I don't even work for the government, much less top-secret info and assassination targets, and I would be fired if I used my personal email to do company business.
when James Comey gets some really comfortable position in the Clinton administration. Like an outrageously high pension, or a cabinet position above his means.
Between this, losing the Java case, and the whistle being blown on their cooked accounting books, it really seems like Oracle's legal department's about to get tied to a pole and whipped until bloody by Ellison until they've expiated their failures.
Rust does have a purpose: the power of C++ but with built-in safety mechanisms.
"Just program C++ well and it will be safe," the critics say. Unfortunately in the real world that doesn't happen often enough because not everybody is a flawless programmer. And so, what's wrong with making the tool safer?
Also, in what way are they "forcing the world onto it"? Is somebody holding a gun to your head and making you use it?
Utter drivel. The only reason email viruses and browser exploits work on Windows is because the user is constantly in root privileges and user applications aren't sandboxed. Yes, all human beings are vulnerable to phishing, but Linux does not have the same vulnerabilities as Windows does.
I've researched OneNote and EverNote before and neither of them have any features that would be worth losing all of your personal notes when you don't pay your monthly ransom.
If you need your notes to sync across devices, why not just use ownCloud or the like?
Please no. I don't want the unwashed masses attracting malware to my platform of choice.
Interesting myth that I keep seeing repeated. Windows has malware because security is an afterthought, most users run with root privileges 100% of the time, and the UAC is worse than useless because most people mindlessly click through it. UNIX-like systems are designed to be secure (as multi-user systems, the goal from the start was to never let user A be able to muck up user B's data or processes).
The fact that Windows is top desktop OS might make it more attractive to hackers, but it's also the lowest-hanging fruit on the tree.
Microsoft's evil, but they know good business. Assuredly pulling an Adobe and changing to a subscription service for Windows 10 would cause far more damage than the short term profits they would get from the ransom payments, right?
Don't use Windows 10 because it's an Orwellian nightmare of surveillance, of course. But I am just doubtful Microsoft would shoot themselves in the head by doing what most commenters here are taking it to mean.
Apache office, the only cross platform compatible Office suite.
Sure, but not with MS Office which is really the only one that counts...
Yes, I've tried the other options, they "kinda sorta work" most of the time, sometimes, often, but not 100% of the time...
When you exchange Word, Excel, and PowerPoint files with other people, edit them, then send them back, they have to be perfect.
Then don't use MSOffice. I've sent an.docx file from one computer to another using the exact same version of MSWord on both and the formatting got completely wrecked. This has happened repeatedly and in one instance almost cost me my job.
I vet all of my documents in LibreOffice because I've never had that problem with LO.
They don't, it's just another opportunity to blame Russia for something, in this case suggesting that Guccifer 2.0 is really the Russian government doing bad things to the innocent United States.
Exactly this.
There's a stratagem that a lot of politicians follow, "never let a crisis go to waste." If the hacker was just some random knob, then the DNC looks incompetent. If the hacker was working for the Russian state, then Hillary Clinton's hawkish foreign policy looks a little less aggressive and more defensive.
At least iOS GETS Security Patches, right? Now where's the same page for your non-Nexus Android phone?
Thought so.
I happen to have a Nexus 5X and I don't recommend anything other than the Nexus phones, thanks.
While it's true that iPhones have a longer support life than most Android phones, what you're failing to mention is that Apple quickly dumps support for the major iOS versions, so to get security updates, you have to bump up a major version. Since each newer version uses more resources than the older ones, the older iPhones slow to a crawl and become generally unusable.
Please Slashdot editors, stop with the cross-story promotion. It makes sense if the two stories are directly related, not when the two stories hang in the same genre.
Isn't it amazing, macs4all, that even despite all the conflicts, we Linux users still have an abundance of freedom of choice and customization, and still have a superior experience to Macs?
I agree that you have an abundance of freedom of choice and customization; because that's all you have.
But a "superior experience"? Not even close.
That's nice. I'm glad you're happy with your computer. I'll be using one with equivalent specs but half the price, better performance, and a workflow customized to my liking.
that's why Windows has an atrocious reputation for security and crapware, because the UAC introduced in Vista has just conditioned people to click through everything
A few small points but (1) Windows has had an atrocious reputation for security and crapware well before UAC and Vista, (2) as you note UAC hasn't really done a lot to change this, and (3) this is just a repeat of ActiveX* in a lot of ways.
Linux is infinitely superior in this regard, since you have the baked-in defenses from POSIX, but also because the important Linux distros all ship with SELinux or AppArmor sandboxing the privileges of the email client and browser by default.
Uh, no. Chrome will happily run programs you download for you if you let it. Meanwhile, the juiciest targets for Linux right now are still servers which involve attacking things like bash and openssl. Honestly, AppArmor doesn't help much if you can still launch a separate executable. I'd say obscurity is the best defense most Linux desktop users enjoy today, not anything else.
*And just to be clear, as much as there were a lot of vulnerabilities that allowed ActiveX controls to run regardless of security policies or whatever, the biggest reason ActiveX was and is a problem is the same reason UAC + downloading an executable is: you can't really tell anything about what a program will do and, as you say, people become conditioned to just click through everything. Really, lightweight snapshoting and a good recovery system would have done more to protect the system than an all-or-nothing barrier.
What Linux distro ships Chrome as the default browser? None of the main ones (Ubuntu, Mint, RHEL/CentOS, [open]SUSE, Debian, Arch, Gentoo). If you install a different browser you should manually profile it in SELinux/AppArmor (it's a little tedious with the former, but the latter can do it for you almost automatically).
Bingo, we have a winner. There is no difference in the way Windows and Linux handle executable from a security standpoint. If the executable is bad and you click on it you are DONE HERE in any OS. To the extent that Linux is better its better because nobody cares enough about DESKTOP Linux to write exploits for it.
Sorry, you are manifestly and provably wrong. Windows has no equivalent function to AppArmor or SELinux to profile an executive's privileges before running it.
There are legit reasons for turning on unknown sources. Humble Bundle is one that comes to mind.
And Adguard. But if you're going to install a third-party program, it's very wise to only turn on "Install from unknown sources" during the installation/update, and then immediately turn it back off.
Can you provide even a single example of somebody running a web server on Android?
Linux servers don't get "constantly rooted and defaced". But, regardless, nobody is saying Linux is invulnerable. We'll have to settle on merely being orders of magnitude more secure than Windows, which is the point of the comparison.
You point out that Windows 10 isn't secure from its update provider. But is any general-purpose PC operating system secure both from its update provider and from attackers who exploit defects in software that isn't updated?
If you use a FOSS operating system like Linux or FreeBSD, you can audit the updates and apply them selectively. So even if you didn't trust Red Hat/SUSE/Canonical, you could still benefit from their security patches.
You're just jealous that Windows 10 users don't have to deal with Systemd and GNOME 3.
The most serial criticisms of system and GNOME 3 are that they're too similar to Windows SCM and Metro, respectively. Thus saying that one should then use Windows to avoid them is a collapsing spiral staircase of lunacy.
as a Gnome Shell user, I have to disagree about it being similar to Windows 8.
Well, sorry then. I have no desire to antagonize GNOME Shell fans/users. I'm just responding to the insane trolling that it's somehow bundled into the Linux kernel and therefore unavoidable.
I should add though, it's clearly a substantial amount of data from surveillance, since it's multiple MB per day dispersed to over 100 domains. Although one should still be alarmed even if that were not the case: it only takes a few bytes and one domain to log that you're a political dissident, or to keylog your encryption password, or that you're a kayaking fan and Bing should show you related ads.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't even work for the government, much less top-secret info and assassination targets, and I would be fired if I used my personal email to do company business.
when James Comey gets some really comfortable position in the Clinton administration. Like an outrageously high pension, or a cabinet position above his means.
Between this, losing the Java case, and the whistle being blown on their cooked accounting books, it really seems like Oracle's legal department's about to get tied to a pole and whipped until bloody by Ellison until they've expiated their failures.
Just wanted to say that. Multos annos!
Summary of the above post: Alpha version is buggy and unstable. That means it sucks. All good programs are bugless and stable from version 0.0.1.
Rust does have a purpose: the power of C++ but with built-in safety mechanisms.
"Just program C++ well and it will be safe," the critics say. Unfortunately in the real world that doesn't happen often enough because not everybody is a flawless programmer. And so, what's wrong with making the tool safer?
Also, in what way are they "forcing the world onto it"? Is somebody holding a gun to your head and making you use it?
Utter drivel. The only reason email viruses and browser exploits work on Windows is because the user is constantly in root privileges and user applications aren't sandboxed. Yes, all human beings are vulnerable to phishing, but Linux does not have the same vulnerabilities as Windows does.
and the UAC is worse than useless because most people mindlessly click through it.
This is patently false. Even if they just mindlessly click through it, please demonstrate how it makes you *more* vulnerable than not having it.
I don't believe I said it makes you *more* vulnerable. I just said it was worse than useless (i.e., annoying and useless).
I've researched OneNote and EverNote before and neither of them have any features that would be worth losing all of your personal notes when you don't pay your monthly ransom.
If you need your notes to sync across devices, why not just use ownCloud or the like?
Please no. I don't want the unwashed masses attracting malware to my platform of choice.
Interesting myth that I keep seeing repeated. Windows has malware because security is an afterthought, most users run with root privileges 100% of the time, and the UAC is worse than useless because most people mindlessly click through it. UNIX-like systems are designed to be secure (as multi-user systems, the goal from the start was to never let user A be able to muck up user B's data or processes).
The fact that Windows is top desktop OS might make it more attractive to hackers, but it's also the lowest-hanging fruit on the tree.
It's not too shocking right?
I'm in the market for a new kitchen table. Any ideas on where I can rent one for the next 20–30 years?
I recommend getting the pro version, I got the home premium one first but it was too wobbly because they disable one leg.
Nah, you need to get the 'Enterprise' version. The 'home' and 'pro' versions both have a giant advertisement painted on the facade.
Microsoft's evil, but they know good business. Assuredly pulling an Adobe and changing to a subscription service for Windows 10 would cause far more damage than the short term profits they would get from the ransom payments, right?
Don't use Windows 10 because it's an Orwellian nightmare of surveillance, of course. But I am just doubtful Microsoft would shoot themselves in the head by doing what most commenters here are taking it to mean.
Apache office, the only cross platform compatible Office suite.
Sure, but not with MS Office which is really the only one that counts...
Yes, I've tried the other options, they "kinda sorta work" most of the time, sometimes, often, but not 100% of the time...
When you exchange Word, Excel, and PowerPoint files with other people, edit them, then send them back, they have to be perfect.
Then don't use MSOffice. I've sent an .docx file from one computer to another using the exact same version of MSWord on both and the formatting got completely wrecked. This has happened repeatedly and in one instance almost cost me my job.
I vet all of my documents in LibreOffice because I've never had that problem with LO.
They don't, it's just another opportunity to blame Russia for something, in this case suggesting that Guccifer 2.0 is really the Russian government doing bad things to the innocent United States.
Exactly this.
There's a stratagem that a lot of politicians follow, "never let a crisis go to waste." If the hacker was just some random knob, then the DNC looks incompetent. If the hacker was working for the Russian state, then Hillary Clinton's hawkish foreign policy looks a little less aggressive and more defensive.
Use iOS.
Great plan. Because as we all know, iOS is 100% secure and never has to receive security patches.
At least iOS GETS Security Patches, right? Now where's the same page for your non-Nexus Android phone? Thought so.
I happen to have a Nexus 5X and I don't recommend anything other than the Nexus phones, thanks.
While it's true that iPhones have a longer support life than most Android phones, what you're failing to mention is that Apple quickly dumps support for the major iOS versions, so to get security updates, you have to bump up a major version. Since each newer version uses more resources than the older ones, the older iPhones slow to a crawl and become generally unusable.
Please Slashdot editors, stop with the cross-story promotion. It makes sense if the two stories are directly related, not when the two stories hang in the same genre.
Use iOS.
Great plan. Because as we all know, iOS is 100% secure and never has to receive security patches.
Isn't it amazing, macs4all, that even despite all the conflicts, we Linux users still have an abundance of freedom of choice and customization, and still have a superior experience to Macs?
I agree that you have an abundance of freedom of choice and customization; because that's all you have. But a "superior experience"? Not even close.
That's nice. I'm glad you're happy with your computer. I'll be using one with equivalent specs but half the price, better performance, and a workflow customized to my liking.
A few small points but (1) Windows has had an atrocious reputation for security and crapware well before UAC and Vista, (2) as you note UAC hasn't really done a lot to change this, and (3) this is just a repeat of ActiveX* in a lot of ways.
Uh, no. Chrome will happily run programs you download for you if you let it. Meanwhile, the juiciest targets for Linux right now are still servers which involve attacking things like bash and openssl. Honestly, AppArmor doesn't help much if you can still launch a separate executable. I'd say obscurity is the best defense most Linux desktop users enjoy today, not anything else.
*And just to be clear, as much as there were a lot of vulnerabilities that allowed ActiveX controls to run regardless of security policies or whatever, the biggest reason ActiveX was and is a problem is the same reason UAC + downloading an executable is: you can't really tell anything about what a program will do and, as you say, people become conditioned to just click through everything. Really, lightweight snapshoting and a good recovery system would have done more to protect the system than an all-or-nothing barrier.
What Linux distro ships Chrome as the default browser? None of the main ones (Ubuntu, Mint, RHEL/CentOS, [open]SUSE, Debian, Arch, Gentoo). If you install a different browser you should manually profile it in SELinux/AppArmor (it's a little tedious with the former, but the latter can do it for you almost automatically).
Bingo, we have a winner. There is no difference in the way Windows and Linux handle executable from a security standpoint. If the executable is bad and you click on it you are DONE HERE in any OS. To the extent that Linux is better its better because nobody cares enough about DESKTOP Linux to write exploits for it.
Sorry, you are manifestly and provably wrong. Windows has no equivalent function to AppArmor or SELinux to profile an executive's privileges before running it.
There are legit reasons for turning on unknown sources. Humble Bundle is one that comes to mind.
And Adguard. But if you're going to install a third-party program, it's very wise to only turn on "Install from unknown sources" during the installation/update, and then immediately turn it back off.
Can you provide even a single example of somebody running a web server on Android?
Linux servers don't get "constantly rooted and defaced". But, regardless, nobody is saying Linux is invulnerable. We'll have to settle on merely being orders of magnitude more secure than Windows, which is the point of the comparison.
You point out that Windows 10 isn't secure from its update provider. But is any general-purpose PC operating system secure both from its update provider and from attackers who exploit defects in software that isn't updated?
If you use a FOSS operating system like Linux or FreeBSD, you can audit the updates and apply them selectively. So even if you didn't trust Red Hat/SUSE/Canonical, you could still benefit from their security patches.
You're just jealous that Windows 10 users don't have to deal with Systemd and GNOME 3.
The most serial criticisms of system and GNOME 3 are that they're too similar to Windows SCM and Metro, respectively. Thus saying that one should then use Windows to avoid them is a collapsing spiral staircase of lunacy.
as a Gnome Shell user, I have to disagree about it being similar to Windows 8.
Well, sorry then. I have no desire to antagonize GNOME Shell fans/users. I'm just responding to the insane trolling that it's somehow bundled into the Linux kernel and therefore unavoidable.
I should add though, it's clearly a substantial amount of data from surveillance, since it's multiple MB per day dispersed to over 100 domains. Although one should still be alarmed even if that were not the case: it only takes a few bytes and one domain to log that you're a political dissident, or to keylog your encryption password, or that you're a kayaking fan and Bing should show you related ads.