I'd like to point out that my main point is that Google handles advertisements (aka "sponsored links") in a very clear and up-front manner. They are certainly not "barely differentiated from the search results."
who actually mixes them them the actual search results? NO ONE. no search engine of any size does this period. just because you say "they" do, and don't say who "they" are, doesnt make it true.
You do have a point there. Most search engines seem to do a better job separating paid content from their normal "editorial" search results. But it hasn't always been this way. Indeed, it took notice from the FTC before sites began to clean up and better label their listings.
I did a cursory search for "linux" on a few of the other major search engines. And the results were fairly good. Ask Jeeves not only labels their links accordingly, but separates them with visually cuing shadowed boxes. AOL Search uses a bit of white space and bright orange labels to differentiate the various listings. And while MSN Search does label the different listings... their choices of colors, white space (or a lack thereof), and minuscule visual cues seems more designed to confuse the issue. Overture results are accompanied by a fine-print label on a result by result basis which seems to be the most obscured listings in my quick non-inclusive review.
Searchengine Watch did their own review on paid-for-listing features of various larger search engines. Although the information may be a bit dated.
I was referring to pay-for-placement being not obvious from algorythmic results.
They have placement ads on the right and at the top. The ones at the top are barely differentiated from the search results, on purpose(The sponsored links). Believe me, this is part of why I use it.
I completely disagree. The pay-for-placement links are very obviously removed from the normal search results.
I did two quick searches. The first was for "linux". Below the Google header / navigation bar is our first sponsored link. This link is encased in a pink box and clearly labled "sponsored link". Below that is a category listing. Below that is a few lines of news items related to Linux from google news. Then comes the search results on the left flanked on the far right by two sponsored links in their own blue boxes and clearly labled "sponsored links".
I performed another search - this time for "athlon". Two seperately labled "sponsored links" encased in blue and orange boxes respectfully. A category listing. Then comes search results flanked on the far-right by four clearly labled "sponsored links" each in their own green box.
Google CLEARLY seperates their sponsored content from their normal search results. Other search engines selling placement have intermixed search results with sponsored content with the sponsored bits coming up earlier in the listing and no labeling or seperation. This is very different than what Google does.
Granted, that's a bit unfair - at least Lindows has produced something. And it has some value added features (to what degree one assigns that value is something of another subject). But I'm beginning to click on the Lindows articles expecting to read about something else they've screwed up. And so, like LinuxOne, Lindows is beginning to seem more like a
While I can understand why networks and advertisers don't want me skipping commercials, what could be the gripe against time shifting?
I suggest you read Cringely's article and draw your own conclusions rather than rely on mine. Having said that... this is what I got from the article...
In the network TV biz, the goal is to be the leader in a targeted time slot. Shere numbers are king. Percentage of a desired demographic (usually 18 - 49) come second. Networks compete viciously for these time slots and often pit shows against each other that could each be successful in their own timeslots, but may die off from the competition.
What Bob doesn't mention is why this competition exists. Why risk so much for an arbitrary block of time? Obviously its got to do with the business of selling commercials. And I suspect a good deal of that is the creating of an artificial scarcity. Designate a slice of time as a prime slot for a prime demographic and sell the airtime for "sponsor messages" to the highest bidder.
If you allow the network's best content to become available arbitrarily, the idea of a scarce slice of time fails. And so does the current business model.
It might be worth mentioning that Cringely mentions HBO and nods to The Sopranos. HBO's business model is supported almost entirely by subscribers; sponsorship directly by the viewer. Consequently, their hit programming is made available at multiple times giving their customers more chances to catch their favorite episode. HBO has no concern for time slot dominance.
Cringely also notes that all this Tivo business will not likely affect how PBS runs.
There's your answer. They don't want people skipping commercials, and they want full control over rescheduling.
Oddly enough, this falls right in line with Cringely's recent article - Life with TiVo. Bob points out that scheduling is a very serious matter to the networks. DVR systems like Tivo not only threaten the direct viewing of commercials, but they also remove control over WHEN a commercial / show is seen. And that when affects market dominance - the capturing of the most desired demographics and time slots. In short, DVRs make time-shifting a trivial matter and shakes the very foundations of network TV business practices.
There are a couple of interesting points raised by this article.
The first issue is time. It takes time to put out a custom distribution and/or packages. Unless one is adding an appropriate amount of added value, the effort is questionable. A while back, I was on an internal security team for a major corporation. We had a security software product that we had licensed with access to its source code. We did not review this code, but we did compile it ourselves for a couple of platforms and create official corporate packages for internal use. It then became apparent that the default binary packages direct from the vendor were created using the same options. Without regular code review - what justified the additional time and effort? There was no acceptable answer - we began deploying vendor binary packages.
It makes sense for Sun to drop the customized distribution approach. After all, are they really bringing anything new to the environment that's not already being covered by existing Linux vendors? Working with those vendors to ensure that your product will work with theirs seems to be a much more sensible, and lest time-costly, approach. Especially when vendors like Red Hat are pushing towards Enterprise solutions.
Which leads in to the next point. From the article:
There is little doubt that the notion of "Linux and free have gone away. Red Hat's pricing model now makes that clear," [Jonathan Schwartz, Sun's executive vice president of software] said.
Money. The price of Linux is an interesting point. The no-cost aspects of a Linux distribution is nothing to toss aside too lightly. A lack of licensing fees and tracking headaches makes building a development box based on Linux that much easier. Price is very important to small and mid-sized businesses.
But even though licensing fees have come under increased scrutiny by corporate interests who wish to limit their spending in the current economy, its a relatively minor point. These environments are more than capable of handling licensing fees (although license tracking is still an issue). So in this regard, free in the sense of no-cost has never been an issue.
It might be worth noting that even with Red Hat's Advanced Server offering is still about service. Most of what makes up this new product is still available for free in source code form. One could compile one's own binaries and build one's own Advanced Server-like environment. Buying a license from Red Hat gets you access to their binaries - it is essentially buying a service. Which is a real time-saver whether you're in charge of a corporate IT infrastructure or need a friendly platform to help sell hardware.
Translation: I don't want to pay anyone for their hard work in putting together any piece of cross platform software.
If he was wanted to do that, he'd be better off just keeping his mouth shut and dipping in to the warez scene. Sure - this may be niche software, but then the scene is rife with such (warez is as more about sheer sizes of collections and packrat mentality than commercial value). He doesn't need source code to get the application for free.
Opensource isn't a panacea. It's a methodology. It's a way of making software secure over time, if people can contribute.
Indeed. You are completely on the mark with this point. The Open Source methodology isn't a silver bullet. It is no talisman. It is no guarantee to secure systems.
But. This methodology is a first step towards peer review. It is a part of a proven process. So while its not pixie dust, it is a good move.
I saw something kind of odd last night on CNN. At the close of one of the news personalities nightly shows (I believe it was Aaron Brown), they ran a piece (with dubed translation) from al-Jazeera over the Brittish actions in umm Qasar. The reporting of that particular story seemed rather fair and straight forward. If it hadn't been for the origional arabic language and writing, I might have mistaken it for a BBC piece.
Now the interesting bit is that Aaron Brown pointed out that their newsroom monitors al-Jazeera and other networks. That they would pick an al-Jazeera piece to air... over a relatively minor story... seems to indicate a certain nod of approval to the Arabic network.
Sure. Bias exists. But perhapse there is enough truth to be recognized by professionals no matter what side of the bias divide they favor.
I've also seen subsets of this imagry on CNN and FOX News (of all places). Granted, its not the full footage that has been shown on non-US networks.
One of the important points made by US news networks has been that the US military requested a delay to identifying imagry. The claim for this delay was to allow for the notification of the soldier's family.
It appears that the requested delay time has been met.
...these aren't the Pentagon Papers, people, these are silly vulnerability reports for programs.
Fair enough. However, the Pentagon Papers don't have an immediate effect on me. Knowing there is a known exploit in my infrastructure that I need to guard against has a direct effect on my job / livelyhood.
This raises a question that I've been pondering recently.
Awhile ago I was looking for a simple pop3 email checker for my wife's Windows machine. Within the unix / Linux world, there are dozens of very good Open Source apps that do this in various ways. I was surprised at the low number of free (as in no-cost, much less Open Source) apps of this type for Windows. I was shocked that authors of some of these simple apps were requesting fees as high as $20.
Now before I continue with this thought, I'd like to clarify the point in advance. I'm not saying these authors shouldn't be allowed to charge whatever they want for their work. Its their work. Its their price. They're welcome to it.
Having said that, in an environment that is much more immersed in Open Source culture - it seems that many more simple applications (and even not-so-simple applications) are available for free. In the rather large sample of apps that I reviewed, I found that the quality between pay-for-play and their Free Linux counterparts were comparable. So if quality isn't the issue, what is?
Culture.
It dawns on me that Linux (and to varying degrees, unix) comes from a gift culture. There is already so much great, free software available. Especially the tools needed to build more software. Paying back that community seems only natural.
Furthermore, within the Windows culture - even the very tools one needs to develop requires some degree of monetary investment. Not to mention all the other cool little apps one might like to use on one's own desktop. No wonder fees are charged for even the most trivial pieces of software. One has to recoup one's investment. Much less make a profit.
Since Microsoft is only releasing code under the terms of a license the zealots feel is draconian, it is of course an egregious abridgement of the zealots' "right" to get the latest 0day_winXP_hax0r3d.iso.
Yea. Because software "piracy" didn't exist before the whole Open Source thing popped up.
Of course, the reality of the situation is that the author of the work has the right (not "right") to release or distribute his work however he sees fit; this of course gives rise to the infantile bawling over how company x (where x usually equals "Microsoft") is the root of all evil, responsible for the Kennedy assassination, the Challenger and Columbia incidents, and just about anything bad that has happened to them personally in their entire lives
Amazingly enough... its Microsoft that often gets the attention. Not Oracle. Not Veritas. Not Computer Associates. Not Bioware or Bungi Studios (other than concern over their new association with Microsoft). Cisco all but owns their primary markets... where's the constant bitching about a Cisco monopoly? What about Apple, Sun, or HP? Sure - all those I've listed have their critics. But its Microsoft that garners the most.
Microsoft gets this negative attention because of their actions. This attention is not over something as simple as a proprietary commercial license - after all, they're hardly alone in this practice. But combine Microsoft's licensing with their marketing (and its influence over their technology) and you get a set of business practices that upset an increasing number of IT professionals and consumers.
There are surely zealots within the Linux and Open Source camp. But at the same time, those who sling around the zealot lable forget that Microsoft has its own zealotrous following. And its often those who label others as zealots who most sound like zealots themselves.
Re:Mad Hatter project is more interesting
on
CIOs Looking At OSS
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
How does SuSE's offering compare to Exchange when it comes to calandering? From what I've read, it seems like that kind of functionality requires the use of a web interface.
While I like the idea of a web interface if one is going to use a seperate calandaring application, it hardly compares to the integration of Outlook and Exchange.
There are plenty of good Open Source solutions for email. And Evolution is an excellent client (its my favorite). But we're still missing a good, integrated, shared calandaring solution. It may be in work now and something that'll show up in the future. But as far as I can tell, its not here yet. And that means there is no replacement for Exchange.
"Boo hoo, they use Direct X so we can't play it on Linux."
That's like being upset that your PS2 can't play XBOX games. Who wants to listen to bitching about not having the right gaming setup? If you're not running Windows, but you want to play Windows games, that is your fault not Microsoft's.
Interesting. It looks like you're responding to a quote from the parent post... yet the parent post doesn't even MENTION DirectX. In fact, the parent post didn't mention anything about Microsoft's technology. The point raised was the poster's desire to make jabs at a company who has behaved badly.
Nice of you to try and divert the point with an issue that had nothing to do with the poster's argument.
While it's great that the private sector also took up the call, there is a DEFINITE NEED for an authoritative governmental coordination of things like patches. SQL Slammer propagated because sysadmins didnt patch, so the old system is obviously FLAWED. Perhaps government participation will convince lazy sysadmins that problems are real.
I don't see this need. All that happened here is that a newly formed, highly political Government agency took a process already in the civil sector and went "Look what I can do!"
Sure - there will be some who won't concider warnings authoritive unless it comes from gov't. And there are those who thrilled that there's a nice, beurocratic process to follow. I've seen this sentiment already; I work for a US Gov't agency handling infosec issues. There were lots of meetings full of hand-wringing managers who normaly wouldn't have been involved to the extent that they were.
And that's the problem - a Government beurocracy tends to bring in people who don't improve the process and have no real understanding or function in that process. My concern is that a process that has been evolving over time will now be derailed by beurocracy and, in the end, damaged. Perhapse even becoming as ineffective as many internal Government infosec activities.
Its worth stressing that the "old" and "new" systems are the same. Claiming the old system was flawed does little compliment towards the new one. I doubt additional Gov't involvement has solved some of the existing issues: patch quality, information dispersal, time and manning restraints, etc.
Because if they'd really wanted a vendor who was accountable to the customer, and who delivered what was paid for, why the fuck'd they choose Verisign in the first place?
Because they were the only game in town?
The whole sex.com thing comes from before VeriSign bought Network Solutions who, at the time, held the contract to manage the US TLDs (which turned in to quite a suprisingly lucritive business).
With the MH project Sun is looking to replace MS on the desktop! WTF!! They are putting themselves directly in the line of fire with Big Bill! Are they nuts?!?
You act like Sun hasn't been in direct competition with Microsoft before. Microsoft has been attacking both Sun's workstation and server markets for some time now.
The interesting thing is that the spammers are now paying people to put out their spam. Now each outgoing spam costs something above the overhead costs.
Spamming is a business. There is money to be made. And anywhere that there's a business making money, there's a possibility that those running that business will expand that operation. Which leads to employees, agents, etc.
This is nothing new. Occasionally, those on the outside of spammer operations get a glimpse of the inner workings of one. Paying others to do (or at least help do) one's dirty work is old hat.
Of course, this glimpse also portrays a "business" that will go to any end to remain in operation. Such an organization would simply seek ways to circumvent fees just as they attempt to circumvent AUPs.
Actually, the worm "armed" it's attack before it "struck". It infected a large number of machines silently, without much noise, and at the given time, it opened up the fire hoses on the Net..
Where do you get this from? I haven't seen any references to some kinda meta-worm... much less evidence of one.
Others have already noted the analysis that claimed the majority (something like 90%) of susceptible targets were infected within 10 mins. The only other theory I've seen floated is that the initial attack involved a pre-defined listing of known-vulnerable hosts. Although, I've seen no evidence offered to support this theory.
...if you graph the attacks (if you had properly configured Snort, for example) you can see the attack curve rise to it's maximum in just under 20 minutes.
You'll note that the best indicators at this point graph a curve. Not a spike. This would seem to indicate an exponential growth rather than a sudden attack by a host of infected hosts.
You're mixing up Security Patch with Service Pack. Learn the difference.
Wouldn't that be "hotfix" and "Service Pack", then? "Security patch" seems to be generically applied to both. MS' alerts will refer to either a hotfix or Service Pack (whichever is newer) to solve whatever issue being highlighted.
Of course, there's the issue of a root password. Without it, 'su' does little good - wheel group restrictions or not. It seems unlikely that malicious code (be it a script or whatever) would have access to that.
Sure - the wheel group is a nice lock-down. But it is really more relevant towards managing users than protecting against malicious code.
Don't forget that Slashdot has reported other installations of Linux at JSC. And it might be interesting to note that even during Garman's reign, MOD (the Directorate that handles Mission Control) had a standard install that involved a dual-boot Linux and Windows environment.
...they are slowly moving in the direction of Linux, but that there is no reason to abandon their Unix boxes (he had an HP unix maxhine) at the present time as they tended to work fine and would for the forseeable future.
Sure. The HP/UX machines are fine workstations. And it makes sense to get full use of that investment. But eventually it comes time to re-up support contracts or replace hardware. This is the time that management often looks at cheaper alternatives. That's traditionally been Windows.
Linux offers a way to keep a Unix(like) environment and take advantage of commodity hardware. It helps that more and more of the apps used by EA are now available for Linux.
With all that in consideration, there's little suprise that even the CIO's office has been taking and interest in Linux. One will see it more often in the JSC IT environment.
Of course - one will probably see more Macs. And continue to see HP/UX and Sun workstations / servers. And Windows servers. And the plethora of Windows office automation desktops.
Slashdot Mirror
You do have a point there. Most search engines seem to do a better job separating paid content from their normal "editorial" search results. But it hasn't always been this way. Indeed, it took notice from the FTC before sites began to clean up and better label their listings.
I did a cursory search for "linux" on a few of the other major search engines. And the results were fairly good. Ask Jeeves not only labels their links accordingly, but separates them with visually cuing shadowed boxes. AOL Search uses a bit of white space and bright orange labels to differentiate the various listings. And while MSN Search does label the different listings... their choices of colors, white space (or a lack thereof), and minuscule visual cues seems more designed to confuse the issue. Overture results are accompanied by a fine-print label on a result by result basis which seems to be the most obscured listings in my quick non-inclusive review.
Searchengine Watch did their own review on paid-for-listing features of various larger search engines. Although the information may be a bit dated.
Patents GONE WILD!
See hundreds of early, young patents exploited at www.patentsgonewild.com! TODAY!
Sign up now and get a bonus video stream: Patented College Pipedreams! Too hot for TV!
I completely disagree. The pay-for-placement links are very obviously removed from the normal search results.
I did two quick searches. The first was for "linux". Below the Google header / navigation bar is our first sponsored link. This link is encased in a pink box and clearly labled "sponsored link". Below that is a category listing. Below that is a few lines of news items related to Linux from google news. Then comes the search results on the left flanked on the far right by two sponsored links in their own blue boxes and clearly labled "sponsored links".
I performed another search - this time for "athlon". Two seperately labled "sponsored links" encased in blue and orange boxes respectfully. A category listing. Then comes search results flanked on the far-right by four clearly labled "sponsored links" each in their own green box.
Google CLEARLY seperates their sponsored content from their normal search results. Other search engines selling placement have intermixed search results with sponsored content with the sponsored bits coming up earlier in the listing and no labeling or seperation. This is very different than what Google does.
Lindows is starting to remind me of LinuxOne.
Granted, that's a bit unfair - at least Lindows has produced something. And it has some value added features (to what degree one assigns that value is something of another subject). But I'm beginning to click on the Lindows articles expecting to read about something else they've screwed up. And so, like LinuxOne, Lindows is beginning to seem more like a
I suggest you read Cringely's article and draw your own conclusions rather than rely on mine. Having said that... this is what I got from the article...
In the network TV biz, the goal is to be the leader in a targeted time slot. Shere numbers are king. Percentage of a desired demographic (usually 18 - 49) come second. Networks compete viciously for these time slots and often pit shows against each other that could each be successful in their own timeslots, but may die off from the competition.
What Bob doesn't mention is why this competition exists. Why risk so much for an arbitrary block of time? Obviously its got to do with the business of selling commercials. And I suspect a good deal of that is the creating of an artificial scarcity. Designate a slice of time as a prime slot for a prime demographic and sell the airtime for "sponsor messages" to the highest bidder.
If you allow the network's best content to become available arbitrarily, the idea of a scarce slice of time fails. And so does the current business model.
It might be worth mentioning that Cringely mentions HBO and nods to The Sopranos. HBO's business model is supported almost entirely by subscribers; sponsorship directly by the viewer. Consequently, their hit programming is made available at multiple times giving their customers more chances to catch their favorite episode. HBO has no concern for time slot dominance.
Cringely also notes that all this Tivo business will not likely affect how PBS runs.
Oddly enough, this falls right in line with Cringely's recent article - Life with TiVo. Bob points out that scheduling is a very serious matter to the networks. DVR systems like Tivo not only threaten the direct viewing of commercials, but they also remove control over WHEN a commercial / show is seen. And that when affects market dominance - the capturing of the most desired demographics and time slots. In short, DVRs make time-shifting a trivial matter and shakes the very foundations of network TV business practices.
The first issue is time. It takes time to put out a custom distribution and/or packages. Unless one is adding an appropriate amount of added value, the effort is questionable. A while back, I was on an internal security team for a major corporation. We had a security software product that we had licensed with access to its source code. We did not review this code, but we did compile it ourselves for a couple of platforms and create official corporate packages for internal use. It then became apparent that the default binary packages direct from the vendor were created using the same options. Without regular code review - what justified the additional time and effort? There was no acceptable answer - we began deploying vendor binary packages.
It makes sense for Sun to drop the customized distribution approach. After all, are they really bringing anything new to the environment that's not already being covered by existing Linux vendors? Working with those vendors to ensure that your product will work with theirs seems to be a much more sensible, and lest time-costly, approach. Especially when vendors like Red Hat are pushing towards Enterprise solutions.
Which leads in to the next point. From the article:
Money. The price of Linux is an interesting point. The no-cost aspects of a Linux distribution is nothing to toss aside too lightly. A lack of licensing fees and tracking headaches makes building a development box based on Linux that much easier. Price is very important to small and mid-sized businesses.
But even though licensing fees have come under increased scrutiny by corporate interests who wish to limit their spending in the current economy, its a relatively minor point. These environments are more than capable of handling licensing fees (although license tracking is still an issue). So in this regard, free in the sense of no-cost has never been an issue.
It might be worth noting that even with Red Hat's Advanced Server offering is still about service. Most of what makes up this new product is still available for free in source code form. One could compile one's own binaries and build one's own Advanced Server-like environment. Buying a license from Red Hat gets you access to their binaries - it is essentially buying a service. Which is a real time-saver whether you're in charge of a corporate IT infrastructure or need a friendly platform to help sell hardware.
If he was wanted to do that, he'd be better off just keeping his mouth shut and dipping in to the warez scene. Sure - this may be niche software, but then the scene is rife with such (warez is as more about sheer sizes of collections and packrat mentality than commercial value). He doesn't need source code to get the application for free.
Indeed. You are completely on the mark with this point. The Open Source methodology isn't a silver bullet. It is no talisman. It is no guarantee to secure systems.
But. This methodology is a first step towards peer review. It is a part of a proven process. So while its not pixie dust, it is a good move.
I saw something kind of odd last night on CNN. At the close of one of the news personalities nightly shows (I believe it was Aaron Brown), they ran a piece (with dubed translation) from al-Jazeera over the Brittish actions in umm Qasar. The reporting of that particular story seemed rather fair and straight forward. If it hadn't been for the origional arabic language and writing, I might have mistaken it for a BBC piece.
Now the interesting bit is that Aaron Brown pointed out that their newsroom monitors al-Jazeera and other networks. That they would pick an al-Jazeera piece to air... over a relatively minor story... seems to indicate a certain nod of approval to the Arabic network.
Sure. Bias exists. But perhapse there is enough truth to be recognized by professionals no matter what side of the bias divide they favor.
I've also seen subsets of this imagry on CNN and FOX News (of all places). Granted, its not the full footage that has been shown on non-US networks.
One of the important points made by US news networks has been that the US military requested a delay to identifying imagry. The claim for this delay was to allow for the notification of the soldier's family.
It appears that the requested delay time has been met.
Fair enough. However, the Pentagon Papers don't have an immediate effect on me. Knowing there is a known exploit in my infrastructure that I need to guard against has a direct effect on my job / livelyhood.
That's not "truth" - its propaganda.
This raises a question that I've been pondering recently.
Awhile ago I was looking for a simple pop3 email checker for my wife's Windows machine. Within the unix / Linux world, there are dozens of very good Open Source apps that do this in various ways. I was surprised at the low number of free (as in no-cost, much less Open Source) apps of this type for Windows. I was shocked that authors of some of these simple apps were requesting fees as high as $20.
Now before I continue with this thought, I'd like to clarify the point in advance. I'm not saying these authors shouldn't be allowed to charge whatever they want for their work. Its their work. Its their price. They're welcome to it.
Having said that, in an environment that is much more immersed in Open Source culture - it seems that many more simple applications (and even not-so-simple applications) are available for free. In the rather large sample of apps that I reviewed, I found that the quality between pay-for-play and their Free Linux counterparts were comparable. So if quality isn't the issue, what is?
Culture.
It dawns on me that Linux (and to varying degrees, unix) comes from a gift culture. There is already so much great, free software available. Especially the tools needed to build more software. Paying back that community seems only natural.
Furthermore, within the Windows culture - even the very tools one needs to develop requires some degree of monetary investment. Not to mention all the other cool little apps one might like to use on one's own desktop. No wonder fees are charged for even the most trivial pieces of software. One has to recoup one's investment. Much less make a profit.
Yea. Because software "piracy" didn't exist before the whole Open Source thing popped up.
Amazingly enough... its Microsoft that often gets the attention. Not Oracle. Not Veritas. Not Computer Associates. Not Bioware or Bungi Studios (other than concern over their new association with Microsoft). Cisco all but owns their primary markets... where's the constant bitching about a Cisco monopoly? What about Apple, Sun, or HP? Sure - all those I've listed have their critics. But its Microsoft that garners the most.
Microsoft gets this negative attention because of their actions. This attention is not over something as simple as a proprietary commercial license - after all, they're hardly alone in this practice. But combine Microsoft's licensing with their marketing (and its influence over their technology) and you get a set of business practices that upset an increasing number of IT professionals and consumers.
There are surely zealots within the Linux and Open Source camp. But at the same time, those who sling around the zealot lable forget that Microsoft has its own zealotrous following. And its often those who label others as zealots who most sound like zealots themselves.
How does SuSE's offering compare to Exchange when it comes to calandering? From what I've read, it seems like that kind of functionality requires the use of a web interface.
While I like the idea of a web interface if one is going to use a seperate calandaring application, it hardly compares to the integration of Outlook and Exchange.
There are plenty of good Open Source solutions for email. And Evolution is an excellent client (its my favorite). But we're still missing a good, integrated, shared calandaring solution. It may be in work now and something that'll show up in the future. But as far as I can tell, its not here yet. And that means there is no replacement for Exchange.
Interesting. It looks like you're responding to a quote from the parent post... yet the parent post doesn't even MENTION DirectX. In fact, the parent post didn't mention anything about Microsoft's technology. The point raised was the poster's desire to make jabs at a company who has behaved badly.
Nice of you to try and divert the point with an issue that had nothing to do with the poster's argument.
I don't see this need. All that happened here is that a newly formed, highly political Government agency took a process already in the civil sector and went "Look what I can do!"
Sure - there will be some who won't concider warnings authoritive unless it comes from gov't. And there are those who thrilled that there's a nice, beurocratic process to follow. I've seen this sentiment already; I work for a US Gov't agency handling infosec issues. There were lots of meetings full of hand-wringing managers who normaly wouldn't have been involved to the extent that they were.
And that's the problem - a Government beurocracy tends to bring in people who don't improve the process and have no real understanding or function in that process. My concern is that a process that has been evolving over time will now be derailed by beurocracy and, in the end, damaged. Perhapse even becoming as ineffective as many internal Government infosec activities.
Its worth stressing that the "old" and "new" systems are the same. Claiming the old system was flawed does little compliment towards the new one. I doubt additional Gov't involvement has solved some of the existing issues: patch quality, information dispersal, time and manning restraints, etc.
Because they were the only game in town?
The whole sex.com thing comes from before VeriSign bought Network Solutions who, at the time, held the contract to manage the US TLDs (which turned in to quite a suprisingly lucritive business).
You act like Sun hasn't been in direct competition with Microsoft before. Microsoft has been attacking both Sun's workstation and server markets for some time now.
Spamming is a business. There is money to be made. And anywhere that there's a business making money, there's a possibility that those running that business will expand that operation. Which leads to employees, agents, etc.
This is nothing new. Occasionally, those on the outside of spammer operations get a glimpse of the inner workings of one. Paying others to do (or at least help do) one's dirty work is old hat.
Of course, this glimpse also portrays a "business" that will go to any end to remain in operation. Such an organization would simply seek ways to circumvent fees just as they attempt to circumvent AUPs.
Where do you get this from? I haven't seen any references to some kinda meta-worm... much less evidence of one.
Others have already noted the analysis that claimed the majority (something like 90%) of susceptible targets were infected within 10 mins. The only other theory I've seen floated is that the initial attack involved a pre-defined listing of known-vulnerable hosts. Although, I've seen no evidence offered to support this theory.
You'll note that the best indicators at this point graph a curve. Not a spike. This would seem to indicate an exponential growth rather than a sudden attack by a host of infected hosts.
Wouldn't that be "hotfix" and "Service Pack", then? "Security patch" seems to be generically applied to both. MS' alerts will refer to either a hotfix or Service Pack (whichever is newer) to solve whatever issue being highlighted.
Of course, there's the issue of a root password. Without it, 'su' does little good - wheel group restrictions or not. It seems unlikely that malicious code (be it a script or whatever) would have access to that.
Sure - the wheel group is a nice lock-down. But it is really more relevant towards managing users than protecting against malicious code.
Sure. The HP/UX machines are fine workstations. And it makes sense to get full use of that investment. But eventually it comes time to re-up support contracts or replace hardware. This is the time that management often looks at cheaper alternatives. That's traditionally been Windows.
Linux offers a way to keep a Unix(like) environment and take advantage of commodity hardware. It helps that more and more of the apps used by EA are now available for Linux.
With all that in consideration, there's little suprise that even the CIO's office has been taking and interest in Linux. One will see it more often in the JSC IT environment.
Of course - one will probably see more Macs. And continue to see HP/UX and Sun workstations / servers. And Windows servers. And the plethora of Windows office automation desktops.