Don't be a fruitcake. Given the present administration, if you don't presume they're violating civil liberties to the fullest extent possible shy of tipping over to police state, then you're a fool.
Sorry - I am much more willing to associate "fruitcake" and "fool" with someone who is keen to presume an extreme behavior. I am even more inclined to this when the behavior is in response to someone calling for more information with which to make an informed decision.
It's not that I'm not sympathetic to the general idea. I have little respect for this Administration when it comes to civil liberty issues. And I would suggest it is healthy to have a minimal level of distrust for anyone in an enforcement role. But not every action by a Federal agent is an automatic breach of civil liberties. Even under this Administration.
Are the principles of various disclosure models so obscure that you really NEED to try and shoehorn information security in to a physical security analogy? Especially since few (if any) of these analogies are accurate or even representative of the issues at hand? Seriously. Stop it.
The point being that digitally signed binaries aren't a guarantee. They're darned nice. Makes things more difficult to slip in a rogue binary. But they're not the end-all, be-all in assuring some rogue code isn't slipped in there somewhere.
And yes - that goes for closed, proprietary software houses as well as the public, open groups.
Alright - so you hack a new version of apt-get. This evil-apt-get accepts a bogus key as legit. Now all you need to do is drop in evil-apt-get in as an update. Oh... and have it signed by the legitimate key less the old (legitimate) apt-get already installed and running on the target's system question the validity of our "updated" apt-get.
Wow. Do you seriously think that the company that made it so that every retard on the planet can and does use a computer is "hurting your industry"?
Do you think Microsoft was the only one making microcomputers accessible to the general public? Please. If anything, Microsoft was behind the curve on usability - assuming that's what you mean by "made it so that every retard on the planet can and does use a computer". And even this late in the game, they are far from the only usable option (and far from perfect).
Honestly - I have no problem with some reality checking. But you need it as much as any other zealot found in this forum.
the american military should be thanking this kid for testing their software and showing them how inept their safeguards are. if some kid in england can walk straight into a system which is meant to be the most secure on the planet, then anybody else could as well.
What makes you think he touched networks / systems considered "the most secure on the planet?" His word? This is the guy who swears he was able to target a desktop physically located in a specific building in a specific installation via network connections that do little to reveal any resemblance to physical location and then view pre-censored photos of a UFO. Not that he was able to capture any evidence of his work, you understand. Sure.
No. He broke in to unclassified networks.
He shouldn't have been able to do it. He shouldn't have been able to touch as many networks as he was able to. And today he would find his task more difficult (I would hazard to guess not impossible though - there's publicly available information that suggests otherwise). There is more these federal agencies should be doing - fundamental changes that doesn't involve the wave of paperwork and bureaucracy coming down the pipes today. But here's a hint - what he did does nothing to help these agencies get a clue.
There was no competition for computers, unless you count analog computers. So geeks had a 1/1 chance of choosing the right choice.
I've noticed pretty much the same thing. Geeks choose the right technology. The general public chooses the best-marketted technology. In many cases, those are not equivelent....
So, we were right with computers. Duh. There was nothing else. We were right with the internet. I mean, it was the Internet, or whatever dial-up island you chose, whether AOL or... well, I don't remember their names. But there were a slew of them. Of *course* the Internet was going to win. The others were just islands. The Internet was everything. So it wasn't much of a choice.
Geeks don't have the best record for specific products. We just know where things are going in general.
You discount some rather amazing technologies that were obsessions for geeks decades before the general public even heard of it, much less realized that they needed it in their households. These were technologies where geeks and nerds saw great potential and the general public would simply scratch their heads. Now its all part of pop culture. It wouldn't be that way if early adopters hadn't pursued and worked with the tech... figuring out what any of it is good for.
The specifics of where any technology market is headed is anyone's guess. Geeks pick champions and losers. So does the general public. And so does business. It's odd that anyone would claim that geeks never pick winners... specifically or in general. If you're trying to devine future trends in technology, watching early adopters is hardly a strange notion... even if it is just one indication at best.
Since when have nerds been a "canary in a coal mine" for any kind of technology? Nerds that I know have been into : laserdisk, betamax, etc. Nerds have been into Linux for a long time, and it still hasn't taken off. I'd say that what nerds choose in terms of consuming is generally the exact opposite of what the general public does.
Photography. The automobile. Telephones. Radio. Hi-fidelity stereo. Television. Microcomputers. Networked computing. The Internet. This stuff doesn't just spring out of the ground to become normal parts of mainstream culture. There's always early adopters - usually nerds to some degree or another. And very often these guys are toying with budding technology well before anyone has found a useful purpose for it.
Yes, not every example of early-adopter focus ends up the "winning" technology in any given market. But that's the nature of the technology business. That doesn't mean the dominent tech wasn't in some nerd's basement, garage, work shed, or closet first. It usually was... and well before any main-stream bystander would make heads or tails over why the nerd in question would bother.
Along those lines... yes, nerds have been playing with Linux for a while now. Linux is becoming more and more commonplace whether you want to admit it or not. But don't expect it to just suddenly pop up out of the ground and be mainstream. Technology markets just don't work that way. It just appears that way to the mainstream consumer who doesn't get wind of new technology until well after it has been packaged for mass consumption and sprung on its audience in a marketing blitz.
I've always felt that the shuttle crew (the astronauts that are about to go up in the thing) should have at least 50% say in go/no-go decisions based on findings like this.
You don't become an astronaut having a risk-averse personality. Risk is part of the profession. There is not a single crew that is not aware of their mission presenting a very real danger. However, they still become astronauts... compete rigorously to do so. Train hard to do so. Become focused on their mission. And presented with information that simply re-states that what they are about to do is risky, I doubt any particular member of a crew would be willing to step away from a mission. They are simply too close to the issue.
I would hazard a guess that a large portion of desktop Linux installations aren't even set up by the users. A large portion are enterprises (schools) who deploy Linux because they deploy thousands of installs and they save a lot by not having Windows, even at MS' cheap rates. They don't want to undo this by paying for the apps.
Possibly. However, an environment that's deployed Linux as a cost-saving step is going to have that much more left in their IT budget (with the assumption that such measures are successful). If your particular software package is being marketed at these organizations it doesn't really matter if they're running Windows or Linux; it's going to be something they are used to buying. The only caveats I see is perhaps greater sensitivity to price and your product better out-shine any similar functionality served by Open Source as anyone deploying Linux is probably going to be aware of alternatives.
So it really goes because I see Linux being bigger with a crowd that is already light on cash and used to copying things. No matter what you do, if you aim at that market, you'll have a bit more trouble selling software than to someone who has the money to buy it, the will to buy it and doesn't have the time to go find it elsewhere.
Alright - I can agree here. This market is a non-market no matter what platform. And if the Linux market is predominately this kind of non-customer, then I can agree on the point.
However, I am not so sure this is where things are today or are going in the near future. I am seeing more and more IT professionals using Linux; even individuals I would never have suspected. And its not just the recent graduate crowd. Though, as these recent-grads enter the workforce, they are gaining access to expense accounts that would go towards tools they are familiar with and prefer. There's a reason you can pick up very expensive software at steep "student" discounts and it has nothing to do with immediate profits.
I don't know enough to tell whether what I've observed reflects a large enough marketplace today (or the future). It may very well be a niche market. But none the less, there IS a market there that will pay for the right application.
But the Windows market is bigger, so even after the piracy comes out, there are still higher sales.
Additionally, note that these pirates weren't going to pay for the software anyway. If they couldn't steal it, they'd almost always just do without.
So actually there's NO damage to profitability. Since these are not customers and would never be customers, there is no impact on sales.
But this doesn't contradict what I said, it backs it. The Linux market is similar to the windows pirats.. Most desktop linux customers wouldn't pay for apps no matter what, whether it's because they're cheapskates/broke or just constutionally opposed to paying for software (free/open source fans).
I'm curious as to where you get the idea that most desktop Linux customers won't pay. I'm suspecting it is a personal guess. I have met very few desktop Linux users who refuse to pay for any software either due to financial reasons or being morally opposed to the idea. I'm sure there are some. But I would be surprised if they measure in the majority these days (note that the Free / Open Source concept has nothing to do with cost).
I should also note that in the decades I've been involved with computing (personally and professionally) I've seen a mixture of "pirated" and purchased software. The point here is just because someone does avoid paying for something doesn't mean they will never pay for something. This applies to software "piracy" as well as mislead Open Source fanaticism.
I do see a huge future for Linux in turnkey solutions, that means people actually paying for applications (typically through the nose).
You are obviously a huge fan of your own IT department. I dunno if you guys ever make mistakes, but I'll say a lot of other IT departments do. Just because you're making all the smart decisions doesn't mean the market moves that way.
My folks make mistakes. We even on occasion pay too much for stuff that does too little - or fails to live up to promises. With some dilligence, we've managed to keep those mistakes to a minimum. But our track record is not the point.
The point I was making is that Linux may present a tough market to work in even if it is a large enough market to be attractive. But then, the same things that grow the Linux-oriented market will probably lessen the average degree of scrutiny experienced in selling to it.
But right now, the Linux desktop market is mostly made up of cheapskates and people who don't pay for software because of principles. This hurts the profitability from selling applications to this market.
And the Windows market is full of cheapskate "pirates" who copy and patch around so-called copy protection. This hurts the profitability of selling applications to this market.
Bull.
Sure - there are "cheapskates" and "freeloaders" that use both platforms. But that doesn't mean the market isn't there. The only valid question I see is whether the market is large enough to warrent the expense (which brings on the catch-22 for Linux).
I do have a completely arbitrary perception that the Linux market is tougher than the Windows market. It is arbitrary since it is solely based on my own purchasing decisions and those I've seen of Linux users around me. We tend to be much more critical of software and licensing schemes... much more so than our Windows counterparts. When considering some software package, we tend to not only know other commercial offerings but competing open source solutions. Spending our IT budgets on your product means that it must soundly beat all competitors. We're a tough sell. A side note is that if you do NOT have a Linux option for your software, our group applies a rather heafty black mark (although there are other groups in my environment who don't).
As it is, Corel doesn't have anything that Microsoft particularly cares about anymore.
Microsoft beat Corel in the market around a decade ago. You're right in that Corel has no product Microsoft cares about. But Corel offers a nice opportunity to kick up some business propaganda.
As a side note - it could be observed that Corel doesn't have anything that anybody, including Linux users, cares about either.
At the time of the release, Word didn't completely own the word processor market; it had most of it, but mainly from WordPerfect switchers. If they had concentrated on making the Windows version of WordPerfect suck less, rather than making an even-worse Linux port, then the landscape might have been very different.
I guess our perceptions of the market at the time are very different. In my view, Wordperfect had already soundly lost the market by this point. That loss was already regarded as a historical note. Sure - Wordperfect still had a market... but it was a niche market often linked to specific industries or practices such as the legal profession. And even those niches were under attack by Microsoft.
The interest in Linux was clearly a last-ditch effort to find a new niche market. One has to wonder whether a failed product in the Windows market really has a better chance on Linux or if this is simply a misled strategy.
However, discontinuing the use of Office before application support for odf is equal to that of Office makes no sense at all.
Actually - the proposal that included moving to ODF as the official format also included continued use of MS Office as required until a full migration could be made for everyone. That is, assuming Microsoft insisted in to providing a method for MS Office to use ODF. Which, honestly, is a funny thing to do when a major customer has a set requirement. Zealotry, indeed.
1. How does the RIAA control the media so well? Are the big papers and news channels really lazy enough to only report things that have press releases?
Any PR org. should know how to game the system. To understand how this is done, read Paul Graham's "The Submarine" which does a nice job covering the subject.
Interesting to see a company foiled by the laws they insisted on in the first place, isn't it?
Well it would be, but the Disney case is all about Milne selling the merchandising rights back in the 30's and the daughter basically wanting to back out of that contract. What does that have to do with copyright again?
Perhaps it has to do with the fact that Milne and her grandfather would simply be footnotes in history rather than Disney business parters if copyright terms weren't being extended. The very same copyright extensions that have benefited Disney in the past. A. A. Milne's copyright on Winnie the Pooh would have expired (or due to expire shortly) under previous copyright laws and entered the public domain. It would then be a moot point on what merchandising contracts were signed in the 1930s.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry - I am much more willing to associate "fruitcake" and "fool" with someone who is keen to presume an extreme behavior. I am even more inclined to this when the behavior is in response to someone calling for more information with which to make an informed decision.
It's not that I'm not sympathetic to the general idea. I have little respect for this Administration when it comes to civil liberty issues. And I would suggest it is healthy to have a minimal level of distrust for anyone in an enforcement role. But not every action by a Federal agent is an automatic breach of civil liberties. Even under this Administration.
Lemme guess... consumer multimedia is Microsoft's house and they're not gonna let Apple take food off their plate.
Hooray beer!
Wait... what were we talking about?
Arrr matey! That be a thought crime, fer sure!
Are the principles of various disclosure models so obscure that you really NEED to try and shoehorn information security in to a physical security analogy? Especially since few (if any) of these analogies are accurate or even representative of the issues at hand? Seriously. Stop it.
True. I misread the parent's comment. D'oh.
Yeah. Some Open Source "advocates" suck just as bad as the proprietary software marketers when it comes to security propaganda. :P
The point being that digitally signed binaries aren't a guarantee. They're darned nice. Makes things more difficult to slip in a rogue binary. But they're not the end-all, be-all in assuring some rogue code isn't slipped in there somewhere.
And yes - that goes for closed, proprietary software houses as well as the public, open groups.
Alright - so you hack a new version of apt-get. This evil-apt-get accepts a bogus key as legit. Now all you need to do is drop in evil-apt-get in as an update. Oh... and have it signed by the legitimate key less the old (legitimate) apt-get already installed and running on the target's system question the validity of our "updated" apt-get.
Do you think Microsoft was the only one making microcomputers accessible to the general public? Please. If anything, Microsoft was behind the curve on usability - assuming that's what you mean by "made it so that every retard on the planet can and does use a computer". And even this late in the game, they are far from the only usable option (and far from perfect).
Honestly - I have no problem with some reality checking. But you need it as much as any other zealot found in this forum.
What makes you think he touched networks / systems considered "the most secure on the planet?" His word? This is the guy who swears he was able to target a desktop physically located in a specific building in a specific installation via network connections that do little to reveal any resemblance to physical location and then view pre-censored photos of a UFO. Not that he was able to capture any evidence of his work, you understand. Sure.
No. He broke in to unclassified networks.
He shouldn't have been able to do it. He shouldn't have been able to touch as many networks as he was able to. And today he would find his task more difficult (I would hazard to guess not impossible though - there's publicly available information that suggests otherwise). There is more these federal agencies should be doing - fundamental changes that doesn't involve the wave of paperwork and bureaucracy coming down the pipes today. But here's a hint - what he did does nothing to help these agencies get a clue.
Not going to happen. They already know what he did and how he did it. He's not THAT special.
What about manned space flight is routine? Just how many manned space flights do you think the WORLD flies each year?
Cute rant. But it seems your pessimism (and eagerness to stick it to the "Americans") got in the way of rational, logical thought.
You discount some rather amazing technologies that were obsessions for geeks decades before the general public even heard of it, much less realized that they needed it in their households. These were technologies where geeks and nerds saw great potential and the general public would simply scratch their heads. Now its all part of pop culture. It wouldn't be that way if early adopters hadn't pursued and worked with the tech... figuring out what any of it is good for.
The specifics of where any technology market is headed is anyone's guess. Geeks pick champions and losers. So does the general public. And so does business. It's odd that anyone would claim that geeks never pick winners... specifically or in general. If you're trying to devine future trends in technology, watching early adopters is hardly a strange notion... even if it is just one indication at best.
Photography. The automobile. Telephones. Radio. Hi-fidelity stereo. Television. Microcomputers. Networked computing. The Internet. This stuff doesn't just spring out of the ground to become normal parts of mainstream culture. There's always early adopters - usually nerds to some degree or another. And very often these guys are toying with budding technology well before anyone has found a useful purpose for it.
Yes, not every example of early-adopter focus ends up the "winning" technology in any given market. But that's the nature of the technology business. That doesn't mean the dominent tech wasn't in some nerd's basement, garage, work shed, or closet first. It usually was... and well before any main-stream bystander would make heads or tails over why the nerd in question would bother.
Along those lines... yes, nerds have been playing with Linux for a while now. Linux is becoming more and more commonplace whether you want to admit it or not. But don't expect it to just suddenly pop up out of the ground and be mainstream. Technology markets just don't work that way. It just appears that way to the mainstream consumer who doesn't get wind of new technology until well after it has been packaged for mass consumption and sprung on its audience in a marketing blitz.
You don't become an astronaut having a risk-averse personality. Risk is part of the profession. There is not a single crew that is not aware of their mission presenting a very real danger. However, they still become astronauts... compete rigorously to do so. Train hard to do so. Become focused on their mission. And presented with information that simply re-states that what they are about to do is risky, I doubt any particular member of a crew would be willing to step away from a mission. They are simply too close to the issue.
Possibly. However, an environment that's deployed Linux as a cost-saving step is going to have that much more left in their IT budget (with the assumption that such measures are successful). If your particular software package is being marketed at these organizations it doesn't really matter if they're running Windows or Linux; it's going to be something they are used to buying. The only caveats I see is perhaps greater sensitivity to price and your product better out-shine any similar functionality served by Open Source as anyone deploying Linux is probably going to be aware of alternatives.
Alright - I can agree here. This market is a non-market no matter what platform. And if the Linux market is predominately this kind of non-customer, then I can agree on the point.
However, I am not so sure this is where things are today or are going in the near future. I am seeing more and more IT professionals using Linux; even individuals I would never have suspected. And its not just the recent graduate crowd. Though, as these recent-grads enter the workforce, they are gaining access to expense accounts that would go towards tools they are familiar with and prefer. There's a reason you can pick up very expensive software at steep "student" discounts and it has nothing to do with immediate profits.
I don't know enough to tell whether what I've observed reflects a large enough marketplace today (or the future). It may very well be a niche market. But none the less, there IS a market there that will pay for the right application.
So actually there's NO damage to profitability. Since these are not customers and would never be customers, there is no impact on sales.
I'm curious as to where you get the idea that most desktop Linux customers won't pay. I'm suspecting it is a personal guess. I have met very few desktop Linux users who refuse to pay for any software either due to financial reasons or being morally opposed to the idea. I'm sure there are some. But I would be surprised if they measure in the majority these days (note that the Free / Open Source concept has nothing to do with cost).
I should also note that in the decades I've been involved with computing (personally and professionally) I've seen a mixture of "pirated" and purchased software. The point here is just because someone does avoid paying for something doesn't mean they will never pay for something. This applies to software "piracy" as well as mislead Open Source fanaticism.
My folks make mistakes. We even on occasion pay too much for stuff that does too little - or fails to live up to promises. With some dilligence, we've managed to keep those mistakes to a minimum. But our track record is not the point.
The point I was making is that Linux may present a tough market to work in even if it is a large enough market to be attractive. But then, the same things that grow the Linux-oriented market will probably lessen the average degree of scrutiny experienced in selling to it.
And the Windows market is full of cheapskate "pirates" who copy and patch around so-called copy protection. This hurts the profitability of selling applications to this market.
Bull.
Sure - there are "cheapskates" and "freeloaders" that use both platforms. But that doesn't mean the market isn't there. The only valid question I see is whether the market is large enough to warrent the expense (which brings on the catch-22 for Linux).
I do have a completely arbitrary perception that the Linux market is tougher than the Windows market. It is arbitrary since it is solely based on my own purchasing decisions and those I've seen of Linux users around me. We tend to be much more critical of software and licensing schemes... much more so than our Windows counterparts. When considering some software package, we tend to not only know other commercial offerings but competing open source solutions. Spending our IT budgets on your product means that it must soundly beat all competitors. We're a tough sell. A side note is that if you do NOT have a Linux option for your software, our group applies a rather heafty black mark (although there are other groups in my environment who don't).
Microsoft beat Corel in the market around a decade ago. You're right in that Corel has no product Microsoft cares about. But Corel offers a nice opportunity to kick up some business propaganda.
As a side note - it could be observed that Corel doesn't have anything that anybody, including Linux users, cares about either.
I guess our perceptions of the market at the time are very different. In my view, Wordperfect had already soundly lost the market by this point. That loss was already regarded as a historical note. Sure - Wordperfect still had a market... but it was a niche market often linked to specific industries or practices such as the legal profession. And even those niches were under attack by Microsoft.
The interest in Linux was clearly a last-ditch effort to find a new niche market. One has to wonder whether a failed product in the Windows market really has a better chance on Linux or if this is simply a misled strategy.
Actually - the proposal that included moving to ODF as the official format also included continued use of MS Office as required until a full migration could be made for everyone. That is, assuming Microsoft insisted in to providing a method for MS Office to use ODF. Which, honestly, is a funny thing to do when a major customer has a set requirement. Zealotry, indeed.
Bad news, everyone....
It's Flash-laden. That's right... it's a suppository.
Any PR org. should know how to game the system. To understand how this is done, read Paul Graham's "The Submarine" which does a nice job covering the subject.
Perhaps it has to do with the fact that Milne and her grandfather would simply be footnotes in history rather than Disney business parters if copyright terms weren't being extended. The very same copyright extensions that have benefited Disney in the past. A. A. Milne's copyright on Winnie the Pooh would have expired (or due to expire shortly) under previous copyright laws and entered the public domain. It would then be a moot point on what merchandising contracts were signed in the 1930s.