I agree that platforms themselves should be free from control. But I don't think that the same criteria should necessarily apply to all applications targeting open platforms.
My home Linux workstation (from which I type this) has a few proprietary software packages on it - mostly games. And I am responsible for a number of Open Source systems (Linux and *BSD) at work that run proprietary software in one manner or another. Having said that - I am also in the process of assessing or replacing several proprietary environments or applications with Open Source alternatives.
Its about competition.
Let's not kid ourselves. Some may find Open Source platforms a rough market. After all, I know the same decision process that lead me to favoring Open Source platforms will also cause me to be biased towards Open Source applications. Proprietary software has to offer something that makes it really stand out from Open Source competition - but then, they have to do the same to stand out from other proprietary software competitors too.
Some vendors may decide they don't want to compete in that kind of market. Which is fine. But by either avoiding or ignoring my preferred environment, they're also (potentially) removing themselves from consideration and effectively removing themselves from the market.
Absolute bullshit. I work in the training industry. If someone starts offering to train people for free, using the same methods and to the same degree then it ruins my industry. I used to work in the retail industry. If people start giving away similar quality clothes for free then it ruins my industry.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying its not possible to undercut an industry. The point is, how much in danger is any given industry of that activity?
The retail clothing industry is pretty safe. To begin with, it involves physical resources that are rather difficult to simply pull out of nowhere. Shirts don't grow on trees. Of course, textiles can be generated for cheap by leveraging cheap resources and cheap labor. Yet the industry seems to resist this influence. Enter fashion and the $80 T-Shirt.
The training example is rather interesting. Training courses are expensive - mainly because the labor tends to drive the price. If one doesn't need the attention of an instructor, one can turn to books on (almost) any subject. Cheaper - but there is a limit to how cheap due to the costs of printing and shipping physical objects. Enter the Internet - cheap publication of massive amounts of information. Its rather amazing how much one can pick up from good online sources... especially if your subject of interest is technical. Surely this is a death knell to all aspects of the training industry. Yet the technical book industry is still going along strong. And technical conferences and training courses command hefty fees.
Clearly, cost isn't everything. If your particular industry is finding itself undercut, then its time to either change jobs or strategy.
Every industry relies on people doing something for a cost. If someone comes in and does it for free it will ruin any industry (think of the browser industry). MS and Open Source are not offering the same thing.
The browser wars brings up an interesting point. There's a difference between a change in the market and an intentional attempt to scuttle it.
If MS and Open Source are not offering the same thing, then MS has nothing to fear from the likes of Linux, do they? But then, they know quite a bit about "cutting off the air supply."
So... all the folks who scream, cry, and blabber about being "beta testers" for Microsoft are ok being permenant beta testers for OSS as you say here?
A couple of points...
First, Open Source projects tend to be pretty up front about the state of their code. They'll warn people when the project is lacking in its early stages. And bug reports / tracking tends to be done on a fairly open basis. There is no marketing group pushing glossy brochures trying to paint a rosy picture of bulletproof reliability and infalability (not even touching on EULAs and business deals that forbid negative product reviews).
Secondly, if I'm supposed to be a permament beta tester for someone... why do I pay hard cash for the privilige? Open Source involves a trade in time and effort. Commercial software should be a finished product.
Another thing that Cringley doesn't say, although he mentions that many OSS contributors contribute in their spare time is that many OSS contributors are employed by non-OSS businesses.
Not all coding goes in to a shrinkwrap. I know a good number of coders who are paid for customized code that largely stays within the confines of their employer's enterprise. In most cases, what they want to code on their own free time would never compete with what they're working on for their employer.
Meanwhile, some have created Open Source projects out of a few untilities they threw togeather to handle some internal situation - with Corporate blessings. And there's talk where I work right now to put some manhours (either from existing employees or hiring in additional help) towards extending an Open Source application management has become particularly endeared to - but doesn't quite do everything they want.
For these people, Open Source software is not a threat. I could see that if your entire focus on the industry is niche products or shrinkwrapped OS' and applications, the whole Open Source thing could be a bit troublesome. But then - if people doing something for no cost ruins your industry... you have to wonder about the viability of that industry.
Sure - the views of people like RMS may make some view Free Software as a threat to their livlihoods. But honestly, is RMS' ultimate vision really going to come to pass? Will all commercial software be replaced by Free altenatives? Look around. For every product being esentially commoditized, I bet you can find a few more that haven't been touched. That's not even mentioning how many commercial products sprang either directly from, or due to the influence of, Open Source projects.
One final thought. Competition is competition. Any given commercial software house has no guarentee to profit and success. It is just as likely that another commercial outfit will produce a killer product as it is that an Open Source project will eliminate the profit in it. And at that point, you're out of a job no matter what.
If that worries you, look in to another career. But then - don't expect much more stability elsewhere either. The world is a rough place like that.
One small nitpick - has micropayments really been tried? Using what system?
Micropayments are an interesting idea, but as far as I have seen, there is yet to be a widely used system to support the concept. PayPal may come close (despite numerous complaints), but I believe even they have a minimum charge of $1 US. That is a relatively small amount to more traditional mail-order and online charges that tend to be at least $10. But the $1 amount doesn't fully realize the concept of micropayments.
I wouldn't say micropayments have been tried. But then, perhapse not for a lack of trying.
There's an El Camino Real Blvd in Clear Lake, Texas (just south of Houston) near JSC. I thought it was one of these local things, but if there's one in Silicon Valley I must be wrong.
Heh. It caught my attention when I moved from the Clear Lake area to the Bay Area. Bugged me, too.
El Camino Real is "The King's Road". There are actually two El Camino Real's - one in California and one in Texas. They are esentially the first interstate roadways in the New World. In both cases, they were built to link a series Spannish missions.
OpenOffice has been mentioned - and I like it. I've been working on a few documents at work recently while switching between OO1.1 and WordXP without any complaints. However, there are times where one still needs a full-on MS Office install.
I'm sure that if ogg vorbis ever takes off outside of the geek crowd Apple will release a firmware update to enable ogg vorbis on the ipod.
Perhapse. I understand there is quite a following of people requesting this from Apple. But the point is, Apple's competitors are starting to offer this feature now. Perhapse the only thing that really makes them stand out from the current market leader.
Also, there are plugins available to enable ogg vorbis on itunes on the mac, give it time and we'll see plugins like that on windows too.
That's not the point. iTunes is a gateway to where Apple is really shining - the iPod and iTMS service. Otherwise one might as well use Winamp - it can play Ogg Vorbis by default.
Apple panders to those who like the iPod and the simplicity of the iTMS. Not only that, but while being completely legal, the deal is still a lot better than in other online music stores.
I agree. And I think I made that point earlier in my post. But that's not the point.
If we're talking about choice - neither Apple nor Microsoft is providing it. Sure... I can go and rip my own CDs. But then, that's not an online music service.
If they fail, how does it concern the pirates and geeks, who still have a world of choice? Not that this is likely to happen in the near future. If Apple feel they have the resources to give away 100 million songs to anybody able to acquire a Pepsi, why should the pirates and geeks be considered an inkling of a threat?
Who said anything about anybody threatening anyone? Again - the point is choice. If you as a consumer want choice, then neither Apple nor anyone offering a service based on Microsoft's technology is offering it to you.
Apple have a contract with 200 indie labels and growing, so the iTMS buyer can avoid the RIAA entirely if he/she likes.
I was probably unclear on this point. The issue isn't non-RIAA labels. The issue is the format being offered. Anything linked to the RIAA seems to avoid non-DRM formats like the plague. So the only services that offer MP3 (much less Ogg Vorbis) also offer a non-RIAA catalog.
Its great that Apple is including indie labels in their offered catalog. In fact, its probably a good move on their part - assuming it doesn't make gaining access to other catalogs difficult. But when you buy and download your track - bet its DRM restricted.
The iTMS is a service for people who choose to stay legal, and now they can, so "pirating" is entirely up to your own conscience - there's no stopping people when they have their minds made up, regardless whether their deeds could be considered punishable by law or not (which is a good thing, because it keeps the legal system on its toes). Apple have decided to build a business model around most people's general sense of morality, and it seems to be paying off.
The morals of "piracy" are there, but not a major point. After all, each and every online music service (outside the file trading systems) can claim a moral high ground on licensing and honoring copyrights. But Apple does something different.
Apple's iTMS offers a suitably large enough catalog. Its tracks are quality - no wondering if the track you're downloading has been encoded properly, is complete, or is actually entirely different. The downloads are sufficiently fast enough - no digging around for another source of the file because the peer you were downloading from is overtaxed or drops off the net. The price is low enough. One has a certain degree of ownership over the bits one buys. A download is still usable if one decides to never send Apple another cent. Those bits can be burned to a CD. And thus, there is a rather well defined and large loophole where one can then rip those bits in to other formats in the future - thus the consumer isn't locked in to AAC.
Of course - the consumer still has to do some jumping through hoops to get around DRM restrictions. And that is why the iTMS falls short on choice.
So how could it be better? Well, there's the obvious like a larger library and cheaper tracks (while $.99 is better than some alternatives, its still a bit pricy). But the big issue is doing away with DRM laden formats. Provide downloads that consumers can use in whatever method they like - after all, they paid for those bits.
Its rather interesting to see the issue of choice brought up in this context. While the point is a good one, it misses the mark for a couple of reasons.
First, Apple is the current "innovator" in this market.
All jukebox hardware devices are compared to Apple's iPod. The iPod is clearly the leader in the market and defines the scale by which all others are measured. Apple leads the market with an outstanding combination of features, user interface, and overall design - from the iPods compact size to its pleasing, slick look.
The same same is true of the iTunes Music Store. Apple was the first to deliver a service that offered a decent selection, at an acceptable price, with acceptable DRM restrictions. With this service, one is able to not only get a quality download, but retain some degree of ownership; more if you're willing to jump through the very clear loopholes created by the service. Which isn't to say Apple's service got all all right - more on that later.
Apple does have its competitors - and there are clearly products coming out that are designed to directly compete with the iPod and iTunes Music Store. But if Windows users want to take advantage of the leading products, iTunes is the gateway. In this context, choice is not the issue.
But what if choice is important? Users will need to avoid DRM restrictions. And they'll want to use standard formats like MP3 and (now growing in popularity) Ogg Vorbis that can be played on a wide variety of software and hardware.
The iPod is still an option in this case... if your choice of format is MP3. But you'll have to look elsewhere if you prefer Ogg Vorbis. Some of the iPod competitors offer that choice - a distinction that may cost Apple some sales.
When it comes to music service, neither Apple's offering nor any service featuring Microsoft's technology offers the end user real choice. There are some small label services that manage to deliver a fairly nice catalog of music from non-RIAA affiliated sources. But then, the selection is indeed limited if the end user expects to find their old favorites.
If consumers want true freedom and choice, they will have to continue using the current collection of illegal music swapping systems. And that has been the problem all along. When it comes to the business of music, choice has never been a consideration. It still isn't. The irony of the situation is that this mind set has created an increasing market for "pirated" data - a market industry trade groups become more and more vocal about and have taken more and more drastic actions to curb. What this does to consumer mindshare is fodder for other discussions.
Microsoft is correct to point out choice. But they're wrong in how it applies to the situation at hand.
OpenSSH is a part of Linux as much as RPC or Windows Messaging is a part of Windows.
Others have pointed out that they can easily turn off OpenSSH and continue to function. I'd like to add a variation of that.
I don't have to run OpenSSH. I can run SSH2 from SSH, Inc. I can also look in to LSH. Granted - I don't. But there are options one doesn't have within a Windows environment.
Microsoft has been good lately about doing proactive security reviews, and they often find holes before anyone else does.
Let's look at the recent CERT advisory CA-2003-27 (Multiple Vulnerabilities in Microsoft Windows and Exchange). Somewhere near the bottom it reads:
Our thanks to Microsoft Corporation for the information contained in their security bulletins. Microsoft has credited the following people for their help in discovering and responding to these issues: Greg Jones of KPMG UK and Cesar Cerrudo, The Last Stage of Delirium Research Group, David Litchfield of Next Generation Security Software Ltd., Brett Moore of Security-Assessment.com, Joao Gouveia, and Ory Segal of Sanctum Inc.
One can follow the links to the individual Microsoft Bulletins to find out who gets credit for finding / reporting what. The upshot is that there are plenty of vulnerabilities being discovered outside of Microsoft. The difference is that these are being reported through the Microsoft-prefered "Responsible Disclosure" methodology. The general public won't find out about the vulnerability until Microsoft has a patch to offer with the announcement.
The submitter intentionally drew attention away from the story itself and instead focused on a comment Bill made and attempted to fan the flames on it.
What exactly is the story then? The interview has lots of little nuggets in there. As the submitter stated:
Bill Gates made several interesting claims about Longhorn. Many of them have been extensively covered recently, including plans to force users to patch automatically.
So the submitter thought the comparison to Linux was the interesting bit. I thought there were some other bits in there worth looking at too - but hey.
He provided a point of reference. ...
For the record, I'm not defending his comment, I'm simply answering your question of how it came in to the interview. I think what he said was stupid.
He could have used his own company's past performance as a point of reference. In fact, he does. Used to take 40hrs to put out a patch. Now its 24hrs. Message: we're serious about security and we're improving. Mission accomplished.
I agree with you that making the remark about Linux was stupid. But let's call a spade a spade. If you're going to label Mr. Gates' critics as trolls, then let's apply the same standard to Mr. Gates himself.
Remember, though, that Linux is a competitor to Windows, and the mindless Linux zombies out there spout off how fast a security problem can be fixed like a broken record. I'm not the least bit surprised that Bill responded.
It could be that the "mindless zombies" have a point - Open Source projects react quickly. And its nice to see Mr. Gates take time in his interview to mention a competitor - he used to try simply ignoring it.
But the point isn't that Linux was mentioned. Its that Mr. Gates is doing a bit of trolling himself. Not that its suprising or unprecidented.
Spare me the 'fan boy' crap. Seems like that name calling only comes out when I've made a point.
Oh, c'mon. You're not beyond a bit of name-calling yourself. The point is that there are individuals posting to Slashdot using all kinds of derogetory labels while ignoring the irony of it all. Again - its a reference to calling the submitter's comments a "troll" while ignoring the subject itself.
You don't have to be in love with Microsoft to know that Slashdot has it out for Microsoft.
And good for them. Its a nice balance to all the Microsoft cheering we see elsewhere in IT media and techie forums.
Every time Slashdot posts a story about MS, some stupid twist is put in to make Microsoft sound evil. How can anybody trust these stories without going in and carefully reading the articles?
I agree on two points. First, one should always read and interpret the article for one's self. And yea - sometimes Slashdot editors and article submiters get a bit too eager to criticise Microsoft. I wouldn't catagorize it as "always" happening though. But then, I agree with a lot of the criticism expressed here. To each his own.
One day, nobody will ever take Slashdot seriously. It's already happening today.
Meanwhile, I'm rather amazed that a small alternative view techie site gets regular coverage in mainstream media, shows up on a suprising number of corporate and government desktop screens, and is even mentioned in meetings by individuals one would never expect to call up such a site. Not everyone will appreciate Slashdot's bias. But not everyone will dismiss it either.
You guys... tout how "open source is great because problems get fixed right away!", but when MS catches up to that, all you can focus on is Bill Gates making a comment about Linux that isn't favorable.
You're right. Microsoft has gotten better. Whether they've caught up is a point for debate. But at least they have generally improved their reaction speed. Let's give credit where its due.
Now - issues such as ignored bugs, fundimental design flaws, non-patches, destructive patches, so-called Responsible Disclosure, "I wish those people just would be quiet", etc are all fodder for other holy wars.
Geez, you guys find fault in every attempt Microsoft makes to address the issues you all have been noisy about.
Heaven forbid someone think that Microsoft's attempts to "address the issues" might be anything but. You refer to this whole article as an Anti-MS troll. Pray tell what you think Mr. Gate's statement is. How does Linux play in to the improvment of Microsoft's commitment to a secure product?
Instead of trying to get in a (questionable) jab at Linux... perhapse he could have referred to his own company's record. Something along the lines of "We've gone from little over 40 hours on average to 24 hours. We've really improved since the mid-90s and Windows NT when we didn't really have any focus on security."
But hey - that's just not Mr. Gate's style. And I'm sure he's got quite a following of fanboys who call that "agressive" and "good business". Even as they snear at "Linux zealots" and "anti-MS" criticism.
They're just pointing out the hypocrisy of the FSF. IP is bad, unless it's the GPL.
The GPL is basically a hack of the current system. You either abolish so-called Intellectual Property or you follow that system and adhere to the GPL.
Hypocricy is when you demand that people adhere to your licensing and respect your copyright while being absolultely shocked that someone might require you to adhere to their licensing (the GPL).
...the comparative lack of visibility of anything actually produced by SCO, combined with the massive media coverage of their seeming focus on litigation will certainly badly tarnish what's left of that company after this whole thing is over.
Large companies, which are normally fairly conservative on adoption of "new" technologies, will be just as loath to look at anything coming from a company so strongly perceived to be as lawsuit-happy as SCO...
I found it kind of sad reading one of the articles covering SCO's latest conference. Within the piece were quotes from resellers expressing relief and gushing about the future of SCO's products. A product line that they, apparently, rely on for their livelihood.
Companys balking at deploying Linux aren't SCO's only suckers.
IMPORTANT NOTE FOR KDE USERS: The Canopy group is a major part owner of TrollTech...
Depends on how you define "major". In Trolltech's investor's page they claim that the company's shares are distrubuted as follows:
64.7% Employees 8.3% Borland 5.2% Trolltech Foundation 4.3% Orkla ASA 4.3% Northzone Ventures 4.3% Teknoinvest 4.1% Canopy Group 3.4% Previous employees 1.6% SCO Group
So it appears that the Canopy Group controls about 5.7% of available shares. Unless one of these other investors is really a holding company or you think Trolltech is lying.
When will the rest of the visitors here and this community wake up from it's self-enduced coma and look at who supports/. - A Developer's Network (if you could call it that) for Open Source Software: OSDN.
The implication seems to be that Slashdot gets its bias from its corporate sponsor. But it completely ignores the fact that Slashdot has been expressing the same bias since its inception - years before OSDN showed up.
Why are we suprised of the consistant, pro-*NIX, anti-Microsoft rhetoric and propaganda produced by this onanistic collection of obviously-pubescent posters? Maybe because so many of the posters and readers are still hooked-up to the liberal-brainwashing system called THE US EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM and have yet to venture out into the Real World...
Out here in the "Real World", there is plenty of "pro-*NIX, anti-Microsoft" sentiment to go around. Many of the opinions and sentiments expressed on Slashdot are shared by, if not made by, professionals in the trenches of the IT industry. I've witnessed this from senior technologists as well as some of the rank-and-file within Fortune 50 and major federal US Government organizations.
Its not all a Linux love-fest, of course. There are plenty who don't understand the whole Open Source concept. There are those who are stringent supporters of Microsoft or otherwise solidly devoted to the Windows platform. And there are others who prefer other Unix platforms - specifically Solaris or HP/UX (but then, they're part of that "pro-*NIX" camp).
But to represent the sentiments found on Slashdot as solely those of inexperienced, young residents of academic ivory towers is inaccurate... if not simply misleading.
Posters here who attack pro-Microsoft organizations who are in some way supported by Microsft are nothing but uninformed hypocrites, since/. is supported and partially funded by OSDN.
Its interesting you compare OSDN to Microsoft. Let's take a look at the two.
Microsoft - major IT player. Produces operating systems marketed for everything from consumer devices and desktops to large-scale corporate enterprise servers. Also produces software packages that target everything from consumer gaming to corporate enterprise architecture. Inamous for its ultra-agressive marketing style.
OSDN - media company with a focus on Open Source development and community as well as web development. Also owns ThinkGeek - an online shop for geek-oriented merchandise such as TShirts, desktop toys, nerf guns, and consumer electronics. Owned by VA Software - origionally a Linux hardware company, dropped out of the market when they discovered that commodity hardware is a rough market even if you include Linux. Now VA Software produces a collaberative development suite (and development methodology) based on the widely popular community development service Sourceforge. Most known for sponsoring the popular Open Source and Linux friendly news commentary site Slashdot.
Readers should keep these facts in mind when reading from sources sponsored by either group. Look at what motivates either group. And then consider how these motivations may affect the opinions expressed.
...meanwhile Rob Enderle is the pinicle of objectivity?
Slashdot has never claimed any kind of objective viewpoint. Its rather biased. And its become well-known, if not always popular, because of that bias.
Slashdot filled an interesting niche; a dissenting opinion when the IT press was almost entirely Windows-centric. Linux was quietly seeping in to the Enterprise. But the mainstream IT press either ignored it or was unfairly dismissive. Slashdot was a forum most noted for its pro-Linux and Open Source friendly opinions.
Times have changed.
Now, its not worthy a Slashdot news post just because a mainstream IT rag has mentioned Linux. Its not entirely unlikely to find pro-Linux / pro-Open Source articles in the mainstream. Right next to the pro-Windows articles. And the press releases being masquaraded as an article. Some things don't change, after all.
Slashdot's bias is one of those constants.
I'm kind of curious. It seems that over the years, Slashdot has gained more pro-Windows readers. Mainstream attention has either provided more people with a Windows-centric viewpoint or its attracted more astroturfers and trolls.
But for every time I see someone complain about Slashdot displaying an "unfair" bias against Microsoft, I wonder how many people like myself sit quietly in the background glad that Slashdot keeps that bias firmly in place.
The author of the article referred to was obviously a Linux fanboy/zealot. And, I wonder if he has problems using a computer under ANY operating system.
What's amusing about this article is that it is usually the other way around. It is quite often the Windows-centric viewpoint (and occaional "fanboy" or "zealot") making some half-true observations about a Linux desktop environment. Sometimes the observations are accurate. More often they show a lack of understanding or experience with the environment in question. And if the forum allows it, they are often followed by a string of replies from more experienced Linux users addressing the various issues outlined in the article.
The article and discussions will be intermixed with additional banter. There will almost always be a Linux elitist disparaging the abilities of the author. And its just as likely that there will be a true Windows fanboy/zelot making snide comments about "defaults" and "standards" and "grandma" users being unable to make use of the information mentioned in the article responces.
The interesting thing is that we're now to a point where names "Linux" and "Windows" are almost interchangable in these desktop environment conversations.
Most of the fanboys seem to think that dislike of windows for technical reasons is evidence that MS is evil, and that the fact that Windows is ahead in the "desktop war" means that Windows is terrible. No wonder so many people don't take you guys seriously, if you don't understand that those connections aren't logical.
1 a : morally reprehensible : SINFUL, WICKED b : arising from actual or imputed bad character or conduct 2 a archaic : INFERIOR b : causing discomfort or repulsion : OFFENSIVE c : DISAGREEABLE 3 a : causing harm : PERNICIOUS b : marked by misfortune : UNLUCKY
Evil is one of those interesting english words that have numerous meanings and connotations... yet induces a generally universal emotional reaction. When critics describe Microsoft as "evil", they are certainly implying negative behavior. But why?
Microsoft's critics point to a laundry list of negative behavior. But I'll focus on one of the lesser-explored evils... since "technical reasons" was brought up.
Techies have a somewhat simplistic view of technology. Things are Good when they work. They are Bad when they don't. When things fail to work, not only are they Bad... but very likely they are also broken. And the average techie / hacker will feel compelled to fix things by making them functional.
Each individual's concept of functional may be slightly different. Something may perform exactly as designed but still be found broken due to discovery of better methods or a desire to make an item do something beyond what it was originally envisioned.
Quite often, this involves inter-operability between systems - be they devices, software, etc. Bad systems are often hard to interconnect since there was no thought about interfacing them beyond themselves or with non-standard systems. This can present quite a challenge to the individual trying to fix the system in question.
It might be worth noting that sometimes a bad piece of technology is simply buggy. Something may be fully intended to interface with something else but fail to do so because of a failure or mistake. Although it is just as common that bad technology exists because of bad design.
The point where something goes from being simply bad to being evil has to do with intent. A system may be bad because it is faulty or not very well designed. It is evil once it is discovered that the system has been designed not to work in the desired manner. This is more than simply a lack of functionality. The focus is on the intent to make something not work; that this lack of functionality is as much a part of the design as what the system in question does.
When Microsoft is labeled as Evil on technical merits, it is this behavior being criticized. Microsoft has a history of making systems that are incompatible with other technology. Their strategy more recently has been to work with supporting open standards, but coining the "embrace and extend" strategy to make other systems using these standards incompatible. In any case, Microsoft's products are often designed to fail to function with other systems unless they too are from Microsoft. It is this kind of "lock-in" behavior that is distained by techies and worthy of the Evil tittle.
Granted - this may seem a little esoteric to the non-techie. But then, the average non-techie is not maintaining the architecture they take for granted today or designing the systems they will become dependant on, but continue to take for granted, tommorow.
I somehow doubt that most email apps on the unix side of things made a conscious choice to save "executables" without setting the executable bit -- executables were probably an oversight that the programmers never accounted for, and how people claim "it's not a bug, it's a feature!".
If email app developers wanted to buck traditional Unix methodology, they could certainly do it. One could save the identified binary or script and automagically set the executable bit. Even do it as a part of a click-to-run action. But they don't. It would seem these developers are completely aware of how unix environments handle executables and are more than happy to work within it.
I don't have problems making it harder to save an executable. Make the user click a checkbox that says "enable execute permissions" or something when they save the file. Making it hard to execute something you save is NOT a security feature.
I suppose a safety switch on a revolver isn't a safety feature. Its just poor UI.
What you're describing is an interesting idea. But it seems a little convoluted for a small subset of attachments. I know saving a file and then going to its properties to check "executable" is a little different from the Windows mindset. But is it really that difficult?
A side note to usability and dangerous email behavior... Evolution does a nice job at handling remote image files in HTML email. It doesn't load them until the user prompts it to do so. On one side, one might claim this is just making things harder for the end user (and in fact one can change the default behavior if I remember right). But on the other hand, Evolution developers are aware of some of the shenanigans involved with HTML email and have taken steps to protect the end user. Its a great feature that does a lot to defang HTML formatted email.
Anything that depends on a poor UI for "security" will be defeated as the user educates themselves. And trust me, when a user "educuates" themselves, they'll learn to do things like "chmod 777 *"...
Which goes to show that anybody sufficiently motivated to shoot themselves in the foot will find a way to do it. A truely educated user will understand that they don't need to do a "chmod 777 *" for a functional environment. In any case, it won't do much to affect the shell script they just got attached to some email.
It has nothing to do with being hard to install software. It has everything to do with deliberatly cripping it in the name of "security." Why the hell should a computer be hard to for me to use because some schmuck can't tell the difference between a boobs.jpg and a boobs.jpg.exe?
I think you've missed one of my main points. In the average GUI email app in a unix environment (or at least my own Linux environment), one can easily view boobs.jpg without any problem. Clicky-clicky away and see what insanity your friend emailed to you. There is no crippled interface. But if that attachment is really boobs.jpg.sh, I'm not going to accidently run a malicious script in my enthusiasm.
Its interesting you use that particular example. Part of the problem there resides squarely on Microsoft's shoulders. Outlook tried to pander to the schmucks by hiding all that confusing.exe and.jpg stuff. Instead, it displayed a nice friendly image icon and labled it "boobs" (in our example). Joe Schmuck thinks "boobie pics!" and dutifully clicks away. Unfortunately, there was a bug in how Outlook handled those icons and the file was actually boobs.jpg.exe and Joe Schmuck just ran malicious code.
Having said that... Joe Schmuck does have something to do with the problem too.
Awhile ago, I was over at a friend's geek compound for a weekend of LAN gaming. There
Everyone is always saying that in order to open an attachment in a linux mail app you have to follow 50 different steps, and that complexity is "good" because it makes it hard to open up dangerous attachments. Doesn't matter if it's true or not -- all the linux advocates claim that this is the way their world works.
I think you're hearing something other than whats being said. The points I've heard is that attachments have to be handled smarter. In the case of binaries and scripts, that means there should be extra steps required to execute them. The end user should be completely aware of what they're dealing with (which doesn't even get in to the ways one can hide the true nature of a file within common Windows email environments).
It seems that the reaction from a Windows-centric viewpoint is that this makes it hard to install software. The misunderstanding is that in a *nix world, installing software generally doesn't involve executable files. They involve a different application handling a binary package - the actual file being transfered is pure data.
I personally don't deal with attachments much at all these days. Most emails reference documents inline as network shares. I've got a nifty little usb keychain drive thingy that I use to copy files from home to work, so I don't email things back and forth...
I see office documents attached to emails all the time at work. Our folks make extensive use of network shares, web sites, etc but they just can't get away from using email as another file transfer medium. But having said that - its all documents and data files. No executables.
I've been wanting to get one of those memory keyfobs myself. Seen the memory watches with the USB cable in the wristband?
The last mail client I used on unix was pine back in college. And for it, it DID take like 50,000 steps to get a frick'in attachment out of an email...
Times have changed, it seems. The last time I used pine, it was very easy to save attached files. Heck - there is even methods to allow pine to launch image viewers and whatnot. However, these days I tend to use some of the more modern GUI email apps. Like I said before, my current favorite is Evolution. I find very little difference in my ability to handle attachments at home with Evolution and my ability to handle them at work with Outlook.
...and making it hard to do a common task (saving/opening email attachments) is not a security feature.
Who says it has to be difficult? Have you used any of the common email clients on Linux? Very easy to save and open attachments. Especially with the GUI ones (my favorite being Evolution).
The issue at hand is dealing with dangerous attachment - namely binaries and scripts. Maybe your use of email is different than mine... but I don't deal with executable attachments on a regular basis.
That article may just be the sanest thing I have ever read out of this whole sorry mess.
An article that links Windows exploits and theft of code as a reflection of Open Source is the sanest thing you've read about this incident? What other black-helicopters-from-Open-Source-world stories have you been reading?
The author of this article does not understand the culture nor history of what he criticizes. Or he understands it well enough to know what buttons to push.
Slashdot Mirror
My home Linux workstation (from which I type this) has a few proprietary software packages on it - mostly games. And I am responsible for a number of Open Source systems (Linux and *BSD) at work that run proprietary software in one manner or another. Having said that - I am also in the process of assessing or replacing several proprietary environments or applications with Open Source alternatives.
Its about competition.
Let's not kid ourselves. Some may find Open Source platforms a rough market. After all, I know the same decision process that lead me to favoring Open Source platforms will also cause me to be biased towards Open Source applications. Proprietary software has to offer something that makes it really stand out from Open Source competition - but then, they have to do the same to stand out from other proprietary software competitors too.
Some vendors may decide they don't want to compete in that kind of market. Which is fine. But by either avoiding or ignoring my preferred environment, they're also (potentially) removing themselves from consideration and effectively removing themselves from the market.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying its not possible to undercut an industry. The point is, how much in danger is any given industry of that activity?
The retail clothing industry is pretty safe. To begin with, it involves physical resources that are rather difficult to simply pull out of nowhere. Shirts don't grow on trees. Of course, textiles can be generated for cheap by leveraging cheap resources and cheap labor. Yet the industry seems to resist this influence. Enter fashion and the $80 T-Shirt.
The training example is rather interesting. Training courses are expensive - mainly because the labor tends to drive the price. If one doesn't need the attention of an instructor, one can turn to books on (almost) any subject. Cheaper - but there is a limit to how cheap due to the costs of printing and shipping physical objects. Enter the Internet - cheap publication of massive amounts of information. Its rather amazing how much one can pick up from good online sources... especially if your subject of interest is technical. Surely this is a death knell to all aspects of the training industry. Yet the technical book industry is still going along strong. And technical conferences and training courses command hefty fees.
Clearly, cost isn't everything. If your particular industry is finding itself undercut, then its time to either change jobs or strategy.
The browser wars brings up an interesting point. There's a difference between a change in the market and an intentional attempt to scuttle it.
If MS and Open Source are not offering the same thing, then MS has nothing to fear from the likes of Linux, do they? But then, they know quite a bit about "cutting off the air supply."
A couple of points...
First, Open Source projects tend to be pretty up front about the state of their code. They'll warn people when the project is lacking in its early stages. And bug reports / tracking tends to be done on a fairly open basis. There is no marketing group pushing glossy brochures trying to paint a rosy picture of bulletproof reliability and infalability (not even touching on EULAs and business deals that forbid negative product reviews).
Secondly, if I'm supposed to be a permament beta tester for someone... why do I pay hard cash for the privilige? Open Source involves a trade in time and effort. Commercial software should be a finished product.
Not all coding goes in to a shrinkwrap. I know a good number of coders who are paid for customized code that largely stays within the confines of their employer's enterprise. In most cases, what they want to code on their own free time would never compete with what they're working on for their employer.
Meanwhile, some have created Open Source projects out of a few untilities they threw togeather to handle some internal situation - with Corporate blessings. And there's talk where I work right now to put some manhours (either from existing employees or hiring in additional help) towards extending an Open Source application management has become particularly endeared to - but doesn't quite do everything they want.
For these people, Open Source software is not a threat. I could see that if your entire focus on the industry is niche products or shrinkwrapped OS' and applications, the whole Open Source thing could be a bit troublesome. But then - if people doing something for no cost ruins your industry... you have to wonder about the viability of that industry.
Sure - the views of people like RMS may make some view Free Software as a threat to their livlihoods. But honestly, is RMS' ultimate vision really going to come to pass? Will all commercial software be replaced by Free altenatives? Look around. For every product being esentially commoditized, I bet you can find a few more that haven't been touched. That's not even mentioning how many commercial products sprang either directly from, or due to the influence of, Open Source projects.
One final thought. Competition is competition. Any given commercial software house has no guarentee to profit and success. It is just as likely that another commercial outfit will produce a killer product as it is that an Open Source project will eliminate the profit in it. And at that point, you're out of a job no matter what.
If that worries you, look in to another career. But then - don't expect much more stability elsewhere either. The world is a rough place like that.
One small nitpick - has micropayments really been tried? Using what system?
Micropayments are an interesting idea, but as far as I have seen, there is yet to be a widely used system to support the concept. PayPal may come close (despite numerous complaints), but I believe even they have a minimum charge of $1 US. That is a relatively small amount to more traditional mail-order and online charges that tend to be at least $10. But the $1 amount doesn't fully realize the concept of micropayments.
I wouldn't say micropayments have been tried. But then, perhapse not for a lack of trying.
The true irony to this peice is that while talking about Linux zealots, the author sounds a lot like a zealot himself.
I don't think it was intended.
Heh. It caught my attention when I moved from the Clear Lake area to the Bay Area. Bugged me, too.
El Camino Real is "The King's Road". There are actually two El Camino Real's - one in California and one in Texas. They are esentially the first interstate roadways in the New World. In both cases, they were built to link a series Spannish missions.
Following El Camino Real in California is a bit twisty, but one can piece it togeather. Texas' El Camino Real appears to be a bit simpler.
I would guess Clear Lake's road is simply a nod to this historic highway (located much further to the north).
OpenOffice has been mentioned - and I like it. I've been working on a few documents at work recently while switching between OO1.1 and WordXP without any complaints. However, there are times where one still needs a full-on MS Office install.
That's where CodeWeavers' CrossOver Office comes in to play.
Perhapse. I understand there is quite a following of people requesting this from Apple. But the point is, Apple's competitors are starting to offer this feature now. Perhapse the only thing that really makes them stand out from the current market leader.
That's not the point. iTunes is a gateway to where Apple is really shining - the iPod and iTMS service. Otherwise one might as well use Winamp - it can play Ogg Vorbis by default.
I agree. And I think I made that point earlier in my post. But that's not the point.
If we're talking about choice - neither Apple nor Microsoft is providing it. Sure... I can go and rip my own CDs. But then, that's not an online music service.
Who said anything about anybody threatening anyone? Again - the point is choice. If you as a consumer want choice, then neither Apple nor anyone offering a service based on Microsoft's technology is offering it to you.
I was probably unclear on this point. The issue isn't non-RIAA labels. The issue is the format being offered. Anything linked to the RIAA seems to avoid non-DRM formats like the plague. So the only services that offer MP3 (much less Ogg Vorbis) also offer a non-RIAA catalog.
Its great that Apple is including indie labels in their offered catalog. In fact, its probably a good move on their part - assuming it doesn't make gaining access to other catalogs difficult. But when you buy and download your track - bet its DRM restricted.
The morals of "piracy" are there, but not a major point. After all, each and every online music service (outside the file trading systems) can claim a moral high ground on licensing and honoring copyrights. But Apple does something different.
Apple's iTMS offers a suitably large enough catalog. Its tracks are quality - no wondering if the track you're downloading has been encoded properly, is complete, or is actually entirely different. The downloads are sufficiently fast enough - no digging around for another source of the file because the peer you were downloading from is overtaxed or drops off the net. The price is low enough. One has a certain degree of ownership over the bits one buys. A download is still usable if one decides to never send Apple another cent. Those bits can be burned to a CD. And thus, there is a rather well defined and large loophole where one can then rip those bits in to other formats in the future - thus the consumer isn't locked in to AAC.
Of course - the consumer still has to do some jumping through hoops to get around DRM restrictions. And that is why the iTMS falls short on choice.
So how could it be better? Well, there's the obvious like a larger library and cheaper tracks (while $.99 is better than some alternatives, its still a bit pricy). But the big issue is doing away with DRM laden formats. Provide downloads that consumers can use in whatever method they like - after all, they paid for those bits.
Its rather interesting to see the issue of choice brought up in this context. While the point is a good one, it misses the mark for a couple of reasons.
First, Apple is the current "innovator" in this market.
All jukebox hardware devices are compared to Apple's iPod. The iPod is clearly the leader in the market and defines the scale by which all others are measured. Apple leads the market with an outstanding combination of features, user interface, and overall design - from the iPods compact size to its pleasing, slick look.
The same same is true of the iTunes Music Store. Apple was the first to deliver a service that offered a decent selection, at an acceptable price, with acceptable DRM restrictions. With this service, one is able to not only get a quality download, but retain some degree of ownership; more if you're willing to jump through the very clear loopholes created by the service. Which isn't to say Apple's service got all all right - more on that later.
Apple does have its competitors - and there are clearly products coming out that are designed to directly compete with the iPod and iTunes Music Store. But if Windows users want to take advantage of the leading products, iTunes is the gateway. In this context, choice is not the issue.
But what if choice is important? Users will need to avoid DRM restrictions. And they'll want to use standard formats like MP3 and (now growing in popularity) Ogg Vorbis that can be played on a wide variety of software and hardware.
The iPod is still an option in this case... if your choice of format is MP3. But you'll have to look elsewhere if you prefer Ogg Vorbis. Some of the iPod competitors offer that choice - a distinction that may cost Apple some sales.
When it comes to music service, neither Apple's offering nor any service featuring Microsoft's technology offers the end user real choice. There are some small label services that manage to deliver a fairly nice catalog of music from non-RIAA affiliated sources. But then, the selection is indeed limited if the end user expects to find their old favorites.
If consumers want true freedom and choice, they will have to continue using the current collection of illegal music swapping systems. And that has been the problem all along. When it comes to the business of music, choice has never been a consideration. It still isn't. The irony of the situation is that this mind set has created an increasing market for "pirated" data - a market industry trade groups become more and more vocal about and have taken more and more drastic actions to curb. What this does to consumer mindshare is fodder for other discussions.
Microsoft is correct to point out choice. But they're wrong in how it applies to the situation at hand.
Others have pointed out that they can easily turn off OpenSSH and continue to function. I'd like to add a variation of that.
I don't have to run OpenSSH. I can run SSH2 from SSH, Inc. I can also look in to LSH. Granted - I don't. But there are options one doesn't have within a Windows environment.
Let's look at the recent CERT advisory CA-2003-27 (Multiple Vulnerabilities in Microsoft Windows and Exchange). Somewhere near the bottom it reads:
One can follow the links to the individual Microsoft Bulletins to find out who gets credit for finding / reporting what. The upshot is that there are plenty of vulnerabilities being discovered outside of Microsoft. The difference is that these are being reported through the Microsoft-prefered "Responsible Disclosure" methodology. The general public won't find out about the vulnerability until Microsoft has a patch to offer with the announcement.
What exactly is the story then? The interview has lots of little nuggets in there. As the submitter stated:
So the submitter thought the comparison to Linux was the interesting bit. I thought there were some other bits in there worth looking at too - but hey.
He could have used his own company's past performance as a point of reference. In fact, he does. Used to take 40hrs to put out a patch. Now its 24hrs. Message: we're serious about security and we're improving. Mission accomplished.
I agree with you that making the remark about Linux was stupid. But let's call a spade a spade. If you're going to label Mr. Gates' critics as trolls, then let's apply the same standard to Mr. Gates himself.
It could be that the "mindless zombies" have a point - Open Source projects react quickly. And its nice to see Mr. Gates take time in his interview to mention a competitor - he used to try simply ignoring it.
But the point isn't that Linux was mentioned. Its that Mr. Gates is doing a bit of trolling himself. Not that its suprising or unprecidented.
Oh, c'mon. You're not beyond a bit of name-calling yourself. The point is that there are individuals posting to Slashdot using all kinds of derogetory labels while ignoring the irony of it all. Again - its a reference to calling the submitter's comments a "troll" while ignoring the subject itself.
And good for them. Its a nice balance to all the Microsoft cheering we see elsewhere in IT media and techie forums.
I agree on two points. First, one should always read and interpret the article for one's self. And yea - sometimes Slashdot editors and article submiters get a bit too eager to criticise Microsoft. I wouldn't catagorize it as "always" happening though. But then, I agree with a lot of the criticism expressed here. To each his own.
Meanwhile, I'm rather amazed that a small alternative view techie site gets regular coverage in mainstream media, shows up on a suprising number of corporate and government desktop screens, and is even mentioned in meetings by individuals one would never expect to call up such a site. Not everyone will appreciate Slashdot's bias. But not everyone will dismiss it either.
You're right. Microsoft has gotten better. Whether they've caught up is a point for debate. But at least they have generally improved their reaction speed. Let's give credit where its due.
Now - issues such as ignored bugs, fundimental design flaws, non-patches, destructive patches, so-called Responsible Disclosure, "I wish those people just would be quiet", etc are all fodder for other holy wars.
Heaven forbid someone think that Microsoft's attempts to "address the issues" might be anything but. You refer to this whole article as an Anti-MS troll. Pray tell what you think Mr. Gate's statement is. How does Linux play in to the improvment of Microsoft's commitment to a secure product?
Instead of trying to get in a (questionable) jab at Linux... perhapse he could have referred to his own company's record. Something along the lines of "We've gone from little over 40 hours on average to 24 hours. We've really improved since the mid-90s and Windows NT when we didn't really have any focus on security."
But hey - that's just not Mr. Gate's style. And I'm sure he's got quite a following of fanboys who call that "agressive" and "good business". Even as they snear at "Linux zealots" and "anti-MS" criticism.
The GPL is basically a hack of the current system. You either abolish so-called Intellectual Property or you follow that system and adhere to the GPL.
Hypocricy is when you demand that people adhere to your licensing and respect your copyright while being absolultely shocked that someone might require you to adhere to their licensing (the GPL).
I found it kind of sad reading one of the articles covering SCO's latest conference. Within the piece were quotes from resellers expressing relief and gushing about the future of SCO's products. A product line that they, apparently, rely on for their livelihood.
Companys balking at deploying Linux aren't SCO's only suckers.
The implication seems to be that Slashdot gets its bias from its corporate sponsor. But it completely ignores the fact that Slashdot has been expressing the same bias since its inception - years before OSDN showed up.
Out here in the "Real World", there is plenty of "pro-*NIX, anti-Microsoft" sentiment to go around. Many of the opinions and sentiments expressed on Slashdot are shared by, if not made by, professionals in the trenches of the IT industry. I've witnessed this from senior technologists as well as some of the rank-and-file within Fortune 50 and major federal US Government organizations.
Its not all a Linux love-fest, of course. There are plenty who don't understand the whole Open Source concept. There are those who are stringent supporters of Microsoft or otherwise solidly devoted to the Windows platform. And there are others who prefer other Unix platforms - specifically Solaris or HP/UX (but then, they're part of that "pro-*NIX" camp).
But to represent the sentiments found on Slashdot as solely those of inexperienced, young residents of academic ivory towers is inaccurate... if not simply misleading.
Its interesting you compare OSDN to Microsoft. Let's take a look at the two.
Microsoft - major IT player. Produces operating systems marketed for everything from consumer devices and desktops to large-scale corporate enterprise servers. Also produces software packages that target everything from consumer gaming to corporate enterprise architecture. Inamous for its ultra-agressive marketing style.
OSDN - media company with a focus on Open Source development and community as well as web development. Also owns ThinkGeek - an online shop for geek-oriented merchandise such as TShirts, desktop toys, nerf guns, and consumer electronics. Owned by VA Software - origionally a Linux hardware company, dropped out of the market when they discovered that commodity hardware is a rough market even if you include Linux. Now VA Software produces a collaberative development suite (and development methodology) based on the widely popular community development service Sourceforge. Most known for sponsoring the popular Open Source and Linux friendly news commentary site Slashdot.
Readers should keep these facts in mind when reading from sources sponsored by either group. Look at what motivates either group. And then consider how these motivations may affect the opinions expressed.
Slashdot has never claimed any kind of objective viewpoint. Its rather biased. And its become well-known, if not always popular, because of that bias.
Slashdot filled an interesting niche; a dissenting opinion when the IT press was almost entirely Windows-centric. Linux was quietly seeping in to the Enterprise. But the mainstream IT press either ignored it or was unfairly dismissive. Slashdot was a forum most noted for its pro-Linux and Open Source friendly opinions.
Times have changed.
Now, its not worthy a Slashdot news post just because a mainstream IT rag has mentioned Linux. Its not entirely unlikely to find pro-Linux / pro-Open Source articles in the mainstream. Right next to the pro-Windows articles. And the press releases being masquaraded as an article. Some things don't change, after all.
Slashdot's bias is one of those constants.
I'm kind of curious. It seems that over the years, Slashdot has gained more pro-Windows readers. Mainstream attention has either provided more people with a Windows-centric viewpoint or its attracted more astroturfers and trolls.
But for every time I see someone complain about Slashdot displaying an "unfair" bias against Microsoft, I wonder how many people like myself sit quietly in the background glad that Slashdot keeps that bias firmly in place.
What's amusing about this article is that it is usually the other way around. It is quite often the Windows-centric viewpoint (and occaional "fanboy" or "zealot") making some half-true observations about a Linux desktop environment. Sometimes the observations are accurate. More often they show a lack of understanding or experience with the environment in question. And if the forum allows it, they are often followed by a string of replies from more experienced Linux users addressing the various issues outlined in the article.
The article and discussions will be intermixed with additional banter. There will almost always be a Linux elitist disparaging the abilities of the author. And its just as likely that there will be a true Windows fanboy/zelot making snide comments about "defaults" and "standards" and "grandma" users being unable to make use of the information mentioned in the article responces.
The interesting thing is that we're now to a point where names "Linux" and "Windows" are almost interchangable in these desktop environment conversations.
What do me mean by "evil"?
Evil is one of those interesting english words that have numerous meanings and connotations... yet induces a generally universal emotional reaction. When critics describe Microsoft as "evil", they are certainly implying negative behavior. But why?
Microsoft's critics point to a laundry list of negative behavior. But I'll focus on one of the lesser-explored evils... since "technical reasons" was brought up.
Techies have a somewhat simplistic view of technology. Things are Good when they work. They are Bad when they don't. When things fail to work, not only are they Bad... but very likely they are also broken. And the average techie / hacker will feel compelled to fix things by making them functional.
Each individual's concept of functional may be slightly different. Something may perform exactly as designed but still be found broken due to discovery of better methods or a desire to make an item do something beyond what it was originally envisioned.
Quite often, this involves inter-operability between systems - be they devices, software, etc. Bad systems are often hard to interconnect since there was no thought about interfacing them beyond themselves or with non-standard systems. This can present quite a challenge to the individual trying to fix the system in question.
It might be worth noting that sometimes a bad piece of technology is simply buggy. Something may be fully intended to interface with something else but fail to do so because of a failure or mistake. Although it is just as common that bad technology exists because of bad design.
The point where something goes from being simply bad to being evil has to do with intent. A system may be bad because it is faulty or not very well designed. It is evil once it is discovered that the system has been designed not to work in the desired manner. This is more than simply a lack of functionality. The focus is on the intent to make something not work; that this lack of functionality is as much a part of the design as what the system in question does.
When Microsoft is labeled as Evil on technical merits, it is this behavior being criticized. Microsoft has a history of making systems that are incompatible with other technology. Their strategy more recently has been to work with supporting open standards, but coining the "embrace and extend" strategy to make other systems using these standards incompatible. In any case, Microsoft's products are often designed to fail to function with other systems unless they too are from Microsoft. It is this kind of "lock-in" behavior that is distained by techies and worthy of the Evil tittle.
Granted - this may seem a little esoteric to the non-techie. But then, the average non-techie is not maintaining the architecture they take for granted today or designing the systems they will become dependant on, but continue to take for granted, tommorow.
If email app developers wanted to buck traditional Unix methodology, they could certainly do it. One could save the identified binary or script and automagically set the executable bit. Even do it as a part of a click-to-run action. But they don't. It would seem these developers are completely aware of how unix environments handle executables and are more than happy to work within it.
I suppose a safety switch on a revolver isn't a safety feature. Its just poor UI.
What you're describing is an interesting idea. But it seems a little convoluted for a small subset of attachments. I know saving a file and then going to its properties to check "executable" is a little different from the Windows mindset. But is it really that difficult?
A side note to usability and dangerous email behavior... Evolution does a nice job at handling remote image files in HTML email. It doesn't load them until the user prompts it to do so. On one side, one might claim this is just making things harder for the end user (and in fact one can change the default behavior if I remember right). But on the other hand, Evolution developers are aware of some of the shenanigans involved with HTML email and have taken steps to protect the end user. Its a great feature that does a lot to defang HTML formatted email.
Which goes to show that anybody sufficiently motivated to shoot themselves in the foot will find a way to do it. A truely educated user will understand that they don't need to do a "chmod 777 *" for a functional environment. In any case, it won't do much to affect the shell script they just got attached to some email.
I think you've missed one of my main points. In the average GUI email app in a unix environment (or at least my own Linux environment), one can easily view boobs.jpg without any problem. Clicky-clicky away and see what insanity your friend emailed to you. There is no crippled interface. But if that attachment is really boobs.jpg.sh, I'm not going to accidently run a malicious script in my enthusiasm.
.exe and .jpg stuff. Instead, it displayed a nice friendly image icon and labled it "boobs" (in our example). Joe Schmuck thinks "boobie pics!" and dutifully clicks away. Unfortunately, there was a bug in how Outlook handled those icons and the file was actually boobs.jpg.exe and Joe Schmuck just ran malicious code.
Its interesting you use that particular example. Part of the problem there resides squarely on Microsoft's shoulders. Outlook tried to pander to the schmucks by hiding all that confusing
Having said that... Joe Schmuck does have something to do with the problem too.
Awhile ago, I was over at a friend's geek compound for a weekend of LAN gaming. There
I think you're hearing something other than whats being said. The points I've heard is that attachments have to be handled smarter. In the case of binaries and scripts, that means there should be extra steps required to execute them. The end user should be completely aware of what they're dealing with (which doesn't even get in to the ways one can hide the true nature of a file within common Windows email environments).
It seems that the reaction from a Windows-centric viewpoint is that this makes it hard to install software. The misunderstanding is that in a *nix world, installing software generally doesn't involve executable files. They involve a different application handling a binary package - the actual file being transfered is pure data.
I see office documents attached to emails all the time at work. Our folks make extensive use of network shares, web sites, etc but they just can't get away from using email as another file transfer medium. But having said that - its all documents and data files. No executables.
I've been wanting to get one of those memory keyfobs myself. Seen the memory watches with the USB cable in the wristband?
Times have changed, it seems. The last time I used pine, it was very easy to save attached files. Heck - there is even methods to allow pine to launch image viewers and whatnot. However, these days I tend to use some of the more modern GUI email apps. Like I said before, my current favorite is Evolution. I find very little difference in my ability to handle attachments at home with Evolution and my ability to handle them at work with Outlook.
Who says it has to be difficult? Have you used any of the common email clients on Linux? Very easy to save and open attachments. Especially with the GUI ones (my favorite being Evolution).
The issue at hand is dealing with dangerous attachment - namely binaries and scripts. Maybe your use of email is different than mine... but I don't deal with executable attachments on a regular basis.
An article that links Windows exploits and theft of code as a reflection of Open Source is the sanest thing you've read about this incident? What other black-helicopters-from-Open-Source-world stories have you been reading?
The author of this article does not understand the culture nor history of what he criticizes. Or he understands it well enough to know what buttons to push.
Misguided. Maybe sociopathic. Hardly sane.
Want mplayer in Debian using apt-get goodness? Add the following to your /etc/apt/sources.list file:
deb http://marillat.free.fr/ unstable main
(or use the appropriate entry listed at http://marillat.free.fr/)