under civil law.
That's the crux of this, really - because of the lawsuit-happy world we live in, people have gotten the idea that you can actually sue anyone for anything; you can't. You have to cite what civil law was violated, how it was violated, when it was violated, etc.
So yeah - give me an example that remotely compares to this situation. If examples exist, I sincerely would love to see them. Up to now, all I've done is read the Federal Rules for Civil Procedure, and done research. I am certainly not a lawyer, but I'm also not subscribing to the Great FUD Machine. Seems like the fear of FUD is stronger than the FUD itself these days on/.
Slashdot Mirror
think about what you're saying. Whether something is effective or not is clearly not an issue; GP isn't currently buying blueray/hd, despite what is also ineffective DRM.
eh, not really. You buy (I'd wager) dvds, and those have DRM.
Aside from the bad PR they get from displaying their greed, the only thing actually preventing sales is the format war itself.
I know this has been mentioned before a million times, but...have dvd sales really been hurt that bad by the encryption for dvd being broken years ago? Those that will rip, will find a way to rip. The rest will buy the blueray/hd dvds.
Unless the industry is wanting to try a dramatic price hike, which would cause those on and near the fence to rip too...?
I use both ethereal and nmap multiple times a week to help debug problems. I also use lots of trace programs for the same thing. I'm not checking for security, nor trying to hack myself...I'm trying to debug a problem. Yet, the tools are the same.
um, did you RTFM? just update portage, and relink to the new profile once you're confident you're ready to make the switch.
If I was a mod today (you just missed it...) I'd give you as much "informative" as I could. It's the thought that counts, right?
/.
Oh well, someone talking about mothers and basements will get all the "informatives" instead, probably. c'est la
they do not have the developers necessary to fork everything that will be GPL3.
Think about what you're saying. SuSE is going to have a team dedicated to their fork of GCC? Glibc? emacs? binutils? Ah hell, why am I individually listing the hundreds of gnu packages in use that will very quickly be shifted to GPL3?
Not going to happen, and SuSE would die very, very quickly if they had a product freeze for more than just a couple weeks.
absolutely every software patent that Fry's has that they have offered indemnifications for if someone buys a particular product that is GPL3 and is integrated with their product will, if they choose to sell it, be subject to the same patent weakening. Yes.
You're not really looking at the whole picture, if you're going to make a comparison like that. Take a couple steps back.
MS is giving away a coupon for a specific item. By so doing, they are involved in the distribution of that item. If MS gives out the coupons after the point that Novell is distributing GPL3 software, there is more than a reasonable expectation said coupon will be used for GPL3 software, which involves MS in the purveyance of said GPL3 software, which means MS is sanctioning it.
If instead MS gives the coupons to people prior to GPL3 software within SuSE, and then people use the coupons after the GPL3 software is there, it becomes less clear-cut...but could still be argued as a sanctioning.
The issue at hand is that MS has indemnified coupon-bearers, and the coupons have no expiration. They cannot, per the GPL3, indemnify only one person....and here we are.
you're missing the point.
MS (effectively) bought a bunch of coupons for SuSE. MS is who will be handing out those coupons.
So either MS just shrugs its shoulders, and counts the money they paid to Novell as a loss (meaning - they don't give away the coupons), or they somehow give away all the coupons before anything in SuSE uses GPL3 (which is the only way what you're saying would matter), or..., and the point of the GP, MS uses the coupons realistically, and by so doing sanctions the GPL3 as it is Microsoft giving out the coupons, not Novell.
Incompetently because the report writer doesn't appear to have a clue why the attacks in that province are decreasing which tends to suggest that the administration has no clear idea what is actually driving the attacks or why they're happening.
"the report writer" != "the administration."
"the report writer" is not a higher up, they just gather data, and make suggestions. The higher-ups then read the reports from all the sources they have - not just the reports from this one writer, but from others as well - and try to make an accurate picture of what is going on.
What makes you think "the report writer" should know all "the administration" knows about what is happening?
From that link you provided:
;)
"Motif is a widget toolkit for building graphical user interfaces under the X Window System on Unix and other POSIX-compliant systems. It emerged in the 1980s as Unix workstations were on the rise, as a competitor to the OPEN LOOK GUI."
Windows 3.0 came out in 1990. According to the way I use the calendar, the 1980's were prior to 1990.
I'm waiting for your point here. I state that the OSs have differences in how they view security, and that, more than number of installs, is why it is hacked. You then make some odd, unreleated statement about apache httpd, and say my claim is wrong. Now you're splitting hairs about apache, when ya know...I've been around long enough such that I still call the damn thing apache. Sorry. I call Tomcat Tomcat as well, not the Apache Tomcat partial java servelet engine, or whatever.
So I suppose my question ends up being...were you going to get around to making a point? And if so, what exactly was that point you were gona make? Are you trying to suggest that Windows is designed with the same amount of security in mind that Linux is? Because if you are, you're wrong.
Usability has always been at odds with security. Doesn't have to be, but for $X amount of money spent coding, the balance is important. Windows went with the usability option. Does that make them inferior? No, just means the approach was different. Happens that people value usability FAAAR more highly than they value security. Security is starting to come on the average-joe's radar now, but that's a very recent development.
I just find the argument that Windows is hacked far far more often per-install than Linux because it is a more tempting target to be absurd, and not based in any sort of logic at all.
I challenge you to write something that will install itself as part of my average web surfing, daily computer use experience, and will then change how other layers operate.
Unless you're saying you use your debian box logged in as root to surf and do work?
maybe you're not aware of this, so I'll let you know. apache isn't an operating system - it's a web server. In fact, it's a web server that will run on almost all the operating systems out there. Linux, Solaris, Windows, OS/X, HPUX...on and on.
Just letting you know to be helpful.
and yet, people still believe this crap - that MS is only hit far more often per install because it's a more tempting target due to numbers alone, not lack of security as part of the design process.
Eh. What can ya do.
and if all you're doing is bragging about the size of it, I really don't care. Unless you're doing something with it, it isn't a security threat to my non-windows boxes now is it.
don't be absurd; IBM has prior art on doing that to SCO.
and botnets are just a tool, a means, not an end.
the "unless" is cyclical, then. You're saying people go after windows instead of *nix because they want mass trauma unless it's of something of high importance...which is the *nix you were saying they don't go after in the first place.
no offense taken, I've just heard that silly argument for 10 years now, and it has been proven wrong for just as long. Plenty of attempts are made against *nix boxes, there just simply aren't as many successes.
"Once it's more of a target, you'll see a gain in attacks."
.mil servers, or the bulk of non-fluff on the net?
you don't still believe that, do you?
After all, a suicide bomber doesn't waste his time blowing up a single person unless they're of high importance.
A vast majority of the systems of "high importance" are *nix boxes. Do you really think the PCs owned by soccer moms across the country have more important data on them than bank servers,
One doesn't need to be "stupid" to get a virus in Windows. One merely needs to install a recent copy of the OS, and connect it to the internet. If they're NAT'd, then fine - they merely need to go to a few web pages, or watch a movie. Nothing stupid about any of that.
If you don't think so... (which I don't) ...consider the fact that any tech company that becomes successful enough to show up on the radar immediately gets attacked and ends up spending more on the resource sinkhole of lawyers than they spend on R&D for improving their products.
Like IBM? Oracle? Google? EA? Symantek? CDC? And now that I'm using google to do a search...here's a list (hey, I got a few of the big ones, that was hard).
you're correct about Lanham, and about anti-trust. At least, imo, but IANAL either ;)
no, they couldn't - not in the same way. Methods for going after the unwitting consumer are very limited. Go read the Federal Rules on Civil Procedures and Title 35 of the US code (patent law) for details.
To sue someone, you have to follow CPL/FRCP. If the case for suing them isn't described in CPL/FRCP, then you can't sue them.
examples? Please filter out all examples from when the customers knew specifically what patents were being violated, and how, yet bought the product anyway. Suing the customer in that scenario is defined under civil law.
/.
That's the crux of this, really - because of the lawsuit-happy world we live in, people have gotten the idea that you can actually sue anyone for anything; you can't. You have to cite what civil law was violated, how it was violated, when it was violated, etc.
So yeah - give me an example that remotely compares to this situation. If examples exist, I sincerely would love to see them. Up to now, all I've done is read the Federal Rules for Civil Procedure, and done research. I am certainly not a lawyer, but I'm also not subscribing to the Great FUD Machine. Seems like the fear of FUD is stronger than the FUD itself these days on