Windows encourages the behaviour of downloading stuff from the net and, executing the msi or exe installer, then giving it admin access.
Linux has specific package managers for this, with software for almost all things you need. I have only very few stuff on my box that doesn't come from my ubuntu package manager.
Yes, linux isn't the solution for everything, but the fact that if every uses linux then linux is targeted by attackers and the situation is as bad or worse on linux doesn't make the other fact wrong, that there is much fewer risk currently to get infected with linux malware when running it as desktop os, and not doing stupid things (like living on a publicly reachable ip, having ssh activated and the root password "root").
Also, linux stands for another approach in improving security of the operating system. Instead of installing some huge monolithic anti-virus, the research can more focus at how to make the infrastructure as hard to abuse as possible. On windows this isn't possible, at least not if you aren't employed by microsoft, and even within microsoft only very few are heard I presume.
Yes, I admit, my solution is violating kant's categoric imperative (only do stuff that can be basis for an universal law).
In fact, some aspects of linux are worse security wise than on windows. But as linux operating systems are open source, security researchers can freely improve the security of the system: you don't have to eat one entities dog food. Just look at wayland and the xdg-app idea for improvement in these areas.
Its a virus scanner, and follows the unix philosophy. Its not a rootkit like monolith that does some opaque processing in the background, installs plugins for every browser showing right to each link whether its safe (why can't it just simply warn if you try to click such a link?!), nor does it annoy you with update popups, or even block non-malicious software (yes, people I know quite a few false positives, and its just impossible to add exceptions for those programs). It really can't be called anti-virus.
Any anti-virus for linux you can buy just checks files or emails for malicious content. Its not really comparable to the type of anti-virus offered for windows.
Just install linux or freebsd or whatever OS you want, and install patches timely, then you don't have the need for an anti-virus. Yes, in fact you can't even buy one for linux. And if you really need windows for some program or so, start it in a VM, not connected to the internet. Problem solved.
I, still being young, are able to connect my phone to the charger in the dark, by feeling which side of the usb cable has the little "teeth". I then find out on which side on my smartphone the home button is (also very easy to find out), and then I apply my knowledge that the teeth have to be on the side facing away from the home button.
The digital industry is filled with almost monopolies. Microsoft is almost monopolist for the desktop (and its office suite is almost monopolist was well), intel is almost monopolist for the desktop CPU market. Google is almost monopolist for internet search. If these companies now use their monopoly to promote only a part of the market they control, its an abuse of their monopoly.
Its hard if a company wants to improve a product, yes. But here the thought of a free market is more important than wanting to improve cabled charger technology.
Imagine if you bought a house with apple IOT, and apple sells thousands of these houses, and after they sold them, they declare that only devices will work with the house's power grid that are certified by apple. This will be their next money printing machine. Modifying the house would be forbidden because of the strong IP laws, and patents apple has on the house. Your only option would be to tear down. Would you want this? And what is if only such houses are on the market, if nobody can build a normal house anymore, without vendor lock in?
The google cars are driving themselves already now. One could easily just replicate the technology they use and get those things onto the streets, right now. But it would be extremely risky, because google drives them in a fairly controlled environment, and the number of accidents that will happen will multiply by a large count. The question is whether one should start throwing a technology onto the markets when its still incomplete and not polished, or whether one should wait some years before that is possible.
When you launch rockets, you have fairly moderate risk connected to it. Yes, money can burn, but unless you have manned missions, no human will get harmed. Most rocket launches don't have humans on board. Cars on the other hand drive so that they can transport humans. Many cars also drive to transport cargo, but even if they drove without human oversight, they would still be on roads populated by cars with humans. So the risk connected is far higher for cars. Also, with rockets, the astronauts chose themselves if they want to become astronauts, and live with the risk of dying in a rocket accident. But with cars, you can't chose if a self driving car is with you on the street.
We should do what the AC in the rocket launch story suggested: wait until the first service pack is out. We shouldn't throw an immature technology on the market.
Also, one has to talk about software updates for self driving cars. Almost every hardware stops getting software updates by their manufacturer at some point. You can't have cars with EOLed firmware driving on the streets. Nobody should make money by selling security improvements that just mean to flip a switch.
The car is already not YOUR car anymore because the manufacturer controls the spare parts market. If they want a car to be EOL, it is EOL. If they want you to pay large sums of money for the spare parts, you pay large sums. And no, there is no guarantee a third party vendor has a cheaper variant of the spare part for your special car model. And yes, car manufacturers make the big money not with the actual car, but with the spare parts. If you buy a car, you don't buy just a car, but also a vendor lock for spare parts.
Also, you can't make modifications to parts of the car because they are closed source. They expose some options to the outside, but if you actually want to change something, you need to pay large sums of money in order to get devices you can change these parameters with, or pay (or know) somebody who has such devices.
Cars already have kill switches, as the car manufacturer can simply issue a remote "software update" just for that particular car, with the firmware doing whatever the car manufacturer commands. And the car executes it regardless whether it is "don't move", or "you drive on a bridge right now, please steer to the right as far as possible". The only thing preventing law enforcement agencies from using them is that they don't have the laws, and don't want to destroy that opportunity. If people find out about the risks of vendor controlled cars they won't buy them.
Now they waste a lot of money for auditing, and if they really find something, I guess NSA will send them a gag order. Then cisco knows that they sell spyware, but what has changed for the customer? Nothing. Cisco will perhaps raise prices or deliver a less quality product because they wasted all that money with the audits. Well perhaps at least they will detect chinese backdoors if there are any. But my guess is that if china has placed backdoors, they place them in the silicon, because that's hard to detect or remove.
Also consider, that never before, science has been made so much in the open. That's thanks to patent laws, and the fact that we don't live in a cold war anymore. Therefore technical progress was done in.
And medicine has seen the requirements raise by a very high degree, due to bad experiences with not so well tested therapies. Think of the polio vaccine or the contergan scandals.
The science of earlier generations was weird as well. I think, that compared with the past, we live in a golden age of science.
Think of the racism theories from the beginning of the 20th century. 200 years ago, a large part of the population couldn't even read properly. Slavery was common, the slaves being mostly used for work, without education of course. 500 years ago scientists fought with the church wanting to control science, refuting heliocentrism. And this is only about elites. Science hasn't reached normal people for a long time. We had quite a progress since then.
Believe it or not, "everybody does it", or, called by the official term, "customary law" is part of the anglo-saxon law system.
Drafting new rules is non trivial I guess, as they have to allow cars to do what the humans do, as well as still being understandable by humans, so that the humans stay legal, and the humans know what to expect from cars.
Slashdot Mirror
Everybody knows that whitespace is translated to nop's you insensitive clod!
Seems you won, they mentioned the term "developer workstation".
Windows encourages the behaviour of downloading stuff from the net and, executing the msi or exe installer, then giving it admin access.
Linux has specific package managers for this, with software for almost all things you need. I have only very few stuff on my box that doesn't come from my ubuntu package manager.
Yes, linux isn't the solution for everything, but the fact that if every uses linux then linux is targeted by attackers and the situation is as bad or worse on linux doesn't make the other fact wrong, that there is much fewer risk currently to get infected with linux malware when running it as desktop os, and not doing stupid things (like living on a publicly reachable ip, having ssh activated and the root password "root").
Also, linux stands for another approach in improving security of the operating system. Instead of installing some huge monolithic anti-virus, the research can more focus at how to make the infrastructure as hard to abuse as possible. On windows this isn't possible, at least not if you aren't employed by microsoft, and even within microsoft only very few are heard I presume.
Anti-virus software for linux is just used on mail or file servers, to check the content they handle. It does not check the health of the host system.
Yes, I admit, my solution is violating kant's categoric imperative (only do stuff that can be basis for an universal law).
In fact, some aspects of linux are worse security wise than on windows. But as linux operating systems are open source, security researchers can freely improve the security of the system: you don't have to eat one entities dog food. Just look at wayland and the xdg-app idea for improvement in these areas.
Its a virus scanner, and follows the unix philosophy. Its not a rootkit like monolith that does some opaque processing in the background, installs plugins for every browser showing right to each link whether its safe (why can't it just simply warn if you try to click such a link?!), nor does it annoy you with update popups, or even block non-malicious software (yes, people I know quite a few false positives, and its just impossible to add exceptions for those programs). It really can't be called anti-virus.
Any anti-virus for linux you can buy just checks files or emails for malicious content. Its not really comparable to the type of anti-virus offered for windows.
Just install linux or freebsd or whatever OS you want, and install patches timely, then you don't have the need for an anti-virus. Yes, in fact you can't even buy one for linux. And if you really need windows for some program or so, start it in a VM, not connected to the internet. Problem solved.
The city of london is an independent area in the united kingdom. It isn't registered as country at the UN though.
Note that I am european. I still didn't know :).
I agree, its a true mess.
I, still being young, are able to connect my phone to the charger in the dark, by feeling which side of the usb cable has the little "teeth". I then find out on which side on my smartphone the home button is (also very easy to find out), and then I apply my knowledge that the teeth have to be on the side facing away from the home button.
Interesting, didn't know that.
The digital industry is filled with almost monopolies. Microsoft is almost monopolist for the desktop (and its office suite is almost monopolist was well), intel is almost monopolist for the desktop CPU market. Google is almost monopolist for internet search. If these companies now use their monopoly to promote only a part of the market they control, its an abuse of their monopoly.
Its hard if a company wants to improve a product, yes. But here the thought of a free market is more important than wanting to improve cabled charger technology.
Imagine if you bought a house with apple IOT, and apple sells thousands of these houses, and after they sold them, they declare that only devices will work with the house's power grid that are certified by apple. This will be their next money printing machine. Modifying the house would be forbidden because of the strong IP laws, and patents apple has on the house. Your only option would be to tear down. Would you want this? And what is if only such houses are on the market, if nobody can build a normal house anymore, without vendor lock in?
These articles are about EU adopting an universal phone standard. Switzerland isn't a part of the EU, only schengen.
The current story is about switzerland adopting the law.
The swiss people are smart: they only adopt the EU laws that make sense.
Standards are the basis of a free market, and proprietary "standards" are the basis of proprietary lock-in.
Governments are given the oversight to ensure that there still is a free market.
Examples for proprietary "standards" being used for proprietary lock-in:
-> microsoft office to make interopability with their formats hard
-> whatsapp's messaging protocol. its basically xmpp, but they still only allow the official client to communicate
-> printer cartriges, even used to lie to the customer by lowering the price for the printer.
Really looking forward to have apt-get speeds that can be compared with pacman. Julian Andres Klode, if you read this, please continue the great work!
The google cars are driving themselves already now. One could easily just replicate the technology they use and get those things onto the streets, right now. But it would be extremely risky, because google drives them in a fairly controlled environment, and the number of accidents that will happen will multiply by a large count. The question is whether one should start throwing a technology onto the markets when its still incomplete and not polished, or whether one should wait some years before that is possible.
When you launch rockets, you have fairly moderate risk connected to it. Yes, money can burn, but unless you have manned missions, no human will get harmed. Most rocket launches don't have humans on board. Cars on the other hand drive so that they can transport humans. Many cars also drive to transport cargo, but even if they drove without human oversight, they would still be on roads populated by cars with humans. So the risk connected is far higher for cars. Also, with rockets, the astronauts chose themselves if they want to become astronauts, and live with the risk of dying in a rocket accident. But with cars, you can't chose if a self driving car is with you on the street.
We should do what the AC in the rocket launch story suggested: wait until the first service pack is out. We shouldn't throw an immature technology on the market.
Also, one has to talk about software updates for self driving cars. Almost every hardware stops getting software updates by their manufacturer at some point. You can't have cars with EOLed firmware driving on the streets. Nobody should make money by selling security improvements that just mean to flip a switch.
The car is already not YOUR car anymore because the manufacturer controls the spare parts market. If they want a car to be EOL, it is EOL. If they want you to pay large sums of money for the spare parts, you pay large sums. And no, there is no guarantee a third party vendor has a cheaper variant of the spare part for your special car model. And yes, car manufacturers make the big money not with the actual car, but with the spare parts. If you buy a car, you don't buy just a car, but also a vendor lock for spare parts.
Also, you can't make modifications to parts of the car because they are closed source. They expose some options to the outside, but if you actually want to change something, you need to pay large sums of money in order to get devices you can change these parameters with, or pay (or know) somebody who has such devices.
Cars already have kill switches, as the car manufacturer can simply issue a remote "software update" just for that particular car, with the firmware doing whatever the car manufacturer commands. And the car executes it regardless whether it is "don't move", or "you drive on a bridge right now, please steer to the right as far as possible". The only thing preventing law enforcement agencies from using them is that they don't have the laws, and don't want to destroy that opportunity. If people find out about the risks of vendor controlled cars they won't buy them.
Now they waste a lot of money for auditing, and if they really find something, I guess NSA will send them a gag order. Then cisco knows that they sell spyware, but what has changed for the customer? Nothing. Cisco will perhaps raise prices or deliver a less quality product because they wasted all that money with the audits. Well perhaps at least they will detect chinese backdoors if there are any. But my guess is that if china has placed backdoors, they place them in the silicon, because that's hard to detect or remove.
Also consider, that never before, science has been made so much in the open. That's thanks to patent laws, and the fact that we don't live in a cold war anymore. Therefore technical progress was done in.
And medicine has seen the requirements raise by a very high degree, due to bad experiences with not so well tested therapies. Think of the polio vaccine or the contergan scandals.
The science of earlier generations was weird as well. I think, that compared with the past, we live in a golden age of science.
Think of the racism theories from the beginning of the 20th century. 200 years ago, a large part of the population couldn't even read properly. Slavery was common, the slaves being mostly used for work, without education of course. 500 years ago scientists fought with the church wanting to control science, refuting heliocentrism. And this is only about elites. Science hasn't reached normal people for a long time. We had quite a progress since then.
He injected 3.5 million bacteria, each of them year-old. You are reading it wrongly.
Believe it or not, "everybody does it", or, called by the official term, "customary law" is part of the anglo-saxon law system.
Drafting new rules is non trivial I guess, as they have to allow cars to do what the humans do, as well as still being understandable by humans, so that the humans stay legal, and the humans know what to expect from cars.
Can I use your username as password?
Always has been the job of chemical companies, and always will be.