Well, I'm assuming that people deciding they aren't interested in unix are making a considered decision based on the pros and cons of the various alternatives. Instead of just rolling a dice or consulting a dismembered chicken.
One of our consultants gave an internal training session a couple of weeks ago. He told me that a lot of his customers are Windows shops, and they're interested in Windows almost entirely. He's a Windows guy himself, so it makes sense that most of his customers aren't interested in Linux/Unix.
That's exactly what I said. People who are learning about virtualization have either looked to find out what unix can offer them or made the deliberate decision not to. They aren't naive experimenters about to stumble across 'the joy of linux' despite Microsoft's attempt to keep them from it.
a lot of the ms strategy involves people not being exposed to linux and being able to make a comparison.
Are you high? I'm sorry, that's crap. People interested in virtualization software are going to be 'in the industry', and either have already made the comparison, or are just flat out not interested in switching.
I find it very hard to believe that anyone interested in 'virtualization' would not know the pros and cons of the various unices.
Why do you think that there will be fewer bugs? Do you think lots and lots of developers will eagerly be submitting bug fixes to Sun? For *this* project?
That depends on whether the developers want this DRM to succeed over the 'closed source' DRM's out there. Because if it's full of holes, the content providers won't use it.
DRM is a reality of our age. If you don't want it don't use the content, however that won't stop DRM being used for the people who DO want the content (both the paying type of customer and the non-paying.)
A cross-platform open-source DRM is a bit more enjoyable than a closed MS only version, yeah?
Then the 26% was installed by someone who knows better. The very fact that someone has bothered to get educated takes them out of the ranks of the 'average consumer.
The average consumer market doesn't know what a CSS is, and wouldn't care if they did. All they care about is whether the site looks ok, and if it does, they'll keep using whatever they're using right now. (Be it FF, IE5, lynx.. )
An example would be if I called you from a number not local to you, you do not pay long-distance charges for that call. I pay the long-distance charges, you merely use the cellular minutes per your agreement with you provider.
But a world without passports is just like it has always been (except for the last ~ 100 years) and should be.
Don't ever want to travel overseas then? I think the OP was suggesting the US government stop issuing passports, thus preventing you from travelling outside the country.
I'm still astounded that the UK has an unelected unaccountable house that can hold up anything they want for any reason.
I realise it's a legacy of centuries past, and I realise that it's 'historically important', but create a 'house of lords' museum and get yourselves a proper senate for the love of democracy.
The point is that no matter how much you think you couldn't possibly leave your job, one day you will, if only on a stretcher. And the world somehow goes on.
On the other hand, if you're dead, you don't need a job/pay check anymore.
He didn't say they were good ideas. But you only need one good idea a year to be hailed an innovator. If he thinks up (100 x 8 x 5 x 52) 208000 good ideas a year, he only needs a success rate of 0.00000something to succeed!
The difference is your dick waving teenager is more likely to include 'rm -rf' in the mix, whereas the corporation doesn't want to do any damage. (short of gimping your CD player so you can't burn the precious precious musics.)
If they hadn't gone about it in such a half assed way, such that people can exploit it to do real damage, it wouldn't have had the backlash it did.
Cameras aren't meant to stop crime, they're meant to make it easier to catch the people involved after they've already committed it.
The only way that cameras stop crime is the deterrent effect of "Oh, that camera is there, I don't want to be recorded stabbing this dude." and suicide bombers don't have the same sort of reluctance to be arrested that your average criminal does.
If you'd thought about it, it would be obvious why this is the case. In the case of NASA, if it wasn't safe people wouldn't volunteer. In the case of ICU, you're never going to have a shortage of 'volunteers'.
I'm curious, what makes a closed source vendors checksum any more safe than, say, Redhats? Regardless of that, someone would need distribute their uber-exploit compiler with every binary distro out there instead of ONE compiler for Windows.
Absolutely nothing, as I said in my previous post I was not saying that closed source was any more secure in this (admittedly unlikely) scenarion. I was just rebutting your suggestion that open source was resistant to it.
You wouldn't need to poison every binary distro either, just getting redhat or debian (for instance) would get you more than enough devices for whatever you wanted to do.
Whoops. Behold the strawman attack. I should not have implied that you said open source was 'invulnerable'. Please replace that with 'highly resistant to'.
None of them are insurmountable, and they're certainly a lot harder to pull off than in the closed source world.
I'm sorry, this just shows you really don't understand the 'attack vectors'.
Closed source vendors compile once and send out binaries which you can checksum. Open source users recompile for many good reasons and many bad reasons BUT they still use the compiler provided by the distro for their initial compilation.
There is nothing to suggest that the binary compiler provided by your distro of choice is any more 'secure' than the one used by Microsoft (as an example), and since the code used to compile -that specific binary- is unavailable, the 'many eyes' theory just doesn't apply.
PS: By this post I don't mean to suggest that 'closed source' is more secure against this sort of attack, merely to point out that your assertion that open source makes you immune to it is a load of crap.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I'm assuming that people deciding they aren't interested in unix are making a considered decision based on the pros and cons of the various alternatives. Instead of just rolling a dice or consulting a dismembered chicken.
That's exactly what I said. People who are learning about virtualization have either looked to find out what unix can offer them or made the deliberate decision not to. They aren't naive experimenters about to stumble across 'the joy of linux' despite Microsoft's attempt to keep them from it.
Are you high? I'm sorry, that's crap. People interested in virtualization software are going to be 'in the industry', and either have already made the comparison, or are just flat out not interested in switching.
I find it very hard to believe that anyone interested in 'virtualization' would not know the pros and cons of the various unices.
That depends on whether the developers want this DRM to succeed over the 'closed source' DRM's out there. Because if it's full of holes, the content providers won't use it.
DRM is a reality of our age. If you don't want it don't use the content, however that won't stop DRM being used for the people who DO want the content (both the paying type of customer and the non-paying.)
A cross-platform open-source DRM is a bit more enjoyable than a closed MS only version, yeah?
Then the 26% was installed by someone who knows better. The very fact that someone has bothered to get educated takes them out of the ranks of the 'average consumer.
The average consumer market doesn't know what a CSS is, and wouldn't care if they did. All they care about is whether the site looks ok, and if it does, they'll keep using whatever they're using right now. (Be it FF, IE5, lynx.. )
It's still retarded, however you paint it.
Don't ever want to travel overseas then? I think the OP was suggesting the US government stop issuing passports, thus preventing you from travelling outside the country.
I'm Australian. Compulsory Voting with a variety of parties available mean that we have a 'decent senate'.
I'm still astounded that the UK has an unelected unaccountable house that can hold up anything they want for any reason.
I realise it's a legacy of centuries past, and I realise that it's 'historically important', but create a 'house of lords' museum and get yourselves a proper senate for the love of democracy.
The Blizzard macro system has some built in restrictions. ie: You can't cast two spells with one macro.
Nope, it includes Australia too.
On the other hand, if you're dead, you don't need a job/pay check anymore.
The moral of the story? Don't kill anyone.
Then turn it off? It's not rocket science.
Mm.. nuts and gum.
If they hadn't gone about it in such a half assed way, such that people can exploit it to do real damage, it wouldn't have had the backlash it did.
Haven't got the stones to post logged in eh?
Don't feel too bad. It's only moderation, we all get through it.
What's that got to do with Graffiti, or even Censorship? Grind your political wheel elsewhere monkeyboy.
IIRC, the patch explicitly flagged those certs as bad, it probably still doesn't check microsoft.com for validity.
The only way that cameras stop crime is the deterrent effect of "Oh, that camera is there, I don't want to be recorded stabbing this dude." and suicide bombers don't have the same sort of reluctance to be arrested that your average criminal does.
If you'd thought about it, it would be obvious why this is the case. In the case of NASA, if it wasn't safe people wouldn't volunteer. In the case of ICU, you're never going to have a shortage of 'volunteers'.
Absolutely nothing, as I said in my previous post I was not saying that closed source was any more secure in this (admittedly unlikely) scenarion. I was just rebutting your suggestion that open source was resistant to it.
You wouldn't need to poison every binary distro either, just getting redhat or debian (for instance) would get you more than enough devices for whatever you wanted to do.
Whoops. Behold the strawman attack. I should not have implied that you said open source was 'invulnerable'. Please replace that with 'highly resistant to'.
I'm sorry, this just shows you really don't understand the 'attack vectors'.
Closed source vendors compile once and send out binaries which you can checksum. Open source users recompile for many good reasons and many bad reasons BUT they still use the compiler provided by the distro for their initial compilation.
There is nothing to suggest that the binary compiler provided by your distro of choice is any more 'secure' than the one used by Microsoft (as an example), and since the code used to compile -that specific binary- is unavailable, the 'many eyes' theory just doesn't apply.
PS: By this post I don't mean to suggest that 'closed source' is more secure against this sort of attack, merely to point out that your assertion that open source makes you immune to it is a load of crap.