Netscreen's service is (was) excellent. And that was a key issue for us as service was one issue we had with Checkpoint. But as I've said - with the aquisition by Juniper, our service contract has increased fairly steeply with a decrease in the level of service (although the old Netscreen guys are still great once we get ahold of them).
As we've all seen before... it is possible to kill a great product by overcharging for crappy service. Now... I'm not saying that's where we are now. It's too early to tell yet. But we're definately a bit nervous (and a little annoyed at how quick Juniper was to increase our cost for support before ironing out the wrinkles).
I hope (for our own good at least) it all works out.
Juniper has picked up some nice tech. Netscreen's firewall products are very nice. The Neoteris (Netscreen / Juniper) "SSL VPN" access solution is increadibly useful. But how will Juniper handle these aquisitions?
I'm especially interested since my team purchased and manages both Netscreen and Neoteris (before either went through the current tree of aquisition) products. And unfortunately, all we've gotten for the Juniper name is an increased maintenance cost and decreased quality of service. We'll have to see if this is just wrinkles from the aquisition.
Juniper has certainly made some interesting moves and nice aquisitions. They certainly have the technical firepower to be competative. We'll have to see if they CAN compete. Although... I agree. They would come to mind before 3com.
Say Grandma Jones just bought a machine and her grandson installed WHATEVER version of linux on there. For whatever reason, she boots up, and there is a command prompt.
Grandma Jones does not do system maintenance. If the machine does something other than provide her with the little icons for email, web, and solitare she will be calling her grandson to come fix it.
does everything that runs on Linux have to come with the source and an oss license???
It's all personal and professional preference, of course. But for me... the answer is "no - but it helps."
I'm no Free Software purist. I run Linux systems at home and work (right next to Windows and Solaris systems). I've bought proprietary Linux software for both home and work (mostly games and enterprise apps). But when making a choice, I tend to weight heavily on the side of FOSS. Why? Freedom.
I've been bit plenty of times in the past by intentionaly induced limitations, technical incompatabilities, and agressive licensing. Some vendors are better than others. But with proprietary software, the more one becomes dependant on the product, the more risk one runs of being unable to migrate from it.
Granted - there are no guarentees in IT. But an infrastructure designed on Open Source systems tends to allow a greater degree of freedom. Data formats are documented (if not in documentation itself, in the code - which makes migration possible if not easy). Functionality tends to be limited by technical issues rather than marketing. And if the primary developers of a particular project take a turn that conflicts with your environment, there is a good chance that there are others with the same view - migration utilities are developed or oft-maligned fork keeps the project in a favored direction.
That doesn't make FOSS the magic bullet. There are certainly times where particular examples of proprietary software offer advantages that makes it attractive. And that's where this line of questioning comes in. Sybase's offering lacks the freedom that other FOSS databases offer. So what advantages does it have that would make it attractive?
..but isn't the main benefit easy searching?-)/badjoke
I was just thinking that if they get this thing going, they'll be able to find the problem. Most likely in their own filesystem. Or maybe that's the problem. Just not the one they wanted to find.
MS is the biggest OS producer, their founder is the number 1 richest man in the world...they hold a lot of number ones.
This is a common claim directed at Microsoft critics. There is a belief that Microsoft gets attacked because of their position. And I'm sure there is a certain degree of truth to it. However, I often see this as a dismissal to ALL Microsoft criticism - or even criticisms that individuals simply don't agree with. And that, frankly, is bunk.
For example a day or two ago there was/. article about Bill G. talking about Longhorn. He got blasted by some posters saying that he is just doing this for the free press. If this was say the creators of Half - Life 2 giving us an update, we would praise them for coming out.
I'm at a disadvantage here. I didn't read either the linked article nor the/. post. So I don't know the specifics. But keep in mind that commenting on future technology offerings has been used in the past by Microsoft to generate buzz / vapor ware / FUD. I don't wish to imply that this particular instance is such a case. As I said, I don't know. But I'm not surprised to see criticism based on this long-standing history.
That is what I am talking about...when MS does something bad blast them, but when they do something good give them some credit...
I also occasionally disagree with some of the criticisms towards Microsoft that are voiced on Slashdot. However, that doesn't mean that all the criticisms are wrong. Nor does it mean that Microsoft is even unjustly targeted. Microsoft should be criticized for actions that deserve criticism. And there is no short supply of such actions from Microsoft.
It's SOP on/. to instantly hate anything that is 1) MS or MS related or 2) not open source.
You don't suppose that's got anything to do with the behavior of some proprietary vendors, specifically Microsoft?
You'll note that there are numerous other major players in IT who don't get the same kind of attention. Nobody is without criticism, of course. But how much bashing does, for example, Cisco get around here despite their market position in networking gear?
Mp3 doesn't support DRM. Actually, there are DRM'd mp3 implementations out there probably, but no digital music player will support them. The recording industry will NEVER allow the online sale of an un-DRM'd digital audio file.
Meanwhile, illicit data sources for music continue to flourish. All the convenience of click-at-home without any of the restrictions that make you wonder when you'll run in to the glass ceiling that stops you from playing your favorite tune on your new audio gadget.
Sure. You can burn your own. For now - the RIAA has never shown approval to such practices. However, this involves either travel time or shipping time as well as the effort to RIP the media once you have it in-hand. Not to mention the issue of buying a collection of music of increasingly questionable quality for that one gem. But hey - at least you get to RIP it to your taste.... assuming you know how to do that.
The recording industry could have wiped out Napster, et al early if they had just thought ahead. They could still do it. High quality, professionally RIPed, fully functional files from a single source without any hassles over bandwidth or incomplete downloads. Sell them at a reasonable price.
Suddenly those illicit data sources are a lot of hassle for meager savings. They will continue to exist - there are always individuals with more time than money. But then, they weren't customers anyway. And as you pull away the mainstream music loving crowd, there are less sources to feed the illicit data networks... which in turn become less effective. Less popular. Less mainstream.
Of course, this won't happen. The success of the music industry isn't based on sales. It's based on control. And control is what DRM is all about.
Re:I see these +0.1 releases discussed often, but.
on
Gnome 2.8 RC1 Released
·
· Score: 1
but both gnome and kde feel weak when it comes to the 'everyday' stuff I usually do on windows.. email, browsing, office apps, etc.
I suppose this isn't the focus of this post. But since you tossed this in... I'm curious as to what apps you're specifically referring to. I was going to refute your statements until I realized my examples weren't GNOME or KDE specific. For browsing, I use Firefox - on both Windows and Linux. For office apps I use Open Office - on both Linux and Windows (although sometimes I do use MS Office since it's already on my work machine). About the closest to a GNOME or KDE application that fits your list is Evolution. And I really wish there was a Windows port for it.
To each their own, I guess. Now on to the focus...
the real BUT, though, is this thought - Would it help the (big) open source groups to start being more feature focused?
Look at many dot releases from M$ or Apple.. 90% is NEWNEWNEW and a little is 'does xyz better, zyx works now'
How many Average Joes hear +0.1 announcements for GNOME, KDE, etc. ? Sure - they hear that ReadHat 8.x is now out with a shoppinglist of features. But they don't hear that GNOME 2.x has improved file dialogs or Open Office 1.1.x now has better filters. Even if their new copy of RedHat is based on these improvements.
I'm not a MS fan, but why all this trouble to eliminate everything they produce? Word is a good application, for all I can tell, and it gives me everything I need from a Word processor. I don't get it, it is a good tool, why make another one to do the same things?
Wow. I missed the memo that outlines word processing as the sole territory of Microsoft. Sure - they dominate the market. And as such, anything else that wishes to operate in that same space will inevitably be compared to the market leader. Years ago, it was MS Word being compared to Word Perfect.
And it's not too often that windows users need to exchange files with linux or mac users.
What a very Microsoft way of thinking. There are plenty of environments where the entire IT landscape isn't licensed from Microsoft. In these environments, the ability to exchange information (to include documents) among a disparate collection of platforms is welcome. I would even suggest that the ability to do so puts one at an economic advantage. You never want to be solely reliant on a single source (even if sometimes it can't be helped).
Watch what they hint at and see the reaction in their stock price next week after everyone gets back from Summer vacation and the real traders start to move things en masse.
Let me guess. They take a loss at every trade. But they make it up with volume.
Good point. Say - do you think "stereo" implies a license to use two ears? Or do you suppose there should be a license for each ear or "audio receptor"?
Happened to a friend of mine last week. She had her entire CD collection (yes, REAL store-bought CDs) in her car and it got broken into. Both the car (and of course, the CDs in the car) were stolen.
Something simular happened to a friend of mine several years ago. His truck was parked in his driveway one night and some punk smashed in the window, stole his stereo, and all his CDs. Those CDs were all copies. He always burned his CDs for his car since he didn't trust what the Texas heat would do to the origionals.
But of course, the RIAA doesn't like that whole "backup" idea, after all the thief would then have a copy of the music as well as the legal owner, and that's just not right!
The RIAA's (and Valenti's) idea of what is right is even more twisted than that. They have stated that making a copy of a CD for one's car is wrong. In their eyes, each and every stereo should have a seperate purchased copy.
When it comes to flaming down all open source software in general as "unusable pieces of junk", or claim that "all programmers must be banned from UI design", or that "Linux will never succeed on the desktop", Slashdotters are all united and flame as a single entity.
Note that each of these are inflammatory statements that are, frankly, designed to induce a specific response. That response is a common opinion in these parts and shouldn't be surprising. But just because there are popular opinions, doesn't mean that every individual feels the same about every subject.
For example, there are those who will state that Open Source produces some excellent software and fine options for servers. However, they will also claim that this process does not work for desktop oriented software and will not produce what is required to gain market share on the desktop. Or, at the least, they're support the common "Linux isn't ready for the desktop" theme. How does this fit with your attempt at profiling "Slashdotters"?
This doesn't even touch on the concept that some subjects bring forth activity from some individuals who fall quiet for other subjects.
But when someone critisizes Slashdotters, you suddenly split up into thousands of individuals.
That's because Slashdot IS made up of thousands of individuals. The idea that one can criticize "Slashdotters" is flawed. There are common themes that may or may not stand up to criticism. There are individuals who may or may not be consistent. But just because there are some subjects that form a somewhat popular consensus, doesn't mean there is suddenly a single voice to criticize on every subject.
This is Slashdot. Slashdot doesn't operate on any sort of intelligent, driving logic, it operates on heated misunderstanding, ideological warfare, and name calling. On Slashdot, the same people who will vocally and vehemently denounce the RIAA for suing infringers (that is: for legally enforcing their rights on their content) will hop on over to a story like this and cry for the heads of anyone who "violates" the GPL (that is: they'll demand that the developers enforce their rights on their content).
There are three distinct issues you bring up.
First, is the broad brush. You classify all of Slashdot readership / posters as a single entity. While you ignore the fact that as Slashdot has grown, it's collective voice has become considerably schizophrenic as different individuals step forward to express different views on different subjects. If you want to make a case of hypocrisy, you're going to have to track individuals (and their many guises). Not lash out at a fictitious single voice of a random crowd.
Secondly, the unique opinion. You act as if this general theme of "we only honor what is ours" is unique to Slashdot. The world is full of this attitude. And it is certainly reflected within industry. That doesn't make it right. But don't try to pin this on some kind of unique Slashdot group think.
Finally, share and share alike. The argument that you're making... the basis of your general point on hypocrisy... is that the Slashdot mind think sees nothing wrong with copying intellectual property. Yet when "their" intellectual property dragged off behind closed doors, they scream. You'll note that there's a common theme there - share and they're happy. Granted, the merits of this "information wants to be free" mentality is certainly up for debate. But it IS much more consistent than you'd make it sound.
It appears that this is another project by the somewhat infamous Carolyn Meinel:
Registrant: M B Research (UBERHACKER3-DOM)
P.O. Box 1520
Cedar Crest, NM 87008
US
Domain Name: UBERHACKER.COM
Administrative Contact:
Meinel, Carolyn (CM1773) cmeinel@TECHBROKER.COM
M/B Research
PO Box 1520
Cedar Crest, NM 87008
US
(505) 281-9675 fax: (505) 281-9675
Technical Contact:
Marchand, Bill (BMS103) bill@UnixHQ.org
Digital Information Solutions
P.O. Box 5612
Glendale, AZ 85312
US
Unlisted fax: Unlisted
Record expires on 03-Dec-2004.
Record created on 03-Dec-1999.
Database last updated on 30-Aug-2004 01:59:31 EDT.
Those who have followed her career or been in direct conflict with her might offer some warning. I would suggest one do some research and decide for oneself. But I personally wouldn't bother with the site now that I understand it's source.
Stuff not working out of the box is noteworthy in a bad way. Everything working the way that it's supposed to is just what's supposed to happen.
I agree to a point. When FooCorp sells a laptop running Linux, one should expect it all to work. And there are smaller outfits that do just that - Linux laptops, fully functional (the author notes this but fails to stress the "everything works" angle at that point).
But the reality of laptop hardware is that it is often a very hostile environment to the end user wishing to install their own OS. And since Linux is not commonly offered, most user experiences with Linux and laptops is a trial of compromises, hacks, and quasi-functionality. Linux users have become used to asking about compatibility when looking at laptop purchases.
Incidently, Windows faces the same problems. My last discount laptop came with WinME and an option to upgrade to WinXP. I wasn't interested in either option but I had a spare copy of Win2K. Installing this on my laptop was as much a trial as installing Mandrake (both generally worked - but it required considerable effort to get both supporting all my laptop features).
Now, I would have had an easier time installing WinXP. After all, the manufactorer offered it as an option and offers all the appropriate drivers, etc. And that's the real point of this article.
Want Linux running well on a laptop? But one that's compatible. HP has provided one. Out of the box.
Going clicky-clicky (or otherwise following the link) exacuted a PHP script which would serve up a winamp skin. Since many users have their browsers automagically handle Windamp skins, it would immediately get handed off to Winamp to execute. The skin linked to several files that eventually called an executable within the skin package which in turn loaded one's mIRC client with a script that spat out the above message.
The victims probably didn't know what hit them.
Re:I'm sorry, were you expecting better?
on
XP2 Spotted In The Wild
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Wasn't security for UNIX and UNIX-like systems an afterthought? The difference being that it has had decades of work to get where it is now, by companies and organizations that had to make it good, and not just a few years on a product that only has to be "good enough" for consumers.
Great point. I would suggest a few other things to consider.
One of the things I find interesting about Unix is its modular nature. For the most part, various components are fairly well insulated from each other. One is able to rip out or drop in pieces as one wants. This allows for major changes of the system's operation. This can be applied to anything from hardening the system to implementing new functionality. Security may have been an afterthought for Unix. But it's foundation allowed for it.
Keep in mind that "security" hadn't always been a buzzword for Unix. A very visible example is the Morris Worm. But exposure to the public via the Wild Internet caused the Unix community to start picking up all its dirty laundry. It learned lessons. And those lessons are often the basic tenants of Infosec.
One of my criticisms of Microsoft is that they ignore history. The Unix crowd has already run its gauntlet early on and made its findings and lessons learned widely available. Yet Microsoft continually repeats not only Unix's mistakes, but also their own.
Sure - a mature code base implies a greater degree of bug fixing, etc. But that solves implementation mistakes. It doesn't help fundamental design flaws. Those can be very difficult to deal with. Especially if your system isn't very modular.
One final point - how mature IS the relative codebases? How much of the original *nix code still exists vs. being entirely new? And how much of WinXP is pedigree WinNT from a previous decade?
Slashdot Mirror
Netscreen's service is (was) excellent. And that was a key issue for us as service was one issue we had with Checkpoint. But as I've said - with the aquisition by Juniper, our service contract has increased fairly steeply with a decrease in the level of service (although the old Netscreen guys are still great once we get ahold of them).
As we've all seen before... it is possible to kill a great product by overcharging for crappy service. Now... I'm not saying that's where we are now. It's too early to tell yet. But we're definately a bit nervous (and a little annoyed at how quick Juniper was to increase our cost for support before ironing out the wrinkles).
I hope (for our own good at least) it all works out.
Juniper has picked up some nice tech. Netscreen's firewall products are very nice. The Neoteris (Netscreen / Juniper) "SSL VPN" access solution is increadibly useful. But how will Juniper handle these aquisitions?
I'm especially interested since my team purchased and manages both Netscreen and Neoteris (before either went through the current tree of aquisition) products. And unfortunately, all we've gotten for the Juniper name is an increased maintenance cost and decreased quality of service. We'll have to see if this is just wrinkles from the aquisition.
Juniper has certainly made some interesting moves and nice aquisitions. They certainly have the technical firepower to be competative. We'll have to see if they CAN compete. Although... I agree. They would come to mind before 3com.
Errr. You do realize that this isn't the proper forum to get a date, right? I mean... not that I judge your lifestyle or anything...
Grandma Jones does not do system maintenance. If the machine does something other than provide her with the little icons for email, web, and solitare she will be calling her grandson to come fix it.
It's all personal and professional preference, of course. But for me... the answer is "no - but it helps."
I'm no Free Software purist. I run Linux systems at home and work (right next to Windows and Solaris systems). I've bought proprietary Linux software for both home and work (mostly games and enterprise apps). But when making a choice, I tend to weight heavily on the side of FOSS. Why? Freedom.
I've been bit plenty of times in the past by intentionaly induced limitations, technical incompatabilities, and agressive licensing. Some vendors are better than others. But with proprietary software, the more one becomes dependant on the product, the more risk one runs of being unable to migrate from it.
Granted - there are no guarentees in IT. But an infrastructure designed on Open Source systems tends to allow a greater degree of freedom. Data formats are documented (if not in documentation itself, in the code - which makes migration possible if not easy). Functionality tends to be limited by technical issues rather than marketing. And if the primary developers of a particular project take a turn that conflicts with your environment, there is a good chance that there are others with the same view - migration utilities are developed or oft-maligned fork keeps the project in a favored direction.
That doesn't make FOSS the magic bullet. There are certainly times where particular examples of proprietary software offer advantages that makes it attractive. And that's where this line of questioning comes in. Sybase's offering lacks the freedom that other FOSS databases offer. So what advantages does it have that would make it attractive?
I was just thinking that if they get this thing going, they'll be able to find the problem. Most likely in their own filesystem. Or maybe that's the problem. Just not the one they wanted to find.
Clicky-clikcy on the Wikipedia link. :P
Ahhh. But what was DOS a copy of?
I've read that before. And I agree, it's fishy. But how often does Cisco act like this?
This is a common claim directed at Microsoft critics. There is a belief that Microsoft gets attacked because of their position. And I'm sure there is a certain degree of truth to it. However, I often see this as a dismissal to ALL Microsoft criticism - or even criticisms that individuals simply don't agree with. And that, frankly, is bunk.
I'm at a disadvantage here. I didn't read either the linked article nor the
I also occasionally disagree with some of the criticisms towards Microsoft that are voiced on Slashdot. However, that doesn't mean that all the criticisms are wrong. Nor does it mean that Microsoft is even unjustly targeted. Microsoft should be criticized for actions that deserve criticism. And there is no short supply of such actions from Microsoft.
You don't suppose that's got anything to do with the behavior of some proprietary vendors, specifically Microsoft?
You'll note that there are numerous other major players in IT who don't get the same kind of attention. Nobody is without criticism, of course. But how much bashing does, for example, Cisco get around here despite their market position in networking gear?
Microsoft reaps what it has sown.
Meanwhile, illicit data sources for music continue to flourish. All the convenience of click-at-home without any of the restrictions that make you wonder when you'll run in to the glass ceiling that stops you from playing your favorite tune on your new audio gadget.
Sure. You can burn your own. For now - the RIAA has never shown approval to such practices. However, this involves either travel time or shipping time as well as the effort to RIP the media once you have it in-hand. Not to mention the issue of buying a collection of music of increasingly questionable quality for that one gem. But hey - at least you get to RIP it to your taste.... assuming you know how to do that.
The recording industry could have wiped out Napster, et al early if they had just thought ahead. They could still do it. High quality, professionally RIPed, fully functional files from a single source without any hassles over bandwidth or incomplete downloads. Sell them at a reasonable price.
Suddenly those illicit data sources are a lot of hassle for meager savings. They will continue to exist - there are always individuals with more time than money. But then, they weren't customers anyway. And as you pull away the mainstream music loving crowd, there are less sources to feed the illicit data networks... which in turn become less effective. Less popular. Less mainstream.
Of course, this won't happen. The success of the music industry isn't based on sales. It's based on control. And control is what DRM is all about.
I suppose this isn't the focus of this post. But since you tossed this in... I'm curious as to what apps you're specifically referring to. I was going to refute your statements until I realized my examples weren't GNOME or KDE specific. For browsing, I use Firefox - on both Windows and Linux. For office apps I use Open Office - on both Linux and Windows (although sometimes I do use MS Office since it's already on my work machine). About the closest to a GNOME or KDE application that fits your list is Evolution. And I really wish there was a Windows port for it.
To each their own, I guess. Now on to the focus...
How many Average Joes hear +0.1 announcements for GNOME, KDE, etc. ? Sure - they hear that ReadHat 8.x is now out with a shoppinglist of features. But they don't hear that GNOME 2.x has improved file dialogs or Open Office 1.1.x now has better filters. Even if their new copy of RedHat is based on these improvements.
Wow. I missed the memo that outlines word processing as the sole territory of Microsoft. Sure - they dominate the market. And as such, anything else that wishes to operate in that same space will inevitably be compared to the market leader. Years ago, it was MS Word being compared to Word Perfect.
What a very Microsoft way of thinking. There are plenty of environments where the entire IT landscape isn't licensed from Microsoft. In these environments, the ability to exchange information (to include documents) among a disparate collection of platforms is welcome. I would even suggest that the ability to do so puts one at an economic advantage. You never want to be solely reliant on a single source (even if sometimes it can't be helped).
Let me guess. They take a loss at every trade. But they make it up with volume.
Good point. Say - do you think "stereo" implies a license to use two ears? Or do you suppose there should be a license for each ear or "audio receptor"?
Something simular happened to a friend of mine several years ago. His truck was parked in his driveway one night and some punk smashed in the window, stole his stereo, and all his CDs. Those CDs were all copies. He always burned his CDs for his car since he didn't trust what the Texas heat would do to the origionals.
The RIAA's (and Valenti's) idea of what is right is even more twisted than that. They have stated that making a copy of a CD for one's car is wrong. In their eyes, each and every stereo should have a seperate purchased copy.
Note that each of these are inflammatory statements that are, frankly, designed to induce a specific response. That response is a common opinion in these parts and shouldn't be surprising. But just because there are popular opinions, doesn't mean that every individual feels the same about every subject.
For example, there are those who will state that Open Source produces some excellent software and fine options for servers. However, they will also claim that this process does not work for desktop oriented software and will not produce what is required to gain market share on the desktop. Or, at the least, they're support the common "Linux isn't ready for the desktop" theme. How does this fit with your attempt at profiling "Slashdotters"?
This doesn't even touch on the concept that some subjects bring forth activity from some individuals who fall quiet for other subjects.
That's because Slashdot IS made up of thousands of individuals. The idea that one can criticize "Slashdotters" is flawed. There are common themes that may or may not stand up to criticism. There are individuals who may or may not be consistent. But just because there are some subjects that form a somewhat popular consensus, doesn't mean there is suddenly a single voice to criticize on every subject.
There are three distinct issues you bring up.
First, is the broad brush. You classify all of Slashdot readership / posters as a single entity. While you ignore the fact that as Slashdot has grown, it's collective voice has become considerably schizophrenic as different individuals step forward to express different views on different subjects. If you want to make a case of hypocrisy, you're going to have to track individuals (and their many guises). Not lash out at a fictitious single voice of a random crowd.
Secondly, the unique opinion. You act as if this general theme of "we only honor what is ours" is unique to Slashdot. The world is full of this attitude. And it is certainly reflected within industry. That doesn't make it right. But don't try to pin this on some kind of unique Slashdot group think.
Finally, share and share alike. The argument that you're making... the basis of your general point on hypocrisy... is that the Slashdot mind think sees nothing wrong with copying intellectual property. Yet when "their" intellectual property dragged off behind closed doors, they scream. You'll note that there's a common theme there - share and they're happy. Granted, the merits of this "information wants to be free" mentality is certainly up for debate. But it IS much more consistent than you'd make it sound.
I agree to a point. When FooCorp sells a laptop running Linux, one should expect it all to work. And there are smaller outfits that do just that - Linux laptops, fully functional (the author notes this but fails to stress the "everything works" angle at that point).
But the reality of laptop hardware is that it is often a very hostile environment to the end user wishing to install their own OS. And since Linux is not commonly offered, most user experiences with Linux and laptops is a trial of compromises, hacks, and quasi-functionality. Linux users have become used to asking about compatibility when looking at laptop purchases.
Incidently, Windows faces the same problems. My last discount laptop came with WinME and an option to upgrade to WinXP. I wasn't interested in either option but I had a spare copy of Win2K. Installing this on my laptop was as much a trial as installing Mandrake (both generally worked - but it required considerable effort to get both supporting all my laptop features).
Now, I would have had an easier time installing WinXP. After all, the manufactorer offered it as an option and offers all the appropriate drivers, etc. And that's the real point of this article.
Want Linux running well on a laptop? But one that's compatible. HP has provided one. Out of the box.
...or "ICANTOO".
It may not be that funny. But it is a direct quote.
That would be fine advise if the victims knew they were downloading a Winamp skin. The link, however, looks like it is an image file:Going clicky-clicky (or otherwise following the link) exacuted a PHP script which would serve up a winamp skin. Since many users have their browsers automagically handle Windamp skins, it would immediately get handed off to Winamp to execute. The skin linked to several files that eventually called an executable within the skin package which in turn loaded one's mIRC client with a script that spat out the above message.
The victims probably didn't know what hit them.
Great point. I would suggest a few other things to consider.
One of the things I find interesting about Unix is its modular nature. For the most part, various components are fairly well insulated from each other. One is able to rip out or drop in pieces as one wants. This allows for major changes of the system's operation. This can be applied to anything from hardening the system to implementing new functionality. Security may have been an afterthought for Unix. But it's foundation allowed for it.
Keep in mind that "security" hadn't always been a buzzword for Unix. A very visible example is the Morris Worm. But exposure to the public via the Wild Internet caused the Unix community to start picking up all its dirty laundry. It learned lessons. And those lessons are often the basic tenants of Infosec.
One of my criticisms of Microsoft is that they ignore history. The Unix crowd has already run its gauntlet early on and made its findings and lessons learned widely available. Yet Microsoft continually repeats not only Unix's mistakes, but also their own.
Sure - a mature code base implies a greater degree of bug fixing, etc. But that solves implementation mistakes. It doesn't help fundamental design flaws. Those can be very difficult to deal with. Especially if your system isn't very modular.
One final point - how mature IS the relative codebases? How much of the original *nix code still exists vs. being entirely new? And how much of WinXP is pedigree WinNT from a previous decade?