The three posters above me have completely missed shanek's point, namely that these plugins are available for free on Windows and Mac. He's simply saying that it's too bad that we don't have the same free (beer) access to these plugins that Windows and Mac users have.
While it's true that he's getting his OS for free, what about those who buy Red Hat or Mandrake or whatever? Why should they have to pay for something that Windows and Mac users get free? That's his question really.
I intend to try it, and I'll pay for it myself if it works, though. I use Debian and therefore never have to pay for my OS.:)
He also designed a non-working device that looks like a parachute...
Actually, according to another post in this discussion, his parachute actually worked quite well, even being made of materials and with tools of the time.
...but would kill the user.
Ahh, now that might be possible. According to the article, the person who tried it cut himself free 2000 feet above the ground and switched to a modern parachute to avoid injury.
...is that Linux's warts are fully out in the open for all to see. Microsoft would never admit to such failings openly, even though anyone who has used Windows extensively is painfully aware of them.
And it's been my experience that you don't hear, "Linux never crashes" that much anymore. At least I don't say it anymore, whereas I used to. I would still say that a properly configured Linux box is more stable than any Windows box, but I've had my share of lockups. (on the desktop anyway. You'll notice my server has been up for 140+ days. The last reboot was when the power supply died [it's a patched together P166] which interrupted 243 days uptime)
All the mailing lists are public, and all of Linux's problems are there for anyone to see. This allows people to make truly informed decisions about which version of Linux to use, or whether to even use it at all. (Yes, of course these things are also true of *BSD) The current issues are why I still run 2.2.19 on my servers, since none of them get anywhere near enough load to need the newer VM's. "Stable" is definitely a relative term.
It should be noted that IBM probably spent more than a Billion on Windows 2000
Quite true, I'm sure. I wasn't trying to imply that IBM was supporting Linux more (or less) than any other OS, I was just refuting someone else's claim about Linux being "a scattered group of people." IBM certainly doesn't fit this description.
...it's not going to radically change Linux's standing in the world.
I must respectfully disagree. Just stamping IBM's name on a server running Linux makes a huge difference to the lion's share of IT PHB's out there. And with them spending (more or less) the same amout of resources on Linux as Windows, I really feel that Linux has been turbocharged, at least in the enterprise server space.
Yep, looks like $1 billion spent only on Linux to me. Just go to google.com and search for "ibm billion linux" and you'll find literally dozens more articles discussing it. Seems that, since you're a Slashdot regular, you'd have your facts straight on this particular issue.
LNUX (linux) stock tells the story right there.
Yeah, right, the stock price of one company sure tells the whole story, doesn't it? Yes, Mr. Canada, I know, several Linux-based companies have seen their stocks go in the tank. Everyone know that people are still trying to find the right business plan. It's no piece of cake trying to sell free software. (although IBM seems to be doing all right. They're selling TONS of server hardware with Linux on it)
People should do what a friend of mine is doing: put together complete, custom solutions that specifically fit their customers' needs. With the thousands/millions saved using OSS (you saw the Amazon.com article, right?) they can pretty much charge what they want.
Ahhhh, I'm probably just talking to a wall, here...
Now, imagine if the hard drive maker, or the memory maker, or the video card maker
(etc., you get the point) tried to do the same thing?
Compaq would have dumped them in a second and gone to a competitor.
Now, listen carefully:
THEY CAN'T DO THAT WITH WINDOWS BECAUSE THERE IS NO OTHER CHOICE!!!
If they dumped Windows and went to Red Hat instead, they would GO OUT OF BUSINESS!
And they know it all too well.
This is precisely what is a legal definition of a monopoly (as opposed to an absolute monopoly.
Many people say Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly because you can buy a copy of Red Hat and install it.
These people are confusing a legally defined monopoly with an absolute monopoly like what AT&T had.)
It's technically legal for Microsoft to have this monopoly,
but it's illegal to abuse it by forcing other products down computer manufacturers throats
(First Explorer, Office, MSN, now Windows Media Player, Windows Messaging, etc.)
or to tell them they can't sell computers with 2 operating systems or with no OS
or any of the other dozens of things that Microsoft does that they couldn't do
if there were any REAL competition in the desktop OS market.
Some folks say that Linux is now to Microsoft what AMD is to Intel.
This is simply not accurate for one simple reason:
AMD processors run ALL the same software that Intel processors do.
If you have an Intel processor, you can simply replace it with an AMD one
(yes sometimes you need to replace the motherboard and perhaps the memory)
without changing ANY of the software on your computer.
Linux DOES NOT run the same software as Windows. Why is this?
Well, Microsoft's license agreements say that you agree to not reverse-engineer their software.
If you don't agree to the license, you can't use it (legally).
Hmm, let's see, it's legal to reverse-engineer Intel processors, but not Microsoft operating systems.
How nice for Microsoft.
To all you Microsoft apologists out there:
Do you REALLY want Microsoft in control of EVERYTHING to do with computing?
Because, without the anti-trust case, that's exactly where we'd be heading.
Without this "government interference", every computing experience would be handled by Microsoft.
We'd all use Windows, Explorer, Office, MSN, Media Player, Windows Messaging, Passport, etc.
and then Microsoft could charge whatever they want for all this. Not true, you say?
You don't think that Microsoft would "encourage" ISP's to only support IE?
You think any web pages created with Microsoft Front Page would be readable in Netscape?
Also, without "interference", NONE of the major companies currently supporting Linux to varying degrees
(IBM, HP, Compaq, Dell, etc., etc.,) would have had anything to do with Linux.
The repurcussions from Microsoft would have been much too severe.
Not to mention all the security problems that would arise out of all of this.
Melissa/Love Bug/Sircam/Code Red anyone?
Ask any one nerd (myself included) what transgressions Microsoft is guilty of and they could go on for hours. And that's just from surfing the web in their spare time.
If you have 3 full-time paid professionals reading articles, interviewing competitors and reviewing Microsoft's business plans, that's more than enough resources to keep track of them.
I just spent about four hours today screwing with our fastest processing computer (1ghz Athlon, 512mb DDR) because it decided to go down the toilet today, for no apparent reason.
After multiple chkdsk's and defrag's (many of which caused spontaneous reboots in the middle before finishing), I still don't have the problem figured out.
And yes, contrary to some other comments in this thread, I got the BSOD several times. Sometimes it was an invalid page fault, sometimes it was IRQL_yadda_yadda.
The machine has been working great since we got it about 6 months ago, including this morning. After lunch today, it just took a crap, who knows why. It started with application errors in AutoCAD, IE, Acrobat, you name it. It got to the point where it would only boot in safe mode.
And I'm going out of town for the next couple of days, so they'll have to do without it until I get back.
I had thought pretty highly of Win2K until now, but while it's certainly better than Win9x, it's not up to par with Linux, IMO. Linux has never done anything like this to me.
"On November 27, 1895, a year before his death, Alfred Nobel signed the famous will which would implement some of the goals to which he had devoted so much of his life. Nobel stipulated in his will that most of his estate, more than SEK 31 million (today approximately SEK 1,500 million) should be converted into a fund and invested in "safe securities."
The income from the investments was to be "distributed annually in the form of prizes to those who during the preceding year have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind."
The Nobel Foundation is a private institution established in 1900 on the basis of the will. The investment policy of the Foundation is naturally of paramount importance to the preservation and, if possible the augmentation of the funds and, thus, of the prize amount. According to the original 1901 investment rules, the term "safe securities" was, in the spirit of that time, interpreted to mean gilt-edged bonds or loans backed by such securities or backed by mortgages on real estate. With the changes brought about by the two World Wars and their economic and financial aftermath, the term "safe securities" had to be reinterpreted in the light of prevailing economic conditions and tendencies. Thus, at the request of the Foundation's Board of Directors, in the early 1950s the Swedish Government sanctioned changes, whereby the Board for all practical purposes was given a free hand to invest not only in real estate, bonds and secured loans, but also in most types of stocks.
From 1901, when the first prizes (SEK 150,000 each) were awarded, the prize amounts declined steadily. But with this freedom to invest, along with the long-fought-for tax-exemption granted in 1946, it was possible to reverse this trend and, on average, even keep pace with increasing inflation. The real value of the prize amount in SEK terms was finally restored in 1991. The amount of the 2001 Nobel Prize is SEK 10.0 million, an increase of around 11 per cent compared to the 2000 Prizes.
The investment capital at market value as per December 31, 2000, amounted to SEK 3,894 million (approx. USD 409 million). Foreign and Swedish assets accounted for 52 and 48 per cent, respectively."
If the GPL is/has a "non-business model", then why have the major computer manufacturers that have embraced Free Software pretty much all chosen Linux over any form of BSD? (IBM, HP/Compaq, Dell)
The answer is really simple: When companies like IBM & HP make contributions to the Linux source code base, they don't want someone (like Microsoft, for example) to come along and take the code and make it proprietary and closed-source. The BSD license allows this, the GPL doesn't.
These companies seem to either want to keep the code completely closed (AIX, HP-UX, Lotus Notes, etc.) or completely open so that it must stay open.
The business model behind Linux and other GPL-based software is simple: build a turnkey solution that meets the customer's needs/wants and they will pay top dollar for it. There is a company here in Washington State that runs all their systems on Linux: mail, web, desktop, and a custom billing/scheduling system based on MySQL (I believe). They have hired one good Linux hacker (not me, he's a friend of mine) to custom build their solution.
If he had done all this with BSD-licensed software, other companies could come along and steal his code, modify it, close it and sell it as their own. Since it's under the GPL, they can use it if they like, but they must keep it open and give him credit.
IBM is doing the same thing with their work. You can use their modifications to Linux if you like, but you must keep them open and you probably have to give credit to IBM somewhere along the way (I may be mistaken about this, please correct me if I'm wrong). This protects them from competitors stealing their code, not only because it's illegal due to the license, but also because I'm sure HP wouldn't want to use code where they had to give credit to IBM. Individuals and small companies wouldn't mind that, though.
That analogy is so ridiculous that it's practically a Troll (unless you actually did mean it as a Troll).
No one died from Nimda/Code Red I & II/Sircam/ILOVEYOU/Melissa/Kournikova/etc/etc/etc/ etc.
And I wasn't implying that the people who write these things shouldn't be punished; they should. If I have a crappy lock on my front door and someone twists the handle and the lock breaks and they come in my house, it's still breaking and entering.
But if over 90% of the houses have one brand of lock, and houses are continually broken into (whether anyone takes anything or not), don't you think people would get a little upset at the lock maker? Sure, those people breaking in are still crooks who should be thrown in jail, but doesn't the lock maker have some of the responsibility here, especially when they continually crow about how secure their locks are and you can put your trust in them, and why not use their locks for every last thing you need to put a lock on? (Hailstorm/Passport anyone?)
If BMW made a car where all you had to do was yank on the driver's door really hard (whether locked or not), then put any key in the ignition and drive away, then BMW's would get stolen like crazy, and everyone would be screaming at BMW for such shoddy workmanship.
Should the thieves still get thrown in jail for stealing a car? Of course they should. Should virus authors and script kiddies still get punished? Of course they should.
But the manufacturer of such insecure, dodgy products should get some/most of the blame for this. And can you really get upset with the BMW owner who is tired of taking his car into the shop once a week to have new locks installed again and again because their basic design is so poor?
When a (h)(cr)acker writes a virus/worm that cracks into servers and provides root access without actually doing any damage, what they are doing is letting the world know how easy it is to do so.
Bear in mind that there are lots of folks out there (thieves, terrorists, enemy governments) who would (and presumably do) break into servers and steal credit card numbers and/or sensitive corporate/government info, without telling anyone!!
If the "virus authors" weren't constantly exploiting these simple security holes, the greater public would never know they were there, because the real "bad guys" always try to go unnoticed.
FYI, Slashcode adds spaces to any word over a certain length so that the tables line up properly. When you have a long URL like that, you should do an href, like this.
If you need to know how to do an href, you can go here.
No offense, Walter, but where did you get that info? Diesel fuel is generally quite stable and burns very slowly. That's why it is often used to cause fires to clear brush. I don't think it could have been the cause of the Hindenburg disaster.
Here is the most accepted theory:
"After years of exhaustive traveling and research, Bain uncovered what he believes is the answer to the Hindenburg mystery. His research shows that the Hindenburg's skin was covered with the extremely flammable cellulose nitrate or cellulose acetate, added to help with rigidity and aerodynamics. The skin was also coated with flecks of aluminum, a component of rocket fuel, to reflect sunlight and keep the hydrogen from heating and expanding. It had the further benefit of combating wear and tear from the elements. Bain claims these substances, although necessary at the time of construction, directly led to the disaster of the Hindenburg. The substances caught fire from an electric spark that caused the skin to burn. At this point the hydrogen became the fuel to the already existing fire. Therefore, the real culprit was the skin of the dirigible. The ironic point to this story is that the German Zeppelin makers knew this back in 1937. A handwritten letter in the Zeppelin Archive states, "The actual cause of the fire was the extreme easy flammability of the covering material brought about by discharges of an electrostatic nature." For more information about Dr. Bain's investigation, please refer to this article from the California Hydrogen Business Council."
Getting involved with legislation, whether federal, state or local, is definitely "Stuff that matters" since all of these things (DMCA, SSSCA, DeCSS, Sklyarov) affect each and every one of us no matter what platform we use.
So if I crack your server and put MATTY RULEZ!! on your web page, I should go to prison for life? The point is we already have laws against this type of thing. In my opinion, this flies in the face of the basic Republican argument that we need less government and not more. Republicans constantly make this argument with respect to gun laws (and I happen to agree with that).
The DMCA may be evil, but while it is law you must obey it!
Bullshit. A bad law is a bad law. Many people drank alcohol during Prohibition because they knew it was a bad law and also because they knew they were otherwise law-abiding citizens and having a beer after work definitely wasn't a crime.
Computer crimes are crimes, but I shouldn't be sent to jail for life because I cracked and copied a DVD so I could take it on a trip, saving the original at home in case the one on my trip got damaged. The actual crime should be illegal, like breaking into the FBI and stealing info, or cracking a DVD to sell them to people, or to simply get the movie without paying for it.
It is truly sad, IMO, that the current administration is using this horrible tragedy to further political and corporate goals under the guise of "protecting us". Don't get me wrong, even though I didn't vote for him, I fully support the Bush administration in this war on terrorism. But that doesn't mean they get carte blanche with me to do whatever they want.
Slashdot Mirror
It's much more effective to write letters. I've heard that many politicians mostly ignore email, unless they get a huge volume from unique addresses.
The hand-written word carries a good deal more influence. Take the time to lick a stamp and mail out a physical letter, and it will carry more weight.
P.S. I just realized that this post might sound like an insult to mjh. It's not. Snail mail does get noticed more, though, that's all.
The three posters above me have completely missed shanek's point, namely that these plugins are available for free on Windows and Mac. He's simply saying that it's too bad that we don't have the same free (beer) access to these plugins that Windows and Mac users have.
:)
While it's true that he's getting his OS for free, what about those who buy Red Hat or Mandrake or whatever? Why should they have to pay for something that Windows and Mac users get free? That's his question really.
I intend to try it, and I'll pay for it myself if it works, though. I use Debian and therefore never have to pay for my OS.
He also designed a non-working device that looks like a parachute...
...but would kill the user.
Actually, according to another post in this discussion, his parachute actually worked quite well, even being made of materials and with tools of the time.
Ahh, now that might be possible. According to the article, the person who tried it cut himself free 2000 feet above the ground and switched to a modern parachute to avoid injury.
Cheers......
...is that Linux's warts are fully out in the open for all to see. Microsoft would never admit to such failings openly, even though anyone who has used Windows extensively is painfully aware of them.
And it's been my experience that you don't hear, "Linux never crashes" that much anymore. At least I don't say it anymore, whereas I used to. I would still say that a properly configured Linux box is more stable than any Windows box, but I've had my share of lockups. (on the desktop anyway. You'll notice my server has been up for 140+ days. The last reboot was when the power supply died [it's a patched together P166] which interrupted 243 days uptime)
All the mailing lists are public, and all of Linux's problems are there for anyone to see. This allows people to make truly informed decisions about which version of Linux to use, or whether to even use it at all. (Yes, of course these things are also true of *BSD) The current issues are why I still run 2.2.19 on my servers, since none of them get anywhere near enough load to need the newer VM's. "Stable" is definitely a relative term.
It should be noted that IBM probably spent more than a Billion on Windows 2000
...it's not going to radically change Linux's standing in the world.
Quite true, I'm sure. I wasn't trying to imply that IBM was supporting Linux more (or less) than any other OS, I was just refuting someone else's claim about Linux being "a scattered group of people." IBM certainly doesn't fit this description.
I must respectfully disagree. Just stamping IBM's name on a server running Linux makes a huge difference to the lion's share of IT PHB's out there. And with them spending (more or less) the same amout of resources on Linux as Windows, I really feel that Linux has been turbocharged, at least in the enterprise server space.
Gawd, I can't believe I'm even replying to you, but I can't help it.
link...
link...
link...
Yep, looks like $1 billion spent only on Linux to me. Just go to google.com and search for "ibm billion linux" and you'll find literally dozens more articles discussing it. Seems that, since you're a Slashdot regular, you'd have your facts straight on this particular issue.
LNUX (linux) stock tells the story right there.
Yeah, right, the stock price of one company sure tells the whole story, doesn't it? Yes, Mr. Canada, I know, several Linux-based companies have seen their stocks go in the tank. Everyone know that people are still trying to find the right business plan. It's no piece of cake trying to sell free software. (although IBM seems to be doing all right. They're selling TONS of server hardware with Linux on it)
People should do what a friend of mine is doing: put together complete, custom solutions that specifically fit their customers' needs. With the thousands/millions saved using OSS (you saw the Amazon.com article, right?) they can pretty much charge what they want.
Ahhhh, I'm probably just talking to a wall, here...
First, read this.
Now, imagine if the hard drive maker, or the memory maker, or the video card maker (etc., you get the point) tried to do the same thing? Compaq would have dumped them in a second and gone to a competitor.
Now, listen carefully:
THEY CAN'T DO THAT WITH WINDOWS BECAUSE THERE IS NO OTHER CHOICE!!! If they dumped Windows and went to Red Hat instead, they would GO OUT OF BUSINESS! And they know it all too well.
This is precisely what is a legal definition of a monopoly (as opposed to an absolute monopoly. Many people say Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly because you can buy a copy of Red Hat and install it. These people are confusing a legally defined monopoly with an absolute monopoly like what AT&T had.)
It's technically legal for Microsoft to have this monopoly, but it's illegal to abuse it by forcing other products down computer manufacturers throats (First Explorer, Office, MSN, now Windows Media Player, Windows Messaging, etc.) or to tell them they can't sell computers with 2 operating systems or with no OS or any of the other dozens of things that Microsoft does that they couldn't do if there were any REAL competition in the desktop OS market.
Some folks say that Linux is now to Microsoft what AMD is to Intel. This is simply not accurate for one simple reason: AMD processors run ALL the same software that Intel processors do. If you have an Intel processor, you can simply replace it with an AMD one (yes sometimes you need to replace the motherboard and perhaps the memory) without changing ANY of the software on your computer.
Linux DOES NOT run the same software as Windows. Why is this? Well, Microsoft's license agreements say that you agree to not reverse-engineer their software. If you don't agree to the license, you can't use it (legally). Hmm, let's see, it's legal to reverse-engineer Intel processors, but not Microsoft operating systems. How nice for Microsoft.
To all you Microsoft apologists out there: Do you REALLY want Microsoft in control of EVERYTHING to do with computing? Because, without the anti-trust case, that's exactly where we'd be heading. Without this "government interference", every computing experience would be handled by Microsoft. We'd all use Windows, Explorer, Office, MSN, Media Player, Windows Messaging, Passport, etc. and then Microsoft could charge whatever they want for all this. Not true, you say? You don't think that Microsoft would "encourage" ISP's to only support IE? You think any web pages created with Microsoft Front Page would be readable in Netscape?
Also, without "interference", NONE of the major companies currently supporting Linux to varying degrees (IBM, HP, Compaq, Dell, etc., etc.,) would have had anything to do with Linux. The repurcussions from Microsoft would have been much too severe.
Not to mention all the security problems that would arise out of all of this. Melissa/Love Bug/Sircam/Code Red anyone?
I don't exactly call IBM and their $1 billion budget "a scattered group of people".
Ask any one nerd (myself included) what transgressions Microsoft is guilty of and they could go on for hours. And that's just from surfing the web in their spare time.
If you have 3 full-time paid professionals reading articles, interviewing competitors and reviewing Microsoft's business plans, that's more than enough resources to keep track of them.
Check my bio and you'll see my job description.
I just spent about four hours today screwing with our fastest processing computer (1ghz Athlon, 512mb DDR) because it decided to go down the toilet today, for no apparent reason.
After multiple chkdsk's and defrag's (many of which caused spontaneous reboots in the middle before finishing), I still don't have the problem figured out.
And yes, contrary to some other comments in this thread, I got the BSOD several times. Sometimes it was an invalid page fault, sometimes it was IRQL_yadda_yadda.
The machine has been working great since we got it about 6 months ago, including this morning. After lunch today, it just took a crap, who knows why. It started with application errors in AutoCAD, IE, Acrobat, you name it. It got to the point where it would only boot in safe mode.
And I'm going out of town for the next couple of days, so they'll have to do without it until I get back.
I had thought pretty highly of Win2K until now, but while it's certainly better than Win9x, it's not up to par with Linux, IMO. Linux has never done anything like this to me.
"On November 27, 1895, a year before his death, Alfred Nobel signed the famous will which would implement some of the goals to which he had devoted so much of his life. Nobel stipulated in his will that most of his estate, more than SEK 31 million (today approximately SEK 1,500 million) should be converted into a fund and invested in "safe securities."
The income from the investments was to be "distributed annually in the form of prizes to those who during the preceding year have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind."
The Nobel Foundation is a private institution established in 1900 on the basis of the will. The investment policy of the Foundation is naturally of paramount importance to the preservation and, if possible the augmentation of the funds and, thus, of the prize amount. According to the original 1901 investment rules, the term "safe securities" was, in the spirit of that time, interpreted to mean gilt-edged bonds or loans backed by such securities or backed by mortgages on real estate. With the changes brought about by the two World Wars and their economic and financial aftermath, the term "safe securities" had to be reinterpreted in the light of prevailing economic conditions and tendencies. Thus, at the request of the Foundation's Board of Directors, in the early 1950s the Swedish Government sanctioned changes, whereby the Board for all practical purposes was given a free hand to invest not only in real estate, bonds and secured loans, but also in most types of stocks.
From 1901, when the first prizes (SEK 150,000 each) were awarded, the prize amounts declined steadily. But with this freedom to invest, along with the long-fought-for tax-exemption granted in 1946, it was possible to reverse this trend and, on average, even keep pace with increasing inflation. The real value of the prize amount in SEK terms was finally restored in 1991. The amount of the 2001 Nobel Prize is SEK 10.0 million, an increase of around 11 per cent compared to the 2000 Prizes.
The investment capital at market value as per December 31, 2000, amounted to SEK 3,894 million (approx. USD 409 million). Foreign and Swedish assets accounted for 52 and 48 per cent, respectively."
link...
There's also a table there breaking down the investments in more detail, but it was too big a PITA to get it to post correctly.
The one on the GPL (Non)Business Model
If the GPL is/has a "non-business model", then why have the major computer manufacturers that have embraced Free Software pretty much all chosen Linux over any form of BSD? (IBM, HP/Compaq, Dell)
The answer is really simple: When companies like IBM & HP make contributions to the Linux source code base, they don't want someone (like Microsoft, for example) to come along and take the code and make it proprietary and closed-source. The BSD license allows this, the GPL doesn't.
These companies seem to either want to keep the code completely closed (AIX, HP-UX, Lotus Notes, etc.) or completely open so that it must stay open.
The business model behind Linux and other GPL-based software is simple: build a turnkey solution that meets the customer's needs/wants and they will pay top dollar for it. There is a company here in Washington State that runs all their systems on Linux: mail, web, desktop, and a custom billing/scheduling system based on MySQL (I believe). They have hired one good Linux hacker (not me, he's a friend of mine) to custom build their solution.
If he had done all this with BSD-licensed software, other companies could come along and steal his code, modify it, close it and sell it as their own. Since it's under the GPL, they can use it if they like, but they must keep it open and give him credit.
IBM is doing the same thing with their work. You can use their modifications to Linux if you like, but you must keep them open and you probably have to give credit to IBM somewhere along the way (I may be mistaken about this, please correct me if I'm wrong). This protects them from competitors stealing their code, not only because it's illegal due to the license, but also because I'm sure HP wouldn't want to use code where they had to give credit to IBM. Individuals and small companies wouldn't mind that, though.
That analogy is so ridiculous that it's practically a Troll (unless you actually did mean it as a Troll).
/ etc.
No one died from Nimda/Code Red I & II/Sircam/ILOVEYOU/Melissa/Kournikova/etc/etc/etc
And I wasn't implying that the people who write these things shouldn't be punished; they should. If I have a crappy lock on my front door and someone twists the handle and the lock breaks and they come in my house, it's still breaking and entering.
But if over 90% of the houses have one brand of lock, and houses are continually broken into (whether anyone takes anything or not), don't you think people would get a little upset at the lock maker? Sure, those people breaking in are still crooks who should be thrown in jail, but doesn't the lock maker have some of the responsibility here, especially when they continually crow about how secure their locks are and you can put your trust in them, and why not use their locks for every last thing you need to put a lock on? (Hailstorm/Passport anyone?)
If BMW made a car where all you had to do was yank on the driver's door really hard (whether locked or not), then put any key in the ignition and drive away, then BMW's would get stolen like crazy, and everyone would be screaming at BMW for such shoddy workmanship.
Should the thieves still get thrown in jail for stealing a car? Of course they should. Should virus authors and script kiddies still get punished? Of course they should.
But the manufacturer of such insecure, dodgy products should get some/most of the blame for this. And can you really get upset with the BMW owner who is tired of taking his car into the shop once a week to have new locks installed again and again because their basic design is so poor?
I think not.
When a (h)(cr)acker writes a virus/worm that cracks into servers and provides root access without actually doing any damage, what they are doing is letting the world know how easy it is to do so.
Bear in mind that there are lots of folks out there (thieves, terrorists, enemy governments) who would (and presumably do) break into servers and steal credit card numbers and/or sensitive corporate/government info, without telling anyone!!
If the "virus authors" weren't constantly exploiting these simple security holes, the greater public would never know they were there, because the real "bad guys" always try to go unnoticed.
Just move the messagebox telling you to reboot, out of the way and install the next patch.
:(
I tried that once and it resulted in an unbootable system.
I've always felt that collega and university were for general education, or simply exercising the mind. I think many people over emphasize job skills.
IMO, an education is an end unto itself.
He's not talking about a problem with the hardware, he's saying that XFREE86 4.1 no longer works.
I don't need to mention that XF86 4.1 is software, not hardware, do I?
FYI, Slashcode adds spaces to any word over a certain length so that the tables line up properly. When you have a long URL like that, you should do an href, like this.
If you need to know how to do an href, you can go here.
Cheers!
No offense, Walter, but where did you get that info? Diesel fuel is generally quite stable and burns very slowly. That's why it is often used to cause fires to clear brush. I don't think it could have been the cause of the Hindenburg disaster.
Here is the most accepted theory:
"After years of exhaustive traveling and research, Bain uncovered what he believes is the answer to the Hindenburg mystery. His research shows that the Hindenburg's skin was covered with the extremely flammable cellulose nitrate or cellulose acetate, added to help with rigidity and aerodynamics. The skin was also coated with flecks of aluminum, a component of rocket fuel, to reflect sunlight and keep the hydrogen from heating and expanding. It had the further benefit of combating wear and tear from the elements. Bain claims these substances, although necessary at the time of construction, directly led to the disaster of the Hindenburg. The substances caught fire from an electric spark that caused the skin to burn. At this point the hydrogen became the fuel to the already existing fire. Therefore, the real culprit was the skin of the dirigible. The ironic point to this story is that the German Zeppelin makers knew this back in 1937. A handwritten letter in the Zeppelin Archive states, "The actual cause of the fire was the extreme easy flammability of the covering material brought about by discharges of an electrostatic nature." For more information about Dr. Bain's investigation, please refer to this article from the California Hydrogen Business Council."
link
While it's true that Microsoft products are no less secure than those of other vendors...
You're Trolling, right? It's been over 3 years since the last remote root exploit in Apache, and IIS has had several this year!
If you're not Trolling and you actually believe what you just said, you'd better do some research.
Reverse engineering is the basis for the entire PC industry. Compaq reverse engineered IBM's BIOS and that created the PC industry as we now know it.
Would you have us throw that all away?
Getting involved with legislation, whether federal, state or local, is definitely "Stuff that matters" since all of these things (DMCA, SSSCA, DeCSS, Sklyarov) affect each and every one of us no matter what platform we use.
This discussion is very much On-Topic, IMO.
...means that their OS will run on a Palm. From their website:
"We are proud to announce the introduction of our Linux DA O/S v1.0 DB for Motorola Dragonball CPU platform..."
However, apps written for Palm won't run on their PDA anymore than Windows apps will run on a Linux PC.
Any crime is bad! That includes computer crime!
So if I crack your server and put MATTY RULEZ!! on your web page, I should go to prison for life? The point is we already have laws against this type of thing. In my opinion, this flies in the face of the basic Republican argument that we need less government and not more. Republicans constantly make this argument with respect to gun laws (and I happen to agree with that).
The DMCA may be evil, but while it is law you must obey it!
Bullshit. A bad law is a bad law. Many people drank alcohol during Prohibition because they knew it was a bad law and also because they knew they were otherwise law-abiding citizens and having a beer after work definitely wasn't a crime.
Computer crimes are crimes, but I shouldn't be sent to jail for life because I cracked and copied a DVD so I could take it on a trip, saving the original at home in case the one on my trip got damaged. The actual crime should be illegal, like breaking into the FBI and stealing info, or cracking a DVD to sell them to people, or to simply get the movie without paying for it.
It is truly sad, IMO, that the current administration is using this horrible tragedy to further political and corporate goals under the guise of "protecting us". Don't get me wrong, even though I didn't vote for him, I fully support the Bush administration in this war on terrorism. But that doesn't mean they get carte blanche with me to do whatever they want.