Now, it is possible to use JavaScript -the scourge of the Net normally, but this is one of those points where it can be genuinely useful- to make IE apply the AlphaImageLoader filter to PNG images, but no one's managed to make a complete drop-in replacement that will apply to all PNG images im a page yet. It can be done, but it hasn't been done yet.
Now is the time for developers to _seriously_ start working on killing holes in Linux based applications.
That's the spirit. Don't let words like "cross platform" and "Microsoft" (although they probably meant "windows") get in the way of a good troll.
Who is Laura Didio?
on
Latest SCO News
·
· Score: 3, Informative
One of the first questions to come to mind is "who is Laura Didio?" Some googling around will find a lot of references to her. And a couple of Bios - the already referenced HTML-ized cache copy of a PDF document might be the most recent. There is also an older one from her previous employer, the Giga Information Group. But don't stop there. Hit a few articles where Laura is quoted. Google for her and unix / linux. Look at the quotes there too.
Laura Didio's focus, as her Bios suggest, seems to be Windows and Microsoft products. And in this space, she is sometimes critical. She also comments on some Open Source software with how it competes with the entrenched Microsoft offerings. And she does occasionally comment on Unix and Linux in general. She is cautious towards Open Source and Linux in particular. If she does have a bias against Linux, it does not seem over-the-top (although I don't always agree with her assessments).
But bias isn't the point. It is expertise. She does not focus on Unix and its derivatives. I would find it surprising if she had any idea of the history involved with this system. Much less any sort of additional technical background it would take to hash out the possible origins of any given snippit of code.
And, of course, that is part of the problem. We're dealing with snippits of code. There is no context. Even an expert may have trouble tracking pedigrees in this situation - but at least they would have some chance.
The most Laura can do is get her name in the press. And become an object lesson for the warnings other analysists made over the entire situation presented by SCO and its NDA.
And once again, those of us who know how to configure our windows systems and aren't stupid enough to (a) have open network shares with no passwords and (b) open random email attachments are safe.
Wait. I thought the big advantage to Windows is that you don't have to know a lot to run it. Just clicky-clicky and it all just works. You mean you have to KNOW something about the machine? Huh.
OK. Sure. You and I know the folly of that line of thought. Although it may be hard to tell when we fall in to the "linux ready for the desktop" conversation / troll.
The trouble is - we're in a minority. Furthermore, we're not in marketing. Or buying in to marketing.
This leads to two problems.
First, Microsoft has made some fundimentally flawed decisions in its development for Windows in the pursuit of making it more user friendly. This leads to everything from the ability to hide the true nature of an attachement to executing attachments without user interventions.
Secondly, it supports the misconception that the end user doesn't have to learn about their environment. Instead of having an understanding for basics, such as malicious attachments, they repeat the mantra "computers are hard" and remain ignorant... and prone to exploitation. Granted - its kind of hard to learn when clicking on an mp3 ends up executing a malicious application or script.
The challenges of viruses ('virii' if you want to dig at English majors), worms, spyware, and other malware is not limited to Windows alone. But in the current architecture of Windows, Microsoft has created a very favorable environment for any manner of malicious code.
The JBoss guys from the article want to make some money consulting (fork step 2). I merely thought Ballmer was not seeing the forest through the trees on services revenue.
Ballmer strikes me as a smart guy. I suspect that he doesn't miss the issue. Rather, he is trying to induce his own reality distortment field. He is trying to affect reality through the shere force of will and spin.
Note that he refers to Open Source software as "non-commercial." Oddly enough, there is considerable commercial activity around such software. Using such a term seems less about being descriptive and more about attaching emotional baggage to one's competitor.
Sure. Ballmer sees the trees. He knows all about the trees. He'd just prefer if everyone else ignored them and remain on the revenue path he and his company has planned.
correct me if i'm wrong, but the way i read the article, it doesn't sound to me that the new system will necessarily decrease the number of patches, but will decrease the number of systems used to deliver and install those patches
You are correct. And I suppose its a bit unfair to link this criticism to this particular announcement. I'm not sure of the parent's comment, but my comment is based on observing the current penchant for mega-patches or Service Packs.
Of course, Microsoft does also produce small patches in the form of hotfixes. And that is the start of the confusion as hotfixes and service packs can conflict and create an unexpected configurations.
This new method may be leading to what I (and the parent) is talking about. A unified system that allows the end user to figure out at a glance what their current config is. Upgrade accordingly. Or even downgrade problematic patches. And also provide a system where Microsoft can publish multiple small patches that can be aware of each other and not conflict.
Or maybe its just a more streamlined, centralized location for the next mega-patch / Service Pack. Business as usual. But "trustworthy".
Is there a central clearing house for keeping track of SCO vs Linux hype, FUD, articles, issues, etc? No... I hear Slashdot still posts articles on non-SCO related topics.
Isn't having fewer patches a step in the wrong direction? I would think that by combining patches together, you would have more chances of things going wrong (ie. breaking your system) than if each patch just fixed one little thing. Even if that means having to install many more patches.
Not only that, but with a cluster of patches (as opposed to a single mega-patch) one can back out the single offending patch and still leave everything else updated and intact (dependancies not withstanding). Which is a very *nix way of looking at things - it being a much more modular system. Windows tends to be much more intertwined and monolithic. So perhapse its not as easy to patch a Windows system with stand-alone components that can be combined as a cluster.
Military culture has a lot of its own urban legends and stories. One of my favorites is The Bird Report (mainly because I've run in to this kind of situation several times in various gov't and private bureaucracies):
A Sgt. had developed a habit of blowing off a few hours each day by checking out a GOV and driving a circuit around the outside of the flightline and along some of the base's back roads. To justify his routine (and provide additional entertainment), the Sgt. made an informal count of the base bird population as observed during his drive. On returning to the office, he would burn off some additional time typing out a Base Bird Population Report and sending it on to HQ.
The routine continued for the better part of a year. The Sgt. did his rounds and made his submissions to whatever HQ blackhole the bogus report would end up. But eventually the whole scam lost its charm, the Sgt. lost his interest, and the Base Bird Population Report ended.
Three months passed. The Sgt. had all but forgotten about the Bird Report until he received a memo from HQ. The memo informed him, rather tersely, that he was 3 months late on the Base Bird Population Report.
It seems someone at HQ had created a job of filing the Bird Reports. What had started as a bogus exercise with no real reason had become a requirement.
I never do script-kiddie style "hack any random vulnerable box on the Internet" cracking.
He then goes on to talk about company-sponsored pen testing. What he manages to tap-dance around is targeted attacks for fun (profit is already covered).
Having said that - thanks for taking the time to push this story so hard. I found it rather interesting. I don't agree with the apparent urgancy you and your peers have attached to it. It looks more like a prank in responce to a prank - both rather juvenille. But its been entertaining none the less.
I think the operating system should be free, programming languages should be free and that's it. The point of a free operating system is to foster a competitive environment. Companies still need assurances that they can write software without giving it away. There's no justification for innovation if they can't benefit from the level playing field of Linux.
Companies are certainly able to write software without giving it away. What they don't get is a guarentee that it will sell. But then... they don't have that guarentee in any environment.
What a company has to do is create a viable product, enter the market, and compete. That competition includes competing against Free alternatives.
I know my own preferences favor Open Source alternatives. I will give a lot of credit to an Open Source product and pick it over proprietary alternatives if possible. That doesn't mean that proprietary alternatives can't compete and can't win. In fact, I'm currently looking at a system that consists of little more than commodity hardware, a custom commodity OS (Linux), and very expensive software. I am willing to buy a product that delivers what its competitors can not.
Of course, I continue to look for Open Source alternatives. I will continue to favor them. I will prefer companies who help Open Source projects. My spending and support will reflect these preferences. So even though I am currently looking at a proprietary solution, it doesn't mean this company will not feel pressure.
But again... that pressure is competition. If a company can't compete, then it has no place in the market (assuming that market is healthy).
On the basis of OSX being built on BSD, I don't see Apple needing such a license. BSD cleared these hurdles in (I believe) the early 90's. Therefore Apple should be clear of this mess. Unless Apple is re-introducing some odd code (which is possible when you consider NeXT could be in the mix).
My understanding is that when computers are stolen, the data on them is what's sought, as it is what's most valuable.
Quite a few years ago, there was a shortage of RAM. Laptops were being stolen for memory. Now memory is cheap but data is coming under closer scrutiny. What hasn't changed is that the value of the laptop is often in its components.
I'm sure they are frantically copying Linux (and probably some GNU) software into the SCO code.
When SCO announced Linux binary compatability for UnixWare, there were a few who wondered if they had taken a shortcut to bring this about. I've seen this idea surface again with current events. It would be a very interesting twist if SCO was discovered violating Linux's license during this trial.
Though... really... there's been no evidence that even suggests this would happen. But then we haven't seen any evidence of SCO's claims either.
I highly doubt that MS would have bought Interix if there was any question that their product contained or was tainted by any GPL code at all. The legal threat of the GPL would hurt them MUCH more than SCO. With SCO, they could easily settle. Somehow I don't see the FSF settling for any reasonable sum. BSD is a non issue due to the license.
The GPL is a non-issue for Microsoft too. After all, Microsoft complies with GPL requirements for the code they sell. Note the Licensing and Purchasing page for the aforementioned Unix compatability product. You'll notice a grey box on the right-hand side that specifically deals with the GPL'd applications included in the product. You can even purchase a CD or download sources directly from Microsoft's FTP servers... including the GPL itself.
The BSD case is rather interesting in light of current events. Note one of the main reasons this case went in the direction it did:
The University's suit claimed that USL had failed in their obligation to provide due credit to the University for the use of BSD code in System V as required by the license that they had signed with the University.
...
The result was that three files were removed from the 18,000 that made up Networking Release 2, and a number of minor changes were made to other files. In addition, the University agreed to add USL copyrights to about 70 files, although those files continued to be freely redistributed.
One possible twist from all this is that part of the code appearing in Linux that SCO claims ownership over is actually BSD code.
Illegitimately Underground
on
I, Spammer
·
· Score: 1
From the Yahoo! News piece:
"Why do more people buy than complain about it?" Scelson asked. "If [the mail is 100 percent legal, and [ISPs] get a single complaint, they will turn around and kill your circuit, so we go out of business or we're forced to forge the headers. The biggest complain is you can't find us. If you could, you're going to shut us down, so why should we let you find us?"
The obvious question is why being identified leads to loss of service. And of course we all know its because spam is against almost every service provider's Acceptable Use Policy. Its been like this for years - certainly since the Internet started becoming mainstream. There is no shock here.
The simple truth to the matter is that these guys are underground because their business is not legitimate. They are forced to hide their identities because they threaten the health of the networks they abuse and violate the contracts they agree to for service. They are not running a business. They're running a scam. This martyr complex is simply another scam they're trying to float.
SCO by itself doesn't have either much reason or power to play with IBM without covert backing from Redmond. Was there any other reason for their going directly after IBM and ignoring RH/SuSE?
Just to play devil's advocate...
SCO could be playing out a desperate hand. They're toast. So they're going out as big as they can on the off chance that something will happen. And stranger things have happened.
Microsoft set the stage.
Linux is growing in the marketplace and caught the attention of various business entities. Different people are trying to cash in on it in different ways. Microsoft is battling it head-on. RedHat created a business out of it. Caldera (now SCO) tried to leverage it and failed. Now they're trying to leverage Microsoft's attacks.
The key point is the whole issue of IP. After all, the whole idea of developing IP and then giving it away is rather counter-intuitive to the current IT business environment. Mircrosoft took advantage of this confusion and suggested that there just might be hidden issues involved because of this.
SCO, desperate to leverage anything they own to survive (or at least sell out), seized this idea and ran with it. They're leveraging Microsoft's FUD campaign and the Linux phenomenon and tilting at IBM simply because IBM ensures visibility.
It is unlikely to pay off. But then... most desperate gambles are like that. And sometimes, every once in awhile, a desperate gamble works. When you're desperate, its not really much of a gamble anyway. Its your last bet.
I bet i get marked as a troll, but I bet if this was Red hat Network Update, you wouldn't be winging.
If you'd like to explain how RedHat update fails in the same or simular manner as Windows Update, then you might have a point. I only occasionally use RedHat, so I'm not too familiar with it. But I know that Debian's system doesn't claim my system is up to date when it fails in some manner. Surely Microsoft can do something simular.
...you'd only complain if it examined every bit of your disk to ensure that it got it right... make your minds up people!!
Yeah. Heaven forbid we'd expect something to 1) work, 2) give an accurate indication. Especially if its got anything to do with security. We just don't know what we want.
Sure, like any given piece of software, you may run into glitches and bugs at some point. But, overall, Windows Update has provided me with an extremely easy and painless way to keep my systems updated.
Did you read the article? The underlying theme was trust, or rather a lack thereof. The problem with Windows Update is that after running it, you really don't know what your current state is. Windows Update can fail in a number of ways and give a false indication of being up to date when the system is actually unpatched, out of date, and vulnerable.
Even my Mom can use it, which says a lot. It's better than any alternatives I've seen which require too much geek knowledge to operate.
And this is where this system really fails. A technical user aware of these issues will understand the situation and maybe even be able to take the initiative to double-check. The problem is that the non-technical user will take Windows Update at face value, comfortable in their knowledge that they are updated and secure. Or so they think.
When the next big worm, virus, IE exploit, etc. comes along, our favorite non-technical user is likely to ignore it. After all, Windows Update says they're all patched up.
So wait, microsoft is releasing more updates, this is bad? So maybe some of their updates have bugs, at least we get the fixes rapidly. It's not like this doesn't happen to, say, linux - a fix breaks something else and another patch comes out three days later.
You do realize that you're responding to something the origional poster is quoting from the article in question, right? Having said that - I generally agree. One of the strengths of Open Source projects is generally aggressive release cycles, which include fast patch responces to critical issues.
I'm guessing what the origional author was pointing out was that this increase in patch releases tends to bind the admin to the Windows Update mechanism to try and keep up. He might have a point if Windows Update is the only way to get these updates in a timely manner. However, I would hope Microsoft makes them available for those who decide on a manual route as well.
One minor point - I'm not aware of too many patches in Linux (or associated systems) leading to secondary patches to fix problems with the first patch. But then, it may be just because I've been bitten my Microsoft patch cycles more often than Linux ones.
This is the home of the folks whose crowning achievement remains cloning whatever Microsoft does.
The problem with this statement is that it ignores the fact that the GUI is not the sole domain of Microsoft. And it claims that all GUIs found within Linux environments (I assume that's what's being suggested) are Windows clones. A cursory look at even a small sampling of Linux desktops will show how overly simplified this claim is.
Sure - there are elements of Windows to be found. Heck - one can even create a desktop that comes remarkably close to the look-and-feel of Windows. But at the same time, there are elements of other GUIs past and present. And there are also various attempts to mimic other desktops.
My Win2K desktop looks nothing like my KDE desktop which looks nothing like my GNOME2 desktop. I find it kind of ironic that I've even installed some 3rd party apps to add some of the functionality found in various XWindows Managers to Win2K. All my desktop environments now make use of elements and behaviors found across different aspects of desktop computing history (and even then, they all have some common elements). Even then, there are bits and pieces that are somewhat unique to each environment.
Of course - there's the default desktop. A fresh install of GNOME or KDE uses GUI elements arranged in a format that will be very familiar to Windows users. Which makes sense. Almost everyone has used Windows. Why plunge a new user in to an environment completely foreign? Which seems to be the strategy of the linked Lindows distribution. Oddly enough, the latest Lindows screen shots seem to be looking more like "traditional" Linux environments. Or maybe that's WinXP - which itself has come to look more like Linux.
Oh, and BTW, Apple has a definite point here. The difference is that Apple took an unfriendly OS and turned it into a consumer product.
I agree. Apple has done an excellent job at creating a consumer desktop Unix. There are definate lessons to be learned there.
Perhapse its more of an issue with technical questions. I constantly use Google to look for answers to, amoung other things, technical questions. More often than not, I find an answer or at least a lead that gets me pointed in the right direction. Oddly enough, they're usually from archived mailing lists if I do a web search. And I find that the quickest route is often via Google's usenet search. So yea... maybe a seperate mailing list search might be a very useful thing indeed.
As an aside, my most recent dead end involved a Win2K error that's been popping up on one of my boxes. Usenet is full of variations on this error reported over the years without any good answers to what causes it. That doesn't mean that my Linux and Solaris searches are always gems - but it does suggest that such dead ends can be found for almost any platform on a case by case basis.
Slashdot Mirror
Its been done:
http://www.mongus.net/pngInfo/
That's the spirit. Don't let words like "cross platform" and "Microsoft" (although they probably meant "windows") get in the way of a good troll.
One of the first questions to come to mind is "who is Laura Didio?" Some googling around will find a lot of references to her. And a couple of Bios - the already referenced HTML-ized cache copy of a PDF document might be the most recent. There is also an older one from her previous employer, the Giga Information Group. But don't stop there. Hit a few articles where Laura is quoted. Google for her and unix / linux. Look at the quotes there too.
Laura Didio's focus, as her Bios suggest, seems to be Windows and Microsoft products. And in this space, she is sometimes critical. She also comments on some Open Source software with how it competes with the entrenched Microsoft offerings. And she does occasionally comment on Unix and Linux in general. She is cautious towards Open Source and Linux in particular. If she does have a bias against Linux, it does not seem over-the-top (although I don't always agree with her assessments).
But bias isn't the point. It is expertise. She does not focus on Unix and its derivatives. I would find it surprising if she had any idea of the history involved with this system. Much less any sort of additional technical background it would take to hash out the possible origins of any given snippit of code.
And, of course, that is part of the problem. We're dealing with snippits of code. There is no context. Even an expert may have trouble tracking pedigrees in this situation - but at least they would have some chance.
The most Laura can do is get her name in the press. And become an object lesson for the warnings other analysists made over the entire situation presented by SCO and its NDA.
Wait. I thought the big advantage to Windows is that you don't have to know a lot to run it. Just clicky-clicky and it all just works. You mean you have to KNOW something about the machine? Huh.
OK. Sure. You and I know the folly of that line of thought. Although it may be hard to tell when we fall in to the "linux ready for the desktop" conversation / troll.
The trouble is - we're in a minority. Furthermore, we're not in marketing. Or buying in to marketing.
This leads to two problems.
First, Microsoft has made some fundimentally flawed decisions in its development for Windows in the pursuit of making it more user friendly. This leads to everything from the ability to hide the true nature of an attachement to executing attachments without user interventions.
Secondly, it supports the misconception that the end user doesn't have to learn about their environment. Instead of having an understanding for basics, such as malicious attachments, they repeat the mantra "computers are hard" and remain ignorant... and prone to exploitation. Granted - its kind of hard to learn when clicking on an mp3 ends up executing a malicious application or script.
The challenges of viruses ('virii' if you want to dig at English majors), worms, spyware, and other malware is not limited to Windows alone. But in the current architecture of Windows, Microsoft has created a very favorable environment for any manner of malicious code.
Close. I believe the quote actually goes...
"Do you have a sex life?"
"No, I read PC Gamer."
Ballmer strikes me as a smart guy. I suspect that he doesn't miss the issue. Rather, he is trying to induce his own reality distortment field. He is trying to affect reality through the shere force of will and spin.
Note that he refers to Open Source software as "non-commercial." Oddly enough, there is considerable commercial activity around such software. Using such a term seems less about being descriptive and more about attaching emotional baggage to one's competitor.
Sure. Ballmer sees the trees. He knows all about the trees. He'd just prefer if everyone else ignored them and remain on the revenue path he and his company has planned.
You are correct. And I suppose its a bit unfair to link this criticism to this particular announcement. I'm not sure of the parent's comment, but my comment is based on observing the current penchant for mega-patches or Service Packs.
Of course, Microsoft does also produce small patches in the form of hotfixes. And that is the start of the confusion as hotfixes and service packs can conflict and create an unexpected configurations.
This new method may be leading to what I (and the parent) is talking about. A unified system that allows the end user to figure out at a glance what their current config is. Upgrade accordingly. Or even downgrade problematic patches. And also provide a system where Microsoft can publish multiple small patches that can be aware of each other and not conflict.
Or maybe its just a more streamlined, centralized location for the next mega-patch / Service Pack. Business as usual. But "trustworthy".
Is there a central clearing house for keeping track of SCO vs Linux hype, FUD, articles, issues, etc? No... I hear Slashdot still posts articles on non-SCO related topics.
Not only that, but with a cluster of patches (as opposed to a single mega-patch) one can back out the single offending patch and still leave everything else updated and intact (dependancies not withstanding). Which is a very *nix way of looking at things - it being a much more modular system. Windows tends to be much more intertwined and monolithic. So perhapse its not as easy to patch a Windows system with stand-alone components that can be combined as a cluster.
He then goes on to talk about company-sponsored pen testing. What he manages to tap-dance around is targeted attacks for fun (profit is already covered).
Having said that - thanks for taking the time to push this story so hard. I found it rather interesting. I don't agree with the apparent urgancy you and your peers have attached to it. It looks more like a prank in responce to a prank - both rather juvenille. But its been entertaining none the less.
Companies are certainly able to write software without giving it away. What they don't get is a guarentee that it will sell. But then... they don't have that guarentee in any environment.
What a company has to do is create a viable product, enter the market, and compete. That competition includes competing against Free alternatives.
I know my own preferences favor Open Source alternatives. I will give a lot of credit to an Open Source product and pick it over proprietary alternatives if possible. That doesn't mean that proprietary alternatives can't compete and can't win. In fact, I'm currently looking at a system that consists of little more than commodity hardware, a custom commodity OS (Linux), and very expensive software. I am willing to buy a product that delivers what its competitors can not.
Of course, I continue to look for Open Source alternatives. I will continue to favor them. I will prefer companies who help Open Source projects. My spending and support will reflect these preferences. So even though I am currently looking at a proprietary solution, it doesn't mean this company will not feel pressure.
But again... that pressure is competition. If a company can't compete, then it has no place in the market (assuming that market is healthy).
On the basis of OSX being built on BSD, I don't see Apple needing such a license. BSD cleared these hurdles in (I believe) the early 90's. Therefore Apple should be clear of this mess. Unless Apple is re-introducing some odd code (which is possible when you consider NeXT could be in the mix).
Quite a few years ago, there was a shortage of RAM. Laptops were being stolen for memory. Now memory is cheap but data is coming under closer scrutiny. What hasn't changed is that the value of the laptop is often in its components.
When SCO announced Linux binary compatability for UnixWare, there were a few who wondered if they had taken a shortcut to bring this about. I've seen this idea surface again with current events. It would be a very interesting twist if SCO was discovered violating Linux's license during this trial.
Though... really... there's been no evidence that even suggests this would happen. But then we haven't seen any evidence of SCO's claims either.
The GPL is a non-issue for Microsoft too. After all, Microsoft complies with GPL requirements for the code they sell. Note the Licensing and Purchasing page for the aforementioned Unix compatability product. You'll notice a grey box on the right-hand side that specifically deals with the GPL'd applications included in the product. You can even purchase a CD or download sources directly from Microsoft's FTP servers... including the GPL itself.
One possible twist from all this is that part of the code appearing in Linux that SCO claims ownership over is actually BSD code.
The obvious question is why being identified leads to loss of service. And of course we all know its because spam is against almost every service provider's Acceptable Use Policy. Its been like this for years - certainly since the Internet started becoming mainstream. There is no shock here.
The simple truth to the matter is that these guys are underground because their business is not legitimate. They are forced to hide their identities because they threaten the health of the networks they abuse and violate the contracts they agree to for service. They are not running a business. They're running a scam. This martyr complex is simply another scam they're trying to float.
Just to play devil's advocate...
SCO could be playing out a desperate hand. They're toast. So they're going out as big as they can on the off chance that something will happen. And stranger things have happened.
Microsoft set the stage.
Linux is growing in the marketplace and caught the attention of various business entities. Different people are trying to cash in on it in different ways. Microsoft is battling it head-on. RedHat created a business out of it. Caldera (now SCO) tried to leverage it and failed. Now they're trying to leverage Microsoft's attacks.
The key point is the whole issue of IP. After all, the whole idea of developing IP and then giving it away is rather counter-intuitive to the current IT business environment. Mircrosoft took advantage of this confusion and suggested that there just might be hidden issues involved because of this.
SCO, desperate to leverage anything they own to survive (or at least sell out), seized this idea and ran with it. They're leveraging Microsoft's FUD campaign and the Linux phenomenon and tilting at IBM simply because IBM ensures visibility.
It is unlikely to pay off. But then... most desperate gambles are like that. And sometimes, every once in awhile, a desperate gamble works. When you're desperate, its not really much of a gamble anyway. Its your last bet.
If you'd like to explain how RedHat update fails in the same or simular manner as Windows Update, then you might have a point. I only occasionally use RedHat, so I'm not too familiar with it. But I know that Debian's system doesn't claim my system is up to date when it fails in some manner. Surely Microsoft can do something simular.
Yeah. Heaven forbid we'd expect something to 1) work, 2) give an accurate indication. Especially if its got anything to do with security. We just don't know what we want.
Did you read the article? The underlying theme was trust, or rather a lack thereof. The problem with Windows Update is that after running it, you really don't know what your current state is. Windows Update can fail in a number of ways and give a false indication of being up to date when the system is actually unpatched, out of date, and vulnerable.
And this is where this system really fails. A technical user aware of these issues will understand the situation and maybe even be able to take the initiative to double-check. The problem is that the non-technical user will take Windows Update at face value, comfortable in their knowledge that they are updated and secure. Or so they think.
When the next big worm, virus, IE exploit, etc. comes along, our favorite non-technical user is likely to ignore it. After all, Windows Update says they're all patched up.
Or are they?
You do realize that you're responding to something the origional poster is quoting from the article in question, right? Having said that - I generally agree. One of the strengths of Open Source projects is generally aggressive release cycles, which include fast patch responces to critical issues.
I'm guessing what the origional author was pointing out was that this increase in patch releases tends to bind the admin to the Windows Update mechanism to try and keep up. He might have a point if Windows Update is the only way to get these updates in a timely manner. However, I would hope Microsoft makes them available for those who decide on a manual route as well.
One minor point - I'm not aware of too many patches in Linux (or associated systems) leading to secondary patches to fix problems with the first patch. But then, it may be just because I've been bitten my Microsoft patch cycles more often than Linux ones.
The problem with this statement is that it ignores the fact that the GUI is not the sole domain of Microsoft. And it claims that all GUIs found within Linux environments (I assume that's what's being suggested) are Windows clones. A cursory look at even a small sampling of Linux desktops will show how overly simplified this claim is.
Sure - there are elements of Windows to be found. Heck - one can even create a desktop that comes remarkably close to the look-and-feel of Windows. But at the same time, there are elements of other GUIs past and present. And there are also various attempts to mimic other desktops.
My Win2K desktop looks nothing like my KDE desktop which looks nothing like my GNOME2 desktop. I find it kind of ironic that I've even installed some 3rd party apps to add some of the functionality found in various XWindows Managers to Win2K. All my desktop environments now make use of elements and behaviors found across different aspects of desktop computing history (and even then, they all have some common elements). Even then, there are bits and pieces that are somewhat unique to each environment.
Of course - there's the default desktop. A fresh install of GNOME or KDE uses GUI elements arranged in a format that will be very familiar to Windows users. Which makes sense. Almost everyone has used Windows. Why plunge a new user in to an environment completely foreign? Which seems to be the strategy of the linked Lindows distribution. Oddly enough, the latest Lindows screen shots seem to be looking more like "traditional" Linux environments. Or maybe that's WinXP - which itself has come to look more like Linux.
I agree. Apple has done an excellent job at creating a consumer desktop Unix. There are definate lessons to be learned there.
Its probably some fanfic episode. I hear they tend to lean that way from time to time.
Perhapse its more of an issue with technical questions. I constantly use Google to look for answers to, amoung other things, technical questions. More often than not, I find an answer or at least a lead that gets me pointed in the right direction. Oddly enough, they're usually from archived mailing lists if I do a web search. And I find that the quickest route is often via Google's usenet search. So yea... maybe a seperate mailing list search might be a very useful thing indeed.
As an aside, my most recent dead end involved a Win2K error that's been popping up on one of my boxes. Usenet is full of variations on this error reported over the years without any good answers to what causes it. That doesn't mean that my Linux and Solaris searches are always gems - but it does suggest that such dead ends can be found for almost any platform on a case by case basis.