The guy who infamously responded to the announcement of the original iPod: "No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame." So I'm sure we're all interested in his opinion about Silk.
This isn't a virus. It doesn't propagate; it's not even capable of communicating with its server once installed, so it's another one of these annual proof-of-concept social engineering attacks that anonymous Apple-haters latch onto and then promptly forget about a day later.
Must every story about Mac malware spend more time talking about how Windows is so bad than the OS X malware they are reporting?
Can you cite an example of such a story? Since, you know, that doesn't occur in this one. It mentions Windows because this is an OS-independent social engineering attack, not "Mac malware."
I do agree that the IKEA effect is real but I don't think that FOSS is a pile of crap like the OP hints from the summary: "... while the general market resists them... "
The summary doesn't imply at all that OSS is a "pile of crap." It simply states a fact.
I'm no expert here but I think the general market embraces FOSS software. I mean look at firefox, openoffice, vlc, mpc-hc... and when you get to smaller utilities it is even more open source stuff: ffmpeg (and many other codecs), hundreds of browser plugins, you name it they have it in open source.
Most people don't even know what vlc, mpc-hc, or ffmpeg are. The only one that people might be familiar with is Firefox.
I'm more worried about "lawful" in there. If that's found to be "an application or webpage that is guaranteed to have no illegal content" or something similar, then we might end up with torrent and freenet blockers anyway.
Well, net neutrality supporters want the government regulating everything, including the private networks of private companies that you as a customer merely pay for access to, so the inevitable result is going to be abuses like restricting torrent traffic to prevent "economic terrorism."
Nobody has yet to offer a single valid justification for so-called "net neutrality" legislation. Internet access is a technological convenience, a service sold by private companies, not some right guaranteed constitutional protection. Sysadmins should be able to regulate their network traffic however they want.
What scares me about net neutrality is that people actually believe a private company running a private network doesn't have the right to regulate its network traffic however they see fit.
This is different. Unlike global warming, for which there has been no recorded rise in global temperature since 1998, this actually has observation backing it.
1) The Flash plugin they bundle has various local changes applied to it (e.g. its version number often doesn't match _any_ public version number released by Adobe).
"Various local changes" doesn't mean it's a new implementation of Flash. It is Adobe's Flash plug-in.
2) They haven't removed H.264 support last I checked. They just said they would, then nothing. Just like they said they're release Android source, then nothing.
/. is on the same level in terms of its importance to Microsoft's business. Tons of technical people read/. including Network Admin, Programmers, and just your local technical handy-man.
You're delusional. Slashdot's traffic has been diminishing for many years as most of the readership fled to Reddit, Digg, and Hacker News. It's not at all that important to Microsoft's business what Slashdot thinks; they're just citing Slashdot as an extreme example because Slashdot hates Microsoft and will post anything negative about them.
We are who most non-technical people get their recommendations and knowledge from. If we say something bad about Microsoft then the people we influence will listen.
Slashdotters also said the iPod would fail, the iPod mini would fail, and that Linux would take over the desktop year after year. This is one of the last groups of people you should ever look to for technology recommendations.
That is why Vista failed. The technical people said it was bad so it was bad. That's why Microsoft has gone to such pains with Windows 7 and Windows 8 to keep us as a group happy and so far it has worked for them.
Vista failed because of incompatibilities and intrusive user prompts. It had absolutely nothing to do with what some angry nerds on Slashdot said about it. Slashdot hated Windows 7 too, and they'll hate Windows 8. They always hate Microsoft products.
I do agree that this was stupid, unless there's something more to the story; it doesn't appear that he actually leaked anything that could plausibly be considered secret, and certainly not any interesting secrets.
It doesn't matter how much was revealed. He violated company policy and discussed an unreleased product. Microsoft might have budgeted millions of dollars in advertising to coincide with an official announcement, or the phone might get cancelled before release, or perhaps the Osborne effect could impact current sales. There are plenty of reasons why such company policies are instituted.
It seems like this submission made it to the front page simply because it's about Microsoft and it gives people a chance to shake their fist.
The fact that the product is unreleased and could, for example, be cancelled, as well as the potential impact of an Osborne effect, are reasons that your statement is wrong.
I've spent years trying to explain that market share is a percentage and not an absolute number, but people simply do not listen. Slashdotters are obsessed with market share.
Chrome doesn't have its own Flash implementation. They just bundle Adobe's Flash plug-in (even though they claim to have removed H.264 support in the name of openness).
Chrome's been the same way since Google started it. Mozilla trying to play Google with their Firefox releases fucked up a previously reliable application in the process. See the fucking difference?
So Firefox is just doing what Google has always done, yet Google is for some reason exempt from the hatred. So you didn't refute the post you were replying to at all. In fact, all you did was get weird and angry on the internet.
Slashdot Mirror
The guy who infamously responded to the announcement of the original iPod: "No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame." So I'm sure we're all interested in his opinion about Silk.
This isn't a virus. It doesn't propagate; it's not even capable of communicating with its server once installed, so it's another one of these annual proof-of-concept social engineering attacks that anonymous Apple-haters latch onto and then promptly forget about a day later.
This isn't a virus; it doesn't do anything when installed or propagate. It can't even communicate with its server.
Can you cite an example of such a story? Since, you know, that doesn't occur in this one. It mentions Windows because this is an OS-independent social engineering attack, not "Mac malware."
RTFA. It's an executable using a PDF document icon. This is nothing more than a social engineering trick
Common sense? You think asthma inhalers are depleting the ozone? They're completely negligible; volcanoes deplete more ozone.
How does that refute the post you were replying to, and why were you too afraid to post it under your account?
The summary doesn't imply at all that OSS is a "pile of crap." It simply states a fact.
Most people don't even know what vlc, mpc-hc, or ffmpeg are. The only one that people might be familiar with is Firefox.
Well, net neutrality supporters want the government regulating everything, including the private networks of private companies that you as a customer merely pay for access to, so the inevitable result is going to be abuses like restricting torrent traffic to prevent "economic terrorism."
Nobody has yet to offer a single valid justification for so-called "net neutrality" legislation. Internet access is a technological convenience, a service sold by private companies, not some right guaranteed constitutional protection. Sysadmins should be able to regulate their network traffic however they want.
What scares me about net neutrality is that people actually believe a private company running a private network doesn't have the right to regulate its network traffic however they see fit.
This is different. Unlike global warming, for which there has been no recorded rise in global temperature since 1998, this actually has observation backing it.
How many anonymous cowards are going to post this?
Um, Jobs hasn't been CEO since January. But please, go on reassuring people not to "worry," because Steve Jobs will die.
"Various local changes" doesn't mean it's a new implementation of Flash. It is Adobe's Flash plug-in.
How reassuring.
What an incredibly dumb and baseless post.
You're delusional. Slashdot's traffic has been diminishing for many years as most of the readership fled to Reddit, Digg, and Hacker News. It's not at all that important to Microsoft's business what Slashdot thinks; they're just citing Slashdot as an extreme example because Slashdot hates Microsoft and will post anything negative about them.
Slashdotters also said the iPod would fail, the iPod mini would fail, and that Linux would take over the desktop year after year. This is one of the last groups of people you should ever look to for technology recommendations.
Vista failed because of incompatibilities and intrusive user prompts. It had absolutely nothing to do with what some angry nerds on Slashdot said about it. Slashdot hated Windows 7 too, and they'll hate Windows 8. They always hate Microsoft products.
It doesn't matter how much was revealed. He violated company policy and discussed an unreleased product. Microsoft might have budgeted millions of dollars in advertising to coincide with an official announcement, or the phone might get cancelled before release, or perhaps the Osborne effect could impact current sales. There are plenty of reasons why such company policies are instituted.
It seems like this submission made it to the front page simply because it's about Microsoft and it gives people a chance to shake their fist.
Your troll posts are kind of faltering lately, Mensa Babe.
The fact that the product is unreleased and could, for example, be cancelled, as well as the potential impact of an Osborne effect, are reasons that your statement is wrong.
No, it's not. What's ridiculous is breaking company policy and revealing information about unreleased products.
I've spent years trying to explain that market share is a percentage and not an absolute number, but people simply do not listen. Slashdotters are obsessed with market share.
Please give a single example of something arbitrarily breaking. You're having a complete meltdown in all your comments to this article.
Chrome doesn't have its own Flash implementation. They just bundle Adobe's Flash plug-in (even though they claim to have removed H.264 support in the name of openness).
Chrome's been the same way since Google started it. Mozilla trying to play Google with their Firefox releases fucked up a previously reliable application in the process. See the fucking difference?
So Firefox is just doing what Google has always done, yet Google is for some reason exempt from the hatred. So you didn't refute the post you were replying to at all. In fact, all you did was get weird and angry on the internet.
Meanwhile, you're a virgin posting anonymously on Slashdot. You will probably die alone.