Both Microsoft and the fools that published this article base their derogatory comments about BO2K on the fact that it can be hidden from the user. For example, here is a quote from Microsoft:
"Remote control software is not malicious in and of itself; in fact, legitimate remote control software packages are available for use by system administrators. What is different about BO2K is that it is intended to be used for malicious purposes, and includes stealth behavior that has no purpose other than to make it difficult to detect."
For the record, BO2K is a perfectly legitimate remote admin tool. It just happens to be open source. It can be used for malicious purposes just like any other tool.
Microsoft says that BO2K is a "malicious hacker tool" (sic) because it can be concealed. They conveniently overlook the fact that their remote administration tool, SMS (Systems Management Server) can be concealed just as well.
On Monday, July 19, Cult of the Dead Cow Communications publicly challenged Microsoft to recall all copies of SMS and to petition virus scanner makers to include signatures for SMS in their products.
If by some strange chance a singularity was created by the ion collider, what they would have to do is isolate it somehow, contain it, and get one of the space agencies to pack it off on a quick course out of the solar system (just don't point it towards anything important;-). Just because it's a black hole doesn't mean it will suck in the entire earth - it wouldn't have enough mass. More likely a steadily increasing trickle of surrounding matter would be assimilated. Problem is, how do you suspend a black hole (preferably in vacuum) long enough to get it out of here? If it got away and ate its way down through Earth's crust, it would end up eventually destroying the earth as it absorbed matter at an exponentially increasing rate.
The world is finally drifting away from mixing up "hacker" and "cracker". But what worries me is that "hacker" is taking on yet another meaning, which is also incorrect. Just about any press that distinguishes "hacker" and "cracker" labels hackers as those who break security, break operating systems, and gain entry to anything digital, supposedly for non-harmful purposes. This must be stopped!
Jim, if you ever read this on the big Linux server in the sky, I'd just like to say that ST will never be the same again. We all miss you. Rest in peace.
Microsoft has one purpose statement: _MAKE MONEY_. All their actions are just logical extensions of this goal (combined with a few shady morals). Microsoft doesn't really have anything against Linux, but they want to destroy it because the Open Source movement is threatening their market. If destroying Linux will lead to more M$ capital, so be it. I think that, yes, MS will begin pushing their own applications for Linux. They know they can't destroy it - it's too big, too late. What they can do is edge out their competition in this fresh playing field. Ever hear of FUD? As long as a similar Microsoft product is in the works, some of the people (all of the time) will forego buying a competitor's product. After all, you never know when They are going to fall under the shadow of the Giant. An anti-Linux team may not really translate to getting rid of Linux - it may mean USING it instead. There's a huge, glorious, new market there - can you really picture M$ not getting their fingers into this pie somehow? Get ready to see "NT Server for Linux" on the next round of shiny brochures! It would be interesting to see the correspondence between the anti-Linux team and the team porting IE. Wouldn't it be _interesting_ to see the source code of IE for Linux? Keep a sharp eye on your filesystem if you ever install it. Remember, M$ has done twisty little things before (see " Inside the Windows 95 Registration Wizard").
This hack makes things look brighter for the Sun community - binaries from the world's most popular hacker OS run unmodified on yours! I can't see this harming Linux in any way; in fact, it seems to me that boosting compatibility between the two systems can only be good for both. Sun isn't really interested in helping Linux out with this - I quote, "When Linux gains, we believe Sun wins. When Solaris wins, Sun wins, obviously." But as a side effect, Lxrun has made a bigger market for Linux programmers. The news article mentions that tools are in development to let single sources be compiled without modification to run on either OS. Take a snapshot of the OS market in the early 80's. You have your Commodores, your Apples, your PC's, various other small manufacturers, all running OSs that are wildly different. Now peek at the early 90's. OS-2 is still around, Windows 3.1 is big, Mac OS looks pretty, and it is the age of the GUI. Everything is beginning to gravitate together. Now, 1999, you see NT becoming as Unix-like as possible without losing the trademark Microsoft cruft, different Unices are bonding together, and OSs are becoming good enough to run each other's software. Call me futuristic, but I foresee One True Operating System - or if Microsoft is still around, it seems we are trending toward a semi-standard OS design. And goodness gracious me, it looks more like Linux than anything else. May the Source be with you.
Slashdot Mirror
Both Microsoft and the fools that published this article base their derogatory comments about BO2K on the fact that it can be hidden from the user. For example, here is a quote from Microsoft:
"Remote control software is not malicious in and of itself; in fact, legitimate remote control software packages are available for use by system administrators. What is different about BO2K is that it is intended to be used for malicious purposes, and includes stealth behavior that has no purpose other than to make it difficult to detect."
For the record, BO2K is a perfectly legitimate remote admin tool. It just happens to be open source. It can be used for malicious purposes just like any other tool.
Microsoft says that BO2K is a "malicious hacker tool" (sic) because it can be concealed. They conveniently overlook the fact that their remote administration tool, SMS (Systems Management Server) can be concealed just as well.
On Monday, July 19, Cult of the Dead Cow Communications publicly challenged Microsoft to recall all copies of SMS and to petition virus scanner makers to include signatures for SMS in their products.
If by some strange chance a singularity was created by the ion collider, what they would have to do is isolate it somehow, contain it, and get one of the space agencies to pack it off on a quick course out of the solar system (just don't point it towards anything important ;-). Just because it's a black hole doesn't mean it will suck in the entire earth - it wouldn't have enough mass. More likely a steadily increasing trickle of surrounding matter would be assimilated.
Problem is, how do you suspend a black hole (preferably in vacuum) long enough to get it out of here? If it got away and ate its way down through Earth's crust, it would end up eventually destroying the earth as it absorbed matter at an exponentially increasing rate.
The world is finally drifting away from mixing up "hacker" and "cracker". But what worries me is that "hacker" is taking on yet another meaning, which is also incorrect. Just about any press that distinguishes "hacker" and "cracker" labels hackers as those who break security, break operating systems, and gain entry to anything digital, supposedly for non-harmful purposes. This must be stopped!
###########.###########
##########-|-##########
###########|###########
#######.-'~~~`-.#######
#####.'=========`.#####
#####|==R==I==P==|#####
#####|====D=K====|#####
#####|===========|#####
###\\|===========|//###
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Jim, if you ever read this on the big Linux server in the sky, I'd just like to say that ST will never be the same again. We all miss you. Rest in peace.
Microsoft has one purpose statement: _MAKE MONEY_. All their actions are just logical extensions of this goal (combined with a few shady morals). Microsoft doesn't really have anything against Linux, but they want to destroy it because the Open Source movement is threatening their market. If destroying Linux will lead to more M$ capital, so be it.
I think that, yes, MS will begin pushing their own applications for Linux. They know they can't destroy it - it's too big, too late. What they can do is edge out their competition in this fresh playing field. Ever hear of FUD? As long as a similar Microsoft product is in the works, some of the people (all of the time) will forego buying a competitor's product. After all, you never know when They are going to fall under the shadow of the Giant.
An anti-Linux team may not really translate to getting rid of Linux - it may mean USING it instead. There's a huge, glorious, new market there - can you really picture M$ not getting their fingers into this pie somehow? Get ready to see "NT Server for Linux" on the next round of shiny brochures!
It would be interesting to see the correspondence between the anti-Linux team and the team porting IE.
Wouldn't it be _interesting_ to see the source code of IE for Linux? Keep a sharp eye on your filesystem if you ever install it. Remember, M$ has done twisty little things before (see " Inside the Windows 95 Registration Wizard").
This hack makes things look brighter for the Sun community - binaries from the world's most popular hacker OS run unmodified on yours! I can't see this harming Linux in any way; in fact, it seems to me that boosting compatibility between the two systems can only be good for both. Sun isn't really interested in helping Linux out with this - I quote, "When Linux gains, we believe Sun wins. When Solaris wins, Sun wins, obviously." But as a side effect, Lxrun has made a bigger market for Linux programmers. The news article mentions that tools are in development to let single sources be compiled without modification to run on either OS. Take a snapshot of the OS market in the early 80's. You have your Commodores, your Apples, your PC's, various other small manufacturers, all running OSs that are wildly different. Now peek at the early 90's. OS-2 is still around, Windows 3.1 is big, Mac OS looks pretty, and it is the age of the GUI. Everything is beginning to gravitate together. Now, 1999, you see NT becoming as Unix-like as possible without losing the trademark Microsoft cruft, different Unices are bonding together, and OSs are becoming good enough to run each other's software. Call me futuristic, but I foresee One True Operating System - or if Microsoft is still around, it seems we are trending toward a semi-standard OS design. And goodness gracious me, it looks more like Linux than anything else. May the Source be with you.