In spanish, both different concepts use the same word "competencia", my mistake translating. Is not that bad, counting the times that free software is being translated to "software gratis" instead of "software libre" in the other direction
From where i hear that of having the monopoly of something enables you to extend it in more directions?
If it were Microsoft i would be very scared, but, well, is Google, with a good story of openness (i.e. google API), doing things well, and getting their virtual "monopoly" doing things well, not with vapourware or doing dirty tricks to make people not follow the competence, not even limiting people on choosing the competence.
... how rollback that one of those virus, trojans, etc sent the passwords you typed to some email or irc channel? Virus damage is not just altering the filesystem. And if well having a lot of things in the web enables me to do all that is related to that in any computer connected to internet, that don't means that any of those computers is trustable enough to write there passwords, credit card numbers, etc.
Well, gnome not went that far, but a bit of extra "G" letters, gNumeric, gaim, gimp, gedit, gentoo, google (oops!:).... even exist a Keramik-like theme for gnome called Geramik.
That letter gives a hint of for what environment is, in both cases, but of course, that is optional, one of the best programs for KDE is called Quanta, not Kuanta.
Where you have typical groups of a lot of people? Free sites, free software development, open communities. All that goes against Microsoft policy of having all and each one tied and isolated from the rest.
What will be next? Programming for free causes impotence?
if a vendor mostly don't worry about security, will be few advisories, so it will be more secure?
if a vendor bundles only the OS, and the competence the OS and a bunch of other programs, the security advisories of the other programs makes the os insecure?
if a feature is "broken by design" so no fixes will be available for it, while in other OS is fixable and releases an advisory with the fix, will make the later less secure?
if a vendor's security advisories are each one a pack of fixes, and another vendor send a one for each problem fixed, that makes the 1st one more secure?
if a vendor fixes a reported severe problem half a year later, and the other in the next few days, how that is showed in that statistics?
if a vendor ships an insecure by default product, that need mostly an expert to make it safe, and another a secure by default, who is the safest?
if a vendor releases a product where is very hard to be finished the installation and finished the application of patches without getting a worm/virus/etc, and the other can be installed safely and without problems connected to internet, what is the safest?
Too many question, but just one answer: that study stinks
You are talking there as the only possible worm/virus are binary, mean to be run directly by the processor.
But you are forgetting:
macro virus
scripting-language based worms (well, that is an extension of the above)
Not remember one of the latest "successful" worms for linux/unix, but what it did was to download the worm code into/tmp, compile it and run, exploiting a vulnerability not remember if in ftp server or something like that
The most important part of latest worms is the social engineering one. It "forces" the user to run attachments, uncompress crypted zip files, and could be some that even ask the user to rename the file and run it to prevent extension blocking. Asking to compile a program is just a step forward
So? The Witty worm exploited a vulnerability in some particular vendor commercial firewall, with only those computers infected made enough trouble, and made into headlines. And probably there are more linux users (or if you want, more mandrake, suse, debian or redhat. pick just one distribution) than users of that particular firewall
So CERT and the Dpt of Homeland Security recomends to avoid IE, and HP says ditch Netscape (because potential vulnerabilities allowing denials of service, information leaks, unauthorised access and remote malicious code execution), BUT recomends Mozilla (isn't AOL netscape based on Mozilla?). And I even saw Opera non recomended because a not so old vulnerability solved in a recent version.
What will be the "recomended ones"? Mozilla/Firefox? Konqueror/Safari? links/w3m?
Maybe the nicest effect of that variety of recommended browsers and so many people saying "don't use IE" will finish making web er... "designers" to go to the real standards instead of things that are IE specific.
Now those people must go a step forward, first recomending to avoid Outlook (uses IE rendering engine, an IE vulnerability could be triggered with a simple mail message), and then Windows (if is for unsolved vulnerabilities and bad security record it takes all the prices), maybe first the 9x/Me family.
What about ClamAV or OpenAntivirus or a lot in the same league?
There are also a lot of integrity checkings tools, that if well don't count as "antivirus", at least they report changes that could mean something nasty running, and not to forget things like chkrootkit.
I'm not saying that animations and graphic effects are not useful, if they are well used, make a system far better from the usability side. The "eye candy" of Looking Glass looked also very useful as far i remember the presentation video.
The point was simply that the looking heavy cpu use animations in MacOSX didn't raised a lot of complains about "spare cpu cycles", so could not be a big problem in this one.
.. maybe is not good at all to use it on a server, but for i.e. a gaming desktop i bet most current games will take a lot more cpu cycles that this environment.
And think in the nice animations and graphic effect of MacOSX, if they are happy with it, maybe will not be so bad under Linux.
... they should add to the list of Microsoft software users to consider safer alternatives the users of Outlook, IIS, MSSQL, Windows 9x/Me and Windows NT/2000/XP. All of them are good examples of ticking timebombs.
Common Public License, or CPL, from IBM. But is all written in legalese, not sure what will that imply in plain words. At least they are saying that this is an open source license, to make a difference with Shared Source that is definately not.
Slashdot Mirror
In spanish, both different concepts use the same word "competencia", my mistake translating. Is not that bad, counting the times that free software is being translated to "software gratis" instead of "software libre" in the other direction
This beta google groups is more like a direct competence against Yahoo Groups.
If it were Microsoft i would be very scared, but, well, is Google, with a good story of openness (i.e. google API), doing things well, and getting their virtual "monopoly" doing things well, not with vapourware or doing dirty tricks to make people not follow the competence, not even limiting people on choosing the competence.
And Orkut too, btw.
... how rollback that one of those virus, trojans, etc sent the passwords you typed to some email or irc channel? Virus damage is not just altering the filesystem. And if well having a lot of things in the web enables me to do all that is related to that in any computer connected to internet, that don't means that any of those computers is trustable enough to write there passwords, credit card numbers, etc.
That letter gives a hint of for what environment is, in both cases, but of course, that is optional, one of the best programs for KDE is called Quanta, not Kuanta.
What will be next? Programming for free causes impotence?
Too many question, but just one answer: that study stinks
But you are forgetting:
So? The Witty worm exploited a vulnerability in some particular vendor commercial firewall, with only those computers infected made enough trouble, and made into headlines. And probably there are more linux users (or if you want, more mandrake, suse, debian or redhat. pick just one distribution) than users of that particular firewall
... when i first read it, it sounded like and old serie. Maybe the full name will be JawaII 5.0 ?
What will be the "recomended ones"? Mozilla/Firefox? Konqueror/Safari? links/w3m?
Maybe the nicest effect of that variety of recommended browsers and so many people saying "don't use IE" will finish making web er... "designers" to go to the real standards instead of things that are IE specific.
Now those people must go a step forward, first recomending to avoid Outlook (uses IE rendering engine, an IE vulnerability could be triggered with a simple mail message), and then Windows (if is for unsolved vulnerabilities and bad security record it takes all the prices), maybe first the 9x/Me family.
Page 2 content: "This is page 2"
. .
Page 1 billon content: "This is page 1 billon"
Thats it, that the billon pages they have indexed
As with spam and scams and mail virus, this guy is not in some sort of danger for starting a mail hoax? If not, er... should be?
Yes, like the Jim Caveziel pseudonym of Jesus Christ , i wonder how such intelligent people choose so obvious aliases :)
.. the best part of being eaten by a T-Rex is stop smelling its breath?
There are also a lot of integrity checkings tools, that if well don't count as "antivirus", at least they report changes that could mean something nasty running, and not to forget things like chkrootkit.
The point was simply that the looking heavy cpu use animations in MacOSX didn't raised a lot of complains about "spare cpu cycles", so could not be a big problem in this one.
And think in the nice animations and graphic effect of MacOSX, if they are happy with it, maybe will not be so bad under Linux.
... they should add to the list of Microsoft software users to consider safer alternatives the users of Outlook, IIS, MSSQL, Windows 9x/Me and Windows NT/2000/XP. All of them are good examples of ticking timebombs.
... seems to be Darwin Awards material.
.. it have its permanent dose of penicillinux.
So if i made a trivial spam detection program that just marks ALL as spam will have a 99.84 sucess ratio? mmm maybe i just need to patent that idea.
Ok, too much Gibson.
Common Public License, or CPL, from IBM. But is all written in legalese, not sure what will that imply in plain words. At least they are saying that this is an open source license, to make a difference with Shared Source that is definately not.