when Apple just got on with it a made good products. Now they need to spread FUD about a competing product ?
I've got a Surface Pro 3 - it's a great laptop replacement and the tablet form factor is handy for some situations and the fact that it runs standard Windows software makes it a great device. Unless your work consists of surfing the web and sending the odd email, why would anyone want an iPad Pro ?
"tries too hard to do too much" isn't FUD. That's like the gentlest criticism in the book. FUD would be something like, oh, say, giving a million bucks to a patent troll to try and scare everybody away from Linux because it's allegedly a copyright sinkhole.
Until Mozilla decides to rip out Pocket and the ads that read your browsing history, there's nothing they can do to win me back, thanks. The lack of x86_64 build for Windows, telemetry and Bing by default, the stupid shit they can't stop adding ("Hello" for starters), memory leaks and RAM gobbling are all tertiary problems in comparison.
Eich's resignation was the turning point. I don't know what influence he had behind the doors of Mozilla (perhaps it's just a coincidence that his resignation is when everything started falling apart), but after his departure is when the Mozilla board decided to monetize Firefox with Pocket and integrated spyware advertisements.
This is not quite the question that TFS poses, but it's one that interests me. Some games are awfully buggy on release, but the developers have enough integrity to fix as many problems as they can, even if they aren't getting paid for them (the studio I most associate with this good behavior is Paradox). On the other hand, there's some games that are awfully buggy on release, the developers fix a few that have simple solutions, but leave the game a mess for the rest of time. The primary example I'm thinking of here is Empire: Total War. The game was almost unplayable on release; Creative Assembly fixed a few problems, but the game was still a POS and ended up being just a beta for its "sequel", Napoleon: Total War.
Now, myself and plenty of others have since boycotted all CA products, but that only punishes them for future releases. Short of forcing a lawsuit to fix the game/issue refunds, there seems to be no other way to punish a shitty product--or is there?
When Firefox was the hot new thing, it was mindbogglingly awesome. I remember just how happy I was when I first installed it (I think 2004?) and realized it was about twice as fast as Internet Explorer 6. I just about shit myself when I first installed Adblock Plus and saw it skip video ads.
Dark times followed. I think the manufactured outrage over Brandon Eich was the shark that Mozilla jumped over. After that, our fast, secure, modular, FLOSS browser became a shitheap and is now inferior in just about all ways to Chromium and Pale Moon.
It was indeed a kernel vulnerability, but it was fixed very promptly. The reason why it was such a notorious Android exploit is because phone manufacturers and telcos intentionally prevent security patches from going through (so you'll buy a new phone).
You might reply "so what?, it's a kernel exploit", but allow me to point out that if you used just about *any* operating system and turned off security patches, there would be similar exploits. OpenBSD included. Security is not a state, it is a process. One should judge how secure an OS (or in this case, OS kernel) is not just by how many vulnerabilities are discovered, but how critical they are and how fast they are fixed.
OK, I want to apologize for saying OpenBSD is "terribly useless". That was a wild exaggeration and very clearly wrong. I also in no way meant to demean the efforts of the OpenBSD developers.
That being said, if you're just talking about the kernel and core apps of OpenBSD, maybe they are indeed more secure than Debian or RHEL. But then again, Debian and RHEL are secure *enough* that you never hear about major breaches to them. But once you start talking about non-core software (e.g. webserver utilities), OpenBSD's had the same historic vulnerabilities as Linux as had with OpenSSL and the like--but so much more is available in the Linux ecosystem. Sure, you can compile whatever you want in BSD, but do the BSDs have as much extended support as Debian does?
I'm not a professional sysadmin, but I don't find SELinux particularly difficult to administer--a little annoying perhaps, but not out of reach for mortals. AppArmor is very easy to use. Most of the time I don't have to bother with either of those. I install Ubuntu MATE, turn on ufw and automatic security updates, and bam. That's all I need.
Almost all of the serious vulnerabilities Linux has experienced over the years had nothing to do with kernel. Shellshock and Heartbleed were flaws in Bash and OpenSSL. Contrast this with Windows: exactly *how many* critical exploits have been found over the past two decades?
This. Exactly this. This article is the same classic FUD that Microsoft has been shoveling for years. I'm surprised they didn't end the article with some crap about the GPL license being a virus.
What you wrote is true, but that's not why this article is despicable. The image the author is painting is one where Torvalds wakes up in the morning, arbitrary tosses a bunch of new goodies into the kernel according to his mood that day, and within a minute everybody's machines are getting their kernel updated. We should be very alarmed by this, because Torvalds is a loose cannon that doesn't care about security and brushes off the opinions of security experts. So don't use Debian for your webserver, pay $899 now for Windows Server 2012!
Unless you're compiling alpha-release kernels on production machines, the reality is that all of the changes merged into the kernel go through the Linux security team (composed of paid experts from IBM, Novell, VMware, Google, etc.--companies that have a vested interest in Linux being secure and stable), AND THEN it goes through the kernel teams at Red Hat, Debian, Android, Canonical, Fedora, Arch, Gentoo, etc. all of whom report any vulnerabilities back to the Linux team. If all of these companies and distro teams were getting their patches shunned, they would fork Linux--but it hasn't happened yet. What does that tell you?
Exactly this. Windows is insecure as fuck, but people use it because their software runs on it. OpenBSD is probably unbreachable but it's terribly useless as anything but a firewall; to use it as a general OS, you have to turn a lot of its security precautions off. Linux (and by that I mean "GNU/Linux" e.g. RHEL, SUSE, Debian; not Android) gives us a healthy balance between usefulness and security. That's why almost every webserver runs Linux.
TFS makes the article look rather balanced, but if you actually read it, it's pretty clearly FUD attempting to make the kernel team look indifferent (or even incompetent) regarding security. It blames the "towelroot" Android exploit as being the fault of Linux, and compares Linux security to car manufacturers in the 1960s willfully avoiding seat belts and other safety mechanisms. Was the author bribed by Microsoft?
The chances of OS/2 achieving a significant binary compatibility with Windows NT, or even make a dent in Windows 10's usershare, is unlikely. If you want that to happen, contribute to ReactOS. OS/2 will likely just be used to replace a few ATMs.
Surely the submitter meant "positively", because the actual word printed in TFS indicates that the OS/2 community is taking this news in by interpreting the sensory phenomenon of its announcement using deductive logic.
Data: I have two separate automated backup routines, so nothing to fear there. Car/house: losing my phone would be about the same as losing my TV remote, which does not keep me up at night. Single point of failure for all my electronics: yes, that would be a bitch I suppose. But unless you're a complete dolt that destroys your phone more than once per year, I think having a single $1k phone-computer +accessories would be cheaper in the long run than having to replace my phone, computer, laptop, and tablet every time one of them gives up the ghost or their hardware goes obsolete.
14.04 LTS will still be supported until 2019, by which point Xenial Xerus will have been out for three years. Do you think Canonical and the Ubuntu community won't have 16.04 usable after three years?
The past couple of Ubuntu releases have been fairly "boring" stability releases, but 16.04 is looking to have some exciting new features: Mir (replacement for X.org), Snappy Core (replacement for.DEB packages, to compete with Docker), and Unity8 convergence. The goal is that somebody will be able to carry around an Ubuntu Phone that morphs from a touchscreen smartphone to a full-fledged desktop when it connects to a dumb terminal. If it's a hit, then I imagine in the future, it will also serve as a console for smart-homes ("Internet of Things"), cars, and VR projection.
Maybe that doesn't excite anybody else, but for me, the idea of having a smartphone replace all of my electronics and not having to worry about file syncing, networking, etc. is awesome.
Proprietary software: lawful users may never know about critical security exploits. Even if they do, they are at the mercy of the software's owner; if the owner tells you to toss off, you're SOL.
FLOSS software: anybody can discover a bug, notify the maintainer, and have it fixed promptly. Even the maintainer won't do it, one also has the freedom to make the fix and recompile the source on one's own.
Chrome is already available for Android. As soon as the desktop extensions and apps are available for it, then that's pretty much all of ChromeOS right there. What the heck does it mean for ChromeOS to "fold" into Android?
Why the hell would I buy--or suggest to any friends, family, co-workers, or anybody that I'm not intentionally trying to hurt--anything from Motorola ever again, after you decided that giving security patches to a phone you released THIS YEAR is not worth it?
"Overpopulation" is not a problem. The problem is extreme consumerism of a select few. Selectively murdering girls has not been, is not now, and will never be the solution to that.
Slashdot Mirror
when Apple just got on with it a made good products. Now they need to spread FUD about a competing product ? I've got a Surface Pro 3 - it's a great laptop replacement and the tablet form factor is handy for some situations and the fact that it runs standard Windows software makes it a great device. Unless your work consists of surfing the web and sending the odd email, why would anyone want an iPad Pro ?
"tries too hard to do too much" isn't FUD. That's like the gentlest criticism in the book. FUD would be something like, oh, say, giving a million bucks to a patent troll to try and scare everybody away from Linux because it's allegedly a copyright sinkhole.
Until Mozilla decides to rip out Pocket and the ads that read your browsing history, there's nothing they can do to win me back, thanks. The lack of x86_64 build for Windows, telemetry and Bing by default, the stupid shit they can't stop adding ("Hello" for starters), memory leaks and RAM gobbling are all tertiary problems in comparison.
Eich's resignation was the turning point. I don't know what influence he had behind the doors of Mozilla (perhaps it's just a coincidence that his resignation is when everything started falling apart), but after his departure is when the Mozilla board decided to monetize Firefox with Pocket and integrated spyware advertisements.
This is not quite the question that TFS poses, but it's one that interests me. Some games are awfully buggy on release, but the developers have enough integrity to fix as many problems as they can, even if they aren't getting paid for them (the studio I most associate with this good behavior is Paradox). On the other hand, there's some games that are awfully buggy on release, the developers fix a few that have simple solutions, but leave the game a mess for the rest of time. The primary example I'm thinking of here is Empire: Total War. The game was almost unplayable on release; Creative Assembly fixed a few problems, but the game was still a POS and ended up being just a beta for its "sequel", Napoleon: Total War.
Now, myself and plenty of others have since boycotted all CA products, but that only punishes them for future releases. Short of forcing a lawsuit to fix the game/issue refunds, there seems to be no other way to punish a shitty product--or is there?
When Firefox was the hot new thing, it was mindbogglingly awesome. I remember just how happy I was when I first installed it (I think 2004?) and realized it was about twice as fast as Internet Explorer 6. I just about shit myself when I first installed Adblock Plus and saw it skip video ads.
Dark times followed. I think the manufactured outrage over Brandon Eich was the shark that Mozilla jumped over. After that, our fast, secure, modular, FLOSS browser became a shitheap and is now inferior in just about all ways to Chromium and Pale Moon.
It was indeed a kernel vulnerability, but it was fixed very promptly. The reason why it was such a notorious Android exploit is because phone manufacturers and telcos intentionally prevent security patches from going through (so you'll buy a new phone).
You might reply "so what?, it's a kernel exploit", but allow me to point out that if you used just about *any* operating system and turned off security patches, there would be similar exploits. OpenBSD included. Security is not a state, it is a process. One should judge how secure an OS (or in this case, OS kernel) is not just by how many vulnerabilities are discovered, but how critical they are and how fast they are fixed.
OK, I want to apologize for saying OpenBSD is "terribly useless". That was a wild exaggeration and very clearly wrong. I also in no way meant to demean the efforts of the OpenBSD developers.
That being said, if you're just talking about the kernel and core apps of OpenBSD, maybe they are indeed more secure than Debian or RHEL. But then again, Debian and RHEL are secure *enough* that you never hear about major breaches to them. But once you start talking about non-core software (e.g. webserver utilities), OpenBSD's had the same historic vulnerabilities as Linux as had with OpenSSL and the like--but so much more is available in the Linux ecosystem. Sure, you can compile whatever you want in BSD, but do the BSDs have as much extended support as Debian does?
I'm not a professional sysadmin, but I don't find SELinux particularly difficult to administer--a little annoying perhaps, but not out of reach for mortals. AppArmor is very easy to use. Most of the time I don't have to bother with either of those. I install Ubuntu MATE, turn on ufw and automatic security updates, and bam. That's all I need.
Almost all of the serious vulnerabilities Linux has experienced over the years had nothing to do with kernel. Shellshock and Heartbleed were flaws in Bash and OpenSSL. Contrast this with Windows: exactly *how many* critical exploits have been found over the past two decades?
This. Exactly this. This article is the same classic FUD that Microsoft has been shoveling for years. I'm surprised they didn't end the article with some crap about the GPL license being a virus.
What you wrote is true, but that's not why this article is despicable. The image the author is painting is one where Torvalds wakes up in the morning, arbitrary tosses a bunch of new goodies into the kernel according to his mood that day, and within a minute everybody's machines are getting their kernel updated. We should be very alarmed by this, because Torvalds is a loose cannon that doesn't care about security and brushes off the opinions of security experts. So don't use Debian for your webserver, pay $899 now for Windows Server 2012!
Unless you're compiling alpha-release kernels on production machines, the reality is that all of the changes merged into the kernel go through the Linux security team (composed of paid experts from IBM, Novell, VMware, Google, etc.--companies that have a vested interest in Linux being secure and stable), AND THEN it goes through the kernel teams at Red Hat, Debian, Android, Canonical, Fedora, Arch, Gentoo, etc. all of whom report any vulnerabilities back to the Linux team. If all of these companies and distro teams were getting their patches shunned, they would fork Linux--but it hasn't happened yet. What does that tell you?
Exactly this. Windows is insecure as fuck, but people use it because their software runs on it. OpenBSD is probably unbreachable but it's terribly useless as anything but a firewall; to use it as a general OS, you have to turn a lot of its security precautions off. Linux (and by that I mean "GNU/Linux" e.g. RHEL, SUSE, Debian; not Android) gives us a healthy balance between usefulness and security. That's why almost every webserver runs Linux.
TFS makes the article look rather balanced, but if you actually read it, it's pretty clearly FUD attempting to make the kernel team look indifferent (or even incompetent) regarding security. It blames the "towelroot" Android exploit as being the fault of Linux, and compares Linux security to car manufacturers in the 1960s willfully avoiding seat belts and other safety mechanisms. Was the author bribed by Microsoft?
If you click on (minix3.org) which is right next to the submission title, it links directly to the announcement.
The chances of OS/2 achieving a significant binary compatibility with Windows NT, or even make a dent in Windows 10's usershare, is unlikely. If you want that to happen, contribute to ReactOS. OS/2 will likely just be used to replace a few ATMs.
Surely the submitter meant "positively", because the actual word printed in TFS indicates that the OS/2 community is taking this news in by interpreting the sensory phenomenon of its announcement using deductive logic.
--Anonymous also inadvertently published the identities of all the developers of the KDE Desktop. Presumably this was an error.
Data: I have two separate automated backup routines, so nothing to fear there. Car/house: losing my phone would be about the same as losing my TV remote, which does not keep me up at night. Single point of failure for all my electronics: yes, that would be a bitch I suppose. But unless you're a complete dolt that destroys your phone more than once per year, I think having a single $1k phone-computer +accessories would be cheaper in the long run than having to replace my phone, computer, laptop, and tablet every time one of them gives up the ghost or their hardware goes obsolete.
I'm glad you're happy with Ubuntu GNOME. You'll be pleased to learn that Unity8 will not make it go away.
14.04 LTS will still be supported until 2019, by which point Xenial Xerus will have been out for three years. Do you think Canonical and the Ubuntu community won't have 16.04 usable after three years?
A toilet I would understand, but how the hell do you drop a phone in the urinal? Do phones regularly fall out of your pocket with horizontal velocity?
The past couple of Ubuntu releases have been fairly "boring" stability releases, but 16.04 is looking to have some exciting new features: Mir (replacement for X.org), Snappy Core (replacement for .DEB packages, to compete with Docker), and Unity8 convergence. The goal is that somebody will be able to carry around an Ubuntu Phone that morphs from a touchscreen smartphone to a full-fledged desktop when it connects to a dumb terminal. If it's a hit, then I imagine in the future, it will also serve as a console for smart-homes ("Internet of Things"), cars, and VR projection.
Maybe that doesn't excite anybody else, but for me, the idea of having a smartphone replace all of my electronics and not having to worry about file syncing, networking, etc. is awesome.
Proprietary software: lawful users may never know about critical security exploits. Even if they do, they are at the mercy of the software's owner; if the owner tells you to toss off, you're SOL.
FLOSS software: anybody can discover a bug, notify the maintainer, and have it fixed promptly. Even the maintainer won't do it, one also has the freedom to make the fix and recompile the source on one's own.
Chrome is already available for Android. As soon as the desktop extensions and apps are available for it, then that's pretty much all of ChromeOS right there. What the heck does it mean for ChromeOS to "fold" into Android?
Why the hell would I buy--or suggest to any friends, family, co-workers, or anybody that I'm not intentionally trying to hurt--anything from Motorola ever again, after you decided that giving security patches to a phone you released THIS YEAR is not worth it?
"Overpopulation" is not a problem. The problem is extreme consumerism of a select few. Selectively murdering girls has not been, is not now, and will never be the solution to that.