the software company sco from that time is not the same company with that name today
The software company known as SCO (The Santa Cruz Operation) sold their rights associated with Unix to Caldera Systems in 2001. SCO then renamed themselves Tarentella, Inc. having retained rights to their Tarentella product (something akin to Citrix). Caldera Systems immediately changed their name to Caldera International. In 2002 there is another name change to The SCO Group (often referred to as "SCOg" to avoid confusion with the old SCO). And in 2003 is the filing of the infamous lawsuit against IBM. In 2005, Tarantella is purchased by Sun Microsystems.
Everybody keps saying that linux would put Microsoft out of business.
I'm not sure who "everybody" is... but such claims ignore history. It ignores the very impressive turn-on-a-dime business strategy Microsoft pulled off after they initially failed to realize the importance of the Internet. And it ignores a historical precedence in the changing of IBM's desktop hardware market when it shifted from a proprietary to commodity platform.
Micorosoft is not going to simply curl up and die. They've proven to be agile enough to react to threats / lost opportunities. And they have the momentum and resources to deal with a suddenly difficult market.
If we're lucky, Microsoft will become the software / OS equivalent of IBM. Sure - they're still powerhouses in the Industry... but they no longer control it. They have influence but have to compete with every other market player for that influence to pay off and drive the market in their desired direction.
I should have stressed that the points I listed were from the article and entirely the author's.:) None the less...
Not for use with other 3D applications (i.e. games) - even affects performance after switching back to a 2D windows manager
I haven't had this experience. Certainly I have to switch back to metacity (or other) before playing games, or else performance goes to hell. This is solvable, but not yet solved, more's the pity. But I get precisely the same framerate before and after running beryl.
I agree. I started messing with Beryl at home. I had an issue with the mouse cursor disappearing so I simply dropped back to Kwin. Since then I've played a weekend of WoW with no noticeable effect. I suspect this might have something to do with the author using XGL (I use AIGLX) but I'm not sure.
I hear GMA950 works okay but all the other intel graphics drivers are poor. And of course, ATI drivers are pure shit. We know this already. nVidia is the only add-in card worth using for linux if you want high speed 3d. Pity about the binary drivers, but that's life.
At work, I'm using the ATI (its what was provided to me) Open Source drivers and they seem to do well. I'm not playing games, of course. But for Beryl, it seems to work.
Tutorial? They have a webpage you visit, and you copy and paste a block of text into a terminal. It adds the repo, fetches and installs the gpg key, and installs the beryl project. It's not a tutorial. It's instructions.
When I set up my work environment... I followed the instructions and avoided the scripts.:)
So many, in fact, that back-porting it to XP would basically make XP's kernel into Vista's kernel.
And that would require... what... a service pack? And arbitrarily limiting specific features reserved for the more premium package? Territory Microsoft is fully familiar with.
If you are not an expert and you start to turn on Beryl and to play with Synaptic...
I'm curious as to the issue with Synaptic. I just started using Kubuntu and find myself using Synaptic, Adept, and apt-get interchangeably. On my Debian desktop, I've done the same with apt-get and Synaptic for years without negative impact. Is there something subtle that I'm missing?
I agree with Beryl. It's quite spiff but when it breaks, it does so in rather annoying ways. Right now it works fairly reliably for me and gives me some eyecandy to break up the work day. But I also am patient enough to deal with the (now) rare oddity and know how to keep from such events causing me a loss or otherwise impacting my work. If that changes, I can drop back to a more stable window manager quickly and easily. I wouldn't recommend this to someone just getting used to Linux.
The problem is, back when this rule was put into place, the percentage of reasonable people among the general population was far higher than it is today.
I don't suppose you've read any Mark Twain or Jonathan Swift works?
Although paranoia and attention to security might be on the same continuum, its commonly believed that paranoia is abnormal and attention to security is normal. YMMV.
Actually... I think you've got it right there. It is my experience that those who deal in various security practices tend to have a different mindset than the common population. If you compare a security person's view to an average person, the security-minded would be easily labeled as paranoid.
However, as the old saying goes, just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you. That paranoia, while abnormal, is simply a reflection of one's knowledge in a given field. Those who are aware of security issues tend to be much more aware of negative consequences for one's actions.
That doesn't mean every paranoid actually possesses blessed insight. There's plenty of examples showing professionals who are convinced that a certain scenario is accurate while reality is far different. And that's what makes this whole thing kind of tricky.
I'm sure there is quite the mix of paranoid types among the technical user base. However, I'm also inclined to believe that much of this paranoia is justified.
Keep in mind, that it is VERY doubtful that any of the pro-SCO journalists believe what they are writing.
I'm not so sure. Granted - some particular writers are very skewed. That would imply some sort of hidden motivation (favors / payment or maybe an axe to grind). But I'm inclined to think Didio was simply duped.
Didio's articles didn't have the wild leaps of logic and vitriol you see in, say, Lyons' or O'Garra's work. Most of Didio's claims seem to be the usual rehashed press releases. The most "damaging" article was her claim to have reviewed some examples of source code and agreed they were examples of blatant copyright infringement by someone in the Linux camp. The sadly amusing thing to this claim is that Didio hasn't shown any expertise in either coding or Unix. She seems to be a Microsoft products expert if anything. So exactly why did she make these claims? She was the right person for the job: a reporter with just enough credibility to be listened to, but otherwise easily conned. In short, Didio didn't know enough to know that she didn't know what she was talking about.
Does that mean Didio doesn't deserve the "Didiot" namesake? Not at all. She was played the fool and should be expect to be labled as such. But I'm not convinced the only reason she'd make the claims she did was because she was squarely in someone's pocket. And I'm likewise not convinced she couldn't have believed what she wrote (misguided or not).
The PCjr entered an area when IBM-based PCs had hardly become the norm, and many critics believed a personal computer in the home would never become a reality. It was a step in the right direction, and people forget that there were MANY alternatives back then. The fact that 99% of home computers are based on IBM standards today is not a flop.
You're giving way too much credit to the PCjr. The PCjr entered the market at a time when the IBM PC was fairly ubiquitous in business (having redefined the market that Apple created with the Apple II along with Visicalc). It was clearly an attempt to also redefine the home computing market. And while that market wasn't near as commonplace as business-based computing, it was growing. Sure - there were critics. But they were ignoring a growing industry supporting multiple manufacturers and product lines. I would say that home computing as a concept was a given by that time.
So what about today's commodity computing platform tracing a lineage back to IBM? That has little to do with the PCjr. It has more to do with the IBM PC and a lot to do with Compaq. The IBM PC hardware was off-the-shelf components and design was published and well understood. The gatekeeper to the platform was the BIOS. One company simply copied the BIOS and fell afoul of copyright laws. Compaq reverse engineered the BIOS and produced a legal, superior product. And the clone market began. IBM's last effort to bottle that genie was the PS/2.
I would imagine they have no use for Honest Truth. However, Daryl has been overheard to say he would like some "individuals of interest" added to the case... namely Waldo and Carmen Sandiego. SCOg's lawyers figured PJ was more or less the same thing to them.
When you go to an "all you can eat" buffet, do you think the owner would ever anticipate someone barging in there and eating all the food on the buffet and all the food in the kitchen?
Do they anticipate it? No. Do they risk it? Yes. The risk usually pays off, but not always.
Likewise, ISP plans are "unlimited" based on the usage patterns of a regular user (you know, 95% of their customers). If you are downloading Linux ISOs 24/7, you are not a regular user. The service is not intended for you. It should be obvious to such intelligent people that it's impossible to provide all customers even meager bandwidth caps if EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM is hitting the cap every single month. For the customers that Verizon is serving (business users who want to check their email, update documents, etc. while on the road), 5GB is definitely unlimited. If, on the other hand, you think Verizon Wireless's service is intended for downloading Linux ISOs 24/7 while you're on a month-long camping trip, the service is far from unlimited. But then again, that's not how the service was intended to be used.
In the same light, the ISP is taking a risk. They are hoping that heavy users are balanced out by those who rarely use the service. It doesn't matter who their "intended" customer is or whether their campaign is profitable. The issue is whether they are delivering on what they advertised.
The answer is even more obvious than you imply. One shouldn't have to deal with weasel words, guesses, interpretations, and fine-print. If Verizon can not make a profit offering an unlimited service in this market, then they shouldn't do it. If 5GB is their cut-off, then the service should be advertised as such.
'unlimited' is used in marketing just like 'free' is. Of course free things aren't free, and unlimited things aren't unlimited.
However, if someone's advertising campaign gives me a free widget and then later tries to bill me for said widget, we're suddenly in very different legal waters than if my "free" widget came with an expensive service plan that I agreed to (or whatever the hook is). I don't care how jaded you are - there are limits to what companies and their advertisers can do or claim. Its not hard to find examples that comes right up to the edge of that line. But there is still a limit.
The history of marketing is full of examples where marketing was too clever for its own good. The parent brought put forward a rather dubious example of "all you can eat." No individual is going to eat a literal ton of food. But there have been examples where individuals with appetites have surprised marketers. Red Lobster's all-you-can-eat crab promotion resulted in a $3 million dollar hit on their 2003 3rd quarter earnings.
As far as "unlimited" goes, for all intents and purposes, a few GB a month is pretty much "unlimited"...
I missed that the plan is advertised as being the "Pretty Much, for all intents and purposes, Unlimited Plan." Maybe they can update their literature with some of your suggested weasel words.
America will throw the book at McKinnon because they are embarassed of their lax security practises on such high profile systems. They will make an example of McKinnon because he used little more than a brute force 2-line PERL script to bombard many desktops with obvious passwords (e.g., "password" or "" [blank]).
Not quite. The US Government is not embarrassed over this incident. Officials will throw the book at McKinnon because, unfortunately, that's how they handle these things. For a long time, the US Government seemed more than happy to spend resources to prosecute attackers instead of due diligence efforts to make their networks harder targets. US Government officials may lack understanding on infosec issues... but they know, and write, the law. Any script kiddie pointing their box towards a.gov domain should keep this in mind.
Now - I don't subscribe to this belief. I find it rather sad. And thankfully, since the time of McKinnon's attacks, some things have changed. But bureaucracy is a tough vehicle to turn. I only wish all of the US Government's infosec woes were well handled since then.
America is even more ashamed of this security breach because the many same systems were infiltrated by Mathew Bevan using the exact same tactics over 10 years prior. That's right - these government and military and NASA computers have had no password policy after 10 years and 2 break-ins. Adding the number 1 to the end of these passwords would have stopped McKinnon dead in his tracks.
We're actually talking about less than 10 years - maybe 8 years at the most generous. And I know for certain password policies existed in at least some of the institutions targeted during the time of McKinnon's attacks. Having said all that - the incident does hint at issues that existed in US Government's handling of Infosec. It may not be such a clear guide to the current state.
McKinnon is not a sophisticated programmer or cracker. He simply challenged seemingly high security systems with very low-tech kludgey scripts to see what would happen. He got lucky, then he got audacious, and then he got careless.
I can't say what degree of security existed in all networks McKinnon touched - but I wouldn't expect they would have been classified as "high security" systems. There's a lot of hyperbole that seems to be associated with this and similar cases. Everyone seems to be making the situation grander than it really is. For example - McKinnon is correct when he notes there is a Building 8 at JSC that houses an imaging department. But that building is hardly a secured facility and, in fact, also houses the site's medical clinic. It would seem to be an odd location for a group that's supposedly dedicated to eradicating photographic evidence of extraterrestrial space craft from NASA's stock footage (never mind the technical challenge of targeting a system specifically in Building 8 when JSC's campus and associated network is large and complex).
While I won't repeat what others have said, bear in mind that one of the essays had an explicit notice forbidding them from archiving it, but Turnitin went ahead and did it anyway.
And secondly, the company is making money using the content from the students.
Keep in mind that the copyright holder does not determine fair use. The student's statement, at best, establishes copyright.
Secondly, monetary gain is not a litmus test for fair use. Consider that not making money from violating copyright does not shield you from copyright laws. And some of the biggest proponents and benefactors of fair use are commercial publishers.
For instance, saying "It also was strange to see just how many resources are aligned against me" is a complete giveaway of how highly this guy thinks of himself and how purposefully biased he is that he thinks MS's concern and attempt to show him things that might sway his opinion in the other direction is somehow being "against him".
I would hazard to guess that most people do not like to be manipulated. That we are manipulated on a daily basis is immaterial. It's one thing to know it happens. Having proof of it presented to you is an entirely different matter.
It would appear that this reporter feels the same way. Surely a reporter who's spent any time in the Industry is aware of the marketing machine fronted by Microsoft. And in fact, you can be pretty sure Vogelstein is aware of this routine manipulation since he's involved Wired's current cover on the subject. But having the manipulation strategy sent to you would be more than enough to generate an "us vs. them" mind set. And it seems that this has put Vogelstein in at least a slightly defensive mood. I'd feel the same way.
In the grand scheme of things, this isn't that big of a deal. But it does serve as an interesting footnote to Wired's cover. After all, Microsoft's PR efforts have put a lot of stock to this new transparency. Its worth noting that despite this impressive change, there are still mechanisms in place just out of plain view. As the tired adage goes, "the more things change, the more they stay the same."
I'm curious as to whether this is a cherry-picked list of issues or central to this poster's personal experience. In any case...
1: Dual wide screen monitors at 1900x1200 resolutions
Maybe I'm behind the times, but I'd be surprised if your mom or "99.9995 percent of computer users" have dual widescreen monitors. At least, not yet. I don't. I do have dual monitors. And I have a laptop config with a stand-alone monitor (that acts as a second in a dual-pair when my laptop is docked). Those work fine. I'm not sure what's so special about that particular resolution. I've seen people mention running Nvidia setups at that resolution.
2: Play a popular game like World of Warcraft without first having to compile something or manually tweak a configuration file.
You and me both. I wish Blizzard would release a Linux binary... even if its just got "community support". But they don't. I'm not entirely sure this is delivered at the feet of Linux though. In the past, I bought the whole series of Quake, UT2004, and Neverwinter Nights (alas Bioware's inexperience with Linux showed in how they handled the release). I also played (gratis) Enemy Territory and America's Army. All worked fine without any serious tweaking.
WoW plays well with Cedega. I've also used the latest Wine on occasion. Granted - its not entirely tweak-free. And some people do have issues. But then... others in my household have had vexing issues with WoW and they use Windows. In the meantime, I'm pretty impressed that I can run WoW right now when I'm not supposed to be able to (even if a few Blizzard employees seem to be quietly helping Linux out on this front).
3: Plugin a wireless network adapter and have it "just work"
I'm doing that now. Of course - my home environment is set up to be a bit more secure... so I have to configure my profile for home. But that's a GUI with dialog boxes. Work gets a different profile. When not at either of these locations... I have a profile that looks for open WAPs and will associate with them.
Your passion is nice, but if you think these things don't matter you are living in a fantasy land. You might be an uber nerd who can work around all these problems. I am an uber nerd who can work around all these problems. My mom is not. 99.9995 percent of computer users are not. Linux has a very, very long way to go to get close to the quality bar set by Microsoft.
For all the aggravation I get when using Windows... I have to admit that there are areas where its just more polished than Linux. But in the long run, it doesn't matter. People just don't notice. Linux should continue to improve. But it is to the point now that the differences just won't matter to Joe User. They're already used to having to learn how to do something (or work around something) and it won't matter if the procedure involves Linux or Windows.
One side quip - I find it amusing the poster claims that security hasn't been a market issue for 3 years.
GIMP, OOffice and almost all other OSS software packages work on Windows...
The only actual point you have that's genuinely in favor of Linux is that you don't need to subscribe to an anti-virus service for that box...
I'm just saying that if you're going to advocate Linux you need to pick better points to use as support.
It all depends on why you're running Windows. If Windows is there because you want Windows specifically, you might have a point. However, if it's there to support needed applications... then the listed applications work just as well (if not better) on Linux. That they also work on your Windows systems just makes it easier to focus on the application and not the OS since those applications can work on your legacy Windows systems as well.
However, if it turns out to be true then Jack has really gone off of the deep end.
Jack has not only gone off the deep end quite some time ago, he has spent years paddling around in it. It would seem the deep end is his element. What you're seeing here is simply Jack doing his usual backstroke while humming the theme to Jaws.
I've often wondered why MSFT see Google as a threat, MSFT make office software and Operating systems. Google dont make OS's (well not yet) and sure Google have a web app that can read office docs, which is really more for convenience, so at least until recently the two companies have been after completely different things.
The problem for Microsoft is two-fold. Everything Microsoft does ties in to their core business. And that core business is under constant threat.
Everything Microsoft does points back to their OS. And in turn, their OS is the platform on which they build everything they do. The concept of lock-in is not only about immediate profit, but it also ensures that they have a clear path ahead of them. Its easier to see and plan for the future if you control the present. Anything that does not feed the need for a Microsoft OS stack is a threat to this strategy.
Why would Microsoft worry about losing control? Ask IBM what its like. Consider a time where IBM seized the microcomputer market - a time where "IBM PC" was a product reference and not a place-holder for a box produced by one of several thousand possible vendors with an unknown combination of commodity components. IBM is still a power-house in the Industry. But they no longer control it. It's hard to not only make money in a commodity market, but it's also hard to control one. And when you don't have that control, it is difficult to determine what directions such a market is going to take. What happened to hardware may very well come to pass for the OS as well.
Slashdot Mirror
The software company known as SCO (The Santa Cruz Operation) sold their rights associated with Unix to Caldera Systems in 2001. SCO then renamed themselves Tarentella, Inc. having retained rights to their Tarentella product (something akin to Citrix). Caldera Systems immediately changed their name to Caldera International. In 2002 there is another name change to The SCO Group (often referred to as "SCOg" to avoid confusion with the old SCO). And in 2003 is the filing of the infamous lawsuit against IBM. In 2005, Tarantella is purchased by Sun Microsystems.
I'm not sure who "everybody" is... but such claims ignore history. It ignores the very impressive turn-on-a-dime business strategy Microsoft pulled off after they initially failed to realize the importance of the Internet. And it ignores a historical precedence in the changing of IBM's desktop hardware market when it shifted from a proprietary to commodity platform.
Micorosoft is not going to simply curl up and die. They've proven to be agile enough to react to threats / lost opportunities. And they have the momentum and resources to deal with a suddenly difficult market.
If we're lucky, Microsoft will become the software / OS equivalent of IBM. Sure - they're still powerhouses in the Industry... but they no longer control it. They have influence but have to compete with every other market player for that influence to pay off and drive the market in their desired direction.
I agree. I started messing with Beryl at home. I had an issue with the mouse cursor disappearing so I simply dropped back to Kwin. Since then I've played a weekend of WoW with no noticeable effect. I suspect this might have something to do with the author using XGL (I use AIGLX) but I'm not sure.
At work, I'm using the ATI (its what was provided to me) Open Source drivers and they seem to do well. I'm not playing games, of course. But for Beryl, it seems to work.
When I set up my work environment... I followed the instructions and avoided the scripts.
And that would require... what... a service pack? And arbitrarily limiting specific features reserved for the more premium package? Territory Microsoft is fully familiar with.
Well... OK.... there ARE other nuggets embedded in the various comments about application choices for Ubuntu Feisty. Other informative bits include:
I'm curious as to the issue with Synaptic. I just started using Kubuntu and find myself using Synaptic, Adept, and apt-get interchangeably. On my Debian desktop, I've done the same with apt-get and Synaptic for years without negative impact. Is there something subtle that I'm missing?
I agree with Beryl. It's quite spiff but when it breaks, it does so in rather annoying ways. Right now it works fairly reliably for me and gives me some eyecandy to break up the work day. But I also am patient enough to deal with the (now) rare oddity and know how to keep from such events causing me a loss or otherwise impacting my work. If that changes, I can drop back to a more stable window manager quickly and easily. I wouldn't recommend this to someone just getting used to Linux.
This ink isn't worth the patent that claimed it!
Having the right to do something doesn't mean you do it. Even with that in mind, target shooting is not shooting in combat.
I don't suppose you've read any Mark Twain or Jonathan Swift works?
Actually... I think you've got it right there. It is my experience that those who deal in various security practices tend to have a different mindset than the common population. If you compare a security person's view to an average person, the security-minded would be easily labeled as paranoid.
However, as the old saying goes, just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you. That paranoia, while abnormal, is simply a reflection of one's knowledge in a given field. Those who are aware of security issues tend to be much more aware of negative consequences for one's actions.
That doesn't mean every paranoid actually possesses blessed insight. There's plenty of examples showing professionals who are convinced that a certain scenario is accurate while reality is far different. And that's what makes this whole thing kind of tricky.
I'm sure there is quite the mix of paranoid types among the technical user base. However, I'm also inclined to believe that much of this paranoia is justified.
I'm not so sure. Granted - some particular writers are very skewed. That would imply some sort of hidden motivation (favors / payment or maybe an axe to grind). But I'm inclined to think Didio was simply duped.
Didio's articles didn't have the wild leaps of logic and vitriol you see in, say, Lyons' or O'Garra's work. Most of Didio's claims seem to be the usual rehashed press releases. The most "damaging" article was her claim to have reviewed some examples of source code and agreed they were examples of blatant copyright infringement by someone in the Linux camp. The sadly amusing thing to this claim is that Didio hasn't shown any expertise in either coding or Unix. She seems to be a Microsoft products expert if anything. So exactly why did she make these claims? She was the right person for the job: a reporter with just enough credibility to be listened to, but otherwise easily conned. In short, Didio didn't know enough to know that she didn't know what she was talking about.
Does that mean Didio doesn't deserve the "Didiot" namesake? Not at all. She was played the fool and should be expect to be labled as such. But I'm not convinced the only reason she'd make the claims she did was because she was squarely in someone's pocket. And I'm likewise not convinced she couldn't have believed what she wrote (misguided or not).
You're giving way too much credit to the PCjr. The PCjr entered the market at a time when the IBM PC was fairly ubiquitous in business (having redefined the market that Apple created with the Apple II along with Visicalc). It was clearly an attempt to also redefine the home computing market. And while that market wasn't near as commonplace as business-based computing, it was growing. Sure - there were critics. But they were ignoring a growing industry supporting multiple manufacturers and product lines. I would say that home computing as a concept was a given by that time.
So what about today's commodity computing platform tracing a lineage back to IBM? That has little to do with the PCjr. It has more to do with the IBM PC and a lot to do with Compaq. The IBM PC hardware was off-the-shelf components and design was published and well understood. The gatekeeper to the platform was the BIOS. One company simply copied the BIOS and fell afoul of copyright laws. Compaq reverse engineered the BIOS and produced a legal, superior product. And the clone market began. IBM's last effort to bottle that genie was the PS/2.
I would imagine they have no use for Honest Truth. However, Daryl has been overheard to say he would like some "individuals of interest" added to the case... namely Waldo and Carmen Sandiego. SCOg's lawyers figured PJ was more or less the same thing to them.
Do they anticipate it? No. Do they risk it? Yes. The risk usually pays off, but not always.
In the same light, the ISP is taking a risk. They are hoping that heavy users are balanced out by those who rarely use the service. It doesn't matter who their "intended" customer is or whether their campaign is profitable. The issue is whether they are delivering on what they advertised.
The answer is even more obvious than you imply. One shouldn't have to deal with weasel words, guesses, interpretations, and fine-print. If Verizon can not make a profit offering an unlimited service in this market, then they shouldn't do it. If 5GB is their cut-off, then the service should be advertised as such.
However, if someone's advertising campaign gives me a free widget and then later tries to bill me for said widget, we're suddenly in very different legal waters than if my "free" widget came with an expensive service plan that I agreed to (or whatever the hook is). I don't care how jaded you are - there are limits to what companies and their advertisers can do or claim. Its not hard to find examples that comes right up to the edge of that line. But there is still a limit.
The history of marketing is full of examples where marketing was too clever for its own good. The parent brought put forward a rather dubious example of "all you can eat." No individual is going to eat a literal ton of food. But there have been examples where individuals with appetites have surprised marketers. Red Lobster's all-you-can-eat crab promotion resulted in a $3 million dollar hit on their 2003 3rd quarter earnings.
I missed that the plan is advertised as being the "Pretty Much, for all intents and purposes, Unlimited Plan." Maybe they can update their literature with some of your suggested weasel words.
Not quite. The US Government is not embarrassed over this incident. Officials will throw the book at McKinnon because, unfortunately, that's how they handle these things. For a long time, the US Government seemed more than happy to spend resources to prosecute attackers instead of due diligence efforts to make their networks harder targets. US Government officials may lack understanding on infosec issues... but they know, and write, the law. Any script kiddie pointing their box towards a
Now - I don't subscribe to this belief. I find it rather sad. And thankfully, since the time of McKinnon's attacks, some things have changed. But bureaucracy is a tough vehicle to turn. I only wish all of the US Government's infosec woes were well handled since then.
We're actually talking about less than 10 years - maybe 8 years at the most generous. And I know for certain password policies existed in at least some of the institutions targeted during the time of McKinnon's attacks. Having said all that - the incident does hint at issues that existed in US Government's handling of Infosec. It may not be such a clear guide to the current state.
I can't say what degree of security existed in all networks McKinnon touched - but I wouldn't expect they would have been classified as "high security" systems. There's a lot of hyperbole that seems to be associated with this and similar cases. Everyone seems to be making the situation grander than it really is. For example - McKinnon is correct when he notes there is a Building 8 at JSC that houses an imaging department. But that building is hardly a secured facility and, in fact, also houses the site's medical clinic. It would seem to be an odd location for a group that's supposedly dedicated to eradicating photographic evidence of extraterrestrial space craft from NASA's stock footage (never mind the technical challenge of targeting a system specifically in Building 8 when JSC's campus and associated network is large and complex).
Keep in mind that the copyright holder does not determine fair use. The student's statement, at best, establishes copyright.
Secondly, monetary gain is not a litmus test for fair use. Consider that not making money from violating copyright does not shield you from copyright laws. And some of the biggest proponents and benefactors of fair use are commercial publishers.
Just further proof that Star Wars is, in fact, dead.
I would hazard to guess that most people do not like to be manipulated. That we are manipulated on a daily basis is immaterial. It's one thing to know it happens. Having proof of it presented to you is an entirely different matter.
It would appear that this reporter feels the same way. Surely a reporter who's spent any time in the Industry is aware of the marketing machine fronted by Microsoft. And in fact, you can be pretty sure Vogelstein is aware of this routine manipulation since he's involved Wired's current cover on the subject. But having the manipulation strategy sent to you would be more than enough to generate an "us vs. them" mind set. And it seems that this has put Vogelstein in at least a slightly defensive mood. I'd feel the same way.
In the grand scheme of things, this isn't that big of a deal. But it does serve as an interesting footnote to Wired's cover. After all, Microsoft's PR efforts have put a lot of stock to this new transparency. Its worth noting that despite this impressive change, there are still mechanisms in place just out of plain view. As the tired adage goes, "the more things change, the more they stay the same."
Even free speech involves responsibilities.
Maybe I'm behind the times, but I'd be surprised if your mom or "99.9995 percent of computer users" have dual widescreen monitors. At least, not yet. I don't. I do have dual monitors. And I have a laptop config with a stand-alone monitor (that acts as a second in a dual-pair when my laptop is docked). Those work fine. I'm not sure what's so special about that particular resolution. I've seen people mention running Nvidia setups at that resolution.
You and me both. I wish Blizzard would release a Linux binary... even if its just got "community support". But they don't. I'm not entirely sure this is delivered at the feet of Linux though. In the past, I bought the whole series of Quake, UT2004, and Neverwinter Nights (alas Bioware's inexperience with Linux showed in how they handled the release). I also played (gratis) Enemy Territory and America's Army. All worked fine without any serious tweaking.
WoW plays well with Cedega. I've also used the latest Wine on occasion. Granted - its not entirely tweak-free. And some people do have issues. But then... others in my household have had vexing issues with WoW and they use Windows. In the meantime, I'm pretty impressed that I can run WoW right now when I'm not supposed to be able to (even if a few Blizzard employees seem to be quietly helping Linux out on this front).
I'm doing that now. Of course - my home environment is set up to be a bit more secure... so I have to configure my profile for home. But that's a GUI with dialog boxes. Work gets a different profile. When not at either of these locations... I have a profile that looks for open WAPs and will associate with them.
For all the aggravation I get when using Windows... I have to admit that there are areas where its just more polished than Linux. But in the long run, it doesn't matter. People just don't notice. Linux should continue to improve. But it is to the point now that the differences just won't matter to Joe User. They're already used to having to learn how to do something (or work around something) and it won't matter if the procedure involves Linux or Windows.
One side quip - I find it amusing the poster claims that security hasn't been a market issue for 3 years.
It all depends on why you're running Windows. If Windows is there because you want Windows specifically, you might have a point. However, if it's there to support needed applications... then the listed applications work just as well (if not better) on Linux. That they also work on your Windows systems just makes it easier to focus on the application and not the OS since those applications can work on your legacy Windows systems as well.
Jack has not only gone off the deep end quite some time ago, he has spent years paddling around in it. It would seem the deep end is his element. What you're seeing here is simply Jack doing his usual backstroke while humming the theme to Jaws.
The problem for Microsoft is two-fold. Everything Microsoft does ties in to their core business. And that core business is under constant threat.
Everything Microsoft does points back to their OS. And in turn, their OS is the platform on which they build everything they do. The concept of lock-in is not only about immediate profit, but it also ensures that they have a clear path ahead of them. Its easier to see and plan for the future if you control the present. Anything that does not feed the need for a Microsoft OS stack is a threat to this strategy.
Why would Microsoft worry about losing control? Ask IBM what its like. Consider a time where IBM seized the microcomputer market - a time where "IBM PC" was a product reference and not a place-holder for a box produced by one of several thousand possible vendors with an unknown combination of commodity components. IBM is still a power-house in the Industry. But they no longer control it. It's hard to not only make money in a commodity market, but it's also hard to control one. And when you don't have that control, it is difficult to determine what directions such a market is going to take. What happened to hardware may very well come to pass for the OS as well.