This is slashdot, it says news for _nerds for a reason you insensitive clod. Your probably one of those business types.
Actually - I find it kind of interesting you attribute IM shorthand with "nerd" behavior. I always considered shorthand a crutch for those who couldn't type fast enough to use regular words. Someone new to a keyboard. More mundane and less nerd, if you will.
Ironically, out of the adult population, its usually business types that I see using this. And an over-abundance of emoticons. They get some little IM dictionary with their two-way text pager and go hog-wild. They're now part of the "in" wired crowd and want to show it. Right before going back to some email full of terms like synergy and paradigm.
Having said that, to each their own. For me, it does interfere with communication. And it might be worth noting that. After all, its up to the writer to convey their message - even if it carries baggage they didn't intend. But I'm more than happy to let the author have their way.
I suppose spelling (your / you're) and other rules apply here too. But then, I'm pretty bad when it comes to that stuff. So I'll refrain from comment.:)
Now, I thought that odd, because the Internet was originally designed decenteralized to avoid any one node being knocked out (by nuke) and cutting off those not vaporized.
Military actions tend to lack the longstanding effectiveness of financial ones.
Its my impression that the market and consolidation within the telecom industry has created a large amount of Internet backbone centralization over the years. Thus, the worry over Worldcom.
What would a total cost analysis show? Would the cost of administration, customization, training, support, and finding the necessary applications cancel any benefits of not buying licenses?
India hardly suffers from a shortage of labor. The labor charge for administration and customization will be trivial compared to any licensing. Finding necessary applications won't be much of a problem unless they have a very niche requirement - and even then, a Linux infrastructure will likely work well for most of the environment.
And finally - training and support. You forget that India is growing their IT industry (and fighting brain-drain to some extent). Training is the entire point of the operation. Support exists in abundance with proper training (those stumped by "RTFM" forget that one either has to do some basic footwork oneself or pay for the expertise).
Open Source solutions won't always be the answer. But it will be more and more often. It all depends on the specifics of one's needs - what is being sought. India is wise to not allow a single corporate interest to dictate their search.
"Score another one for Linux on the desktop". Maybe. But if you read the article it states that the machines replace both UNIX and Windows boxes, which implies that there was some un*x presence in the first place.
As someone else pointed out - a group moving from another Unix platform to Linux is a group not moving to Windows. I know that there are other Unix environments even within the Directorate that McCartney works that moved from HP/UX and Solaris to WinNT / 2K. Despite the engineer's preferences. Cheap hardware is a strong draw for management. Linux provides a link between the preferred Unix (or unix-like) environment and commodity hardware pricing.
It might also be worth mentioning that the more Linux is used, the more the JSC / NASA environment becomes used to seeing Linux. And once they're familiar with it, they're much more likely to accept it as a solution. Old biases against "freeware" fade. And "Microsoft" is no longer the knee-jerk response to any form of IT question.
Finally, you have to consider the internal politics within JSC's IT environment. JSC was, at the direction of CIO Jack Garman, heavily Microsoft centric. The great exodus of Mac workstations was due to this policy. As was the slow shift away from Unix to WinNT. Today, JSC is still widely Microsoft centric. The "requirement" mentioned has more to do with the need to handle certain Microsoft protocols and data formats for day-to-day office automation than specific policy. The fact that Linux solutions are being implemented shows that the old single-vendor mentality is no longer the guiding force within JSC. And that's a win for Linux... and everyone else. Except, perhaps, Microsoft.
To me, it seems more logical that repeated ads for the same product means that it is selling. I wouldn't think spammers have the resources to repeatedly spam something that isn't making them immediate cash flow.
Wow. Good point. Just think of all that money flowing out of third world countries due the the help of, now wealthy, random investors! Man. What a gold mine!
Of course - repetition of spam has nothing to do with sales. It has much, much more to do with the low cost nature of the medium. And the tactics involved.
1) iDEFENSE discovers a bug in an open source software project, sits on it for a month, reports it and it gets fixed immediately. (Actually, it appears it wasn't iDEFENSE who discovered the vulnerability. It was an unnamed "contributor.")
It might be worth noting that this is a major point of iDefense; payment for exploits. Its also been a source of criticism - be it valid or not.
I have to wonder if the delay was over verification of the exploit and the decission process involved in awarding payment for discovery. If payment wasn't a part of the process, would the system be faster to report? But then - would it have been reported in the first place?
Of course... you don't mind a history of unstable updates, an update process that will undo configurations or re-install components that have been removed for security concerns, nor security updates that re-define your license to the entire product.
To each their own. Click away.
After all, who needs to know whats running on their system or their rights as consumers.
These anti-spam nuts are beginning to act a lot like the anti-abortion nuts. Posting personal information about spammers online, making threats against them. Very similar to the so-called "wanted posters" that anti-abortionists post on their sites.
This would make a much better comparison if clinic workers were grabbing thousands of random people off the streets and performing operations on them. It would be a better point if anti-spam sites listed the home addresses of spammers with violent speach, blood-dripping graphics, and X-ed off the portraits of those who had been murdered.
It does make one good point - physical threats against spammers do no good. But then, the focus of this story thread has not been threatening the spammer in question. It has been uncovering his operation. And repaying the "service" this individual has performed for so many others.
So this guy goes and plays with fire and he gets burnt. Not too wise.
Perhapse it wasn't wise. But it does underscore that those behind these large scale spamming operations play rather fast and loose with morality and legal action. Those who decide to oppose spammers should keep this in mind and be prepared for this kind of behavior.
Last, I have trouble understanding how so many of these bugs come from a company with many of the brightest programmers. Is it a largely problem of scale and bureaucracy?
There are two interesting points to touch on.
First is that awareness of security issues is not automatic. I used to believe infosec issues were just a part of being a good system admin. Then I found myself working for a very forward-thinking IT company. And also found my group (corporate infosec) in constant struggle with the internal IT group over various issues - even basic infosec procedures. Its not that the IT group didn't have good admins - many were far better sysadmins than I ever was. Its that being familiar with a system does not mean one understands how to maliciously fail a system... or appreciate that people will seek to do just that. Infosec involves a healthy dose of paranoia. Not everyone has that.
Secondly, Microsoft is simply not geared to handle infosec issues. Microsoft is not run by developers and code quality is, at best, a minor focus point.
There was an article in Slate a few years back from an inside developer involved with Outlook (or Office - I forget which). One of the interesting tidbits of insight was that bugfix cycles always take a back seat to feature additions. The article noted that it wasn't too uncommon to be in the middle of a bughunt and have Marketing come down with a must-have feature to be added in. Bughunting would stop. Feature would be added. And now there was even less time to an already time-crunched bughunt cycle (and possibly new bugs generated by the new feature code).
There is also another intersting insider article that talks, amoung other things, the pace that Microsoft keeps. Its a fast pace, to say the least.
Is it any suprise that, under the pressure of this ultra-fast pace... one being driven by marketing, not development... that bugs make it to the final release? That there may be a fairly high number of bugs? And that these bugs may be exploited in a security context?
I am not typically supportive of/. bashing, but recently the number of quality articles has gone way down.
It might be worth noting that, sucky article or not, it could be something to pay attention to. As Shorti9 noted, the article may garner far more attention than it should. That means this half-baked article may be germinating ideas in an IT manager near you.
With this in mind, those in the IT industry trenches should welcome the chance to discuss this article, define the problems with its line of thinking and stated points, and be prepared to flog down the stupidity that'll spawn from it in our collective workplaces.
I think a good example of the maximum interactivity of a security system might be the military's encrypted telephone lines. Press the "encrypt on" button, call, say "this is a secured line" and start talking. (I haven't actually used these systems, so if that is a misunderstanding, please say so).
Yes and no. Using a STU-III (my sole experience - I have no idea if this system is current) is fairly simple. Enabling the crypto feature is as simple as turning a key-like device. So its almost like hitting a button. But that entirely ignores the issue of key management (the key-like device is rather like civilian smartcards).
It might be worth noting that this makes a rather interesting example. Conversations (and data - the STU-III can handle FAX and MODEM traffic too) are only protected when the encryption mechanism is engaged. Otherwise, its a standard phone. Which makes sense since most phone devices are not STU-IIIs. But it also relies on the end-user(s) for security.
The preceived weakness of the STU-III is not its encryption. The issue is that STU-III units are identified and heavily monitored for intelligence during unencrypted conversations before (or after ) encrypted communications. Information is gathered before users decide to engange the STU-III's encryption mechanism.
I think security could easily be made more "under the hood". Look at the whole DRM thing...pretty under the hood. Imagine a system like that that was written to secure the end-user not the manufacturer.
And that's a laudable goal. However, keep in mind that invisiblity is no holy grail either.
CCS was very "under the hood". Yet a mistake in one vendor's implementation has made the system all but worthless.
Microsoft's code signing is also another good "under the hood" example. But mistakes in issuing certificates as well as recent problems with faulty activex controls show that this system also has issues.
I think the reason I come off as a 'supporter' of MS is that I'm not so quick to join in on the FUD campaign that/. constantly launches against MS. A supporter of MS would say "Drop Linux in favor of Windows". All I've said is: "Linux should be envious of Windows' end user experience." The difference is subtle, but it's there. I want Linux (more specifically KDE or Gnome) to be as easy to use as Windows is.
Fair enough. Linux (or perhapse more specifically KDE/GNOME) deserves criticism. Keeps everyone honest. And it reminds us that improvement is an ongoing process.
Having said that, I wouldn't describe all of Slashdot's anti-MS articles as a "FUD campaign". Microsoft is in a unique position on a couple of points. First, no matter what computing platform you use - you will be affected by Microsoft. Secondly, Microsoft has done a lot over the years to gain distrust. Considering these points, there is little wonder Slashdot includes a fair amount of Micrsoft articles. And those articles tend to be critical.
I wouldn't claim that these articles are 100% on-target. Criticism is a two-way street. But I would hardly label this as "anti-MS crap" or a "FUD campaign".
I'm not really familir with Open Source, and I'm even less familiar with the licensing of the visuals of that game. For example: Did their license of the code mean that they can only use the original artwork in the game? If I were to make my own rendition of a Melnorme, would I be violating Accolade's (err I may have the wrong company) copyrights on that creation?
Ahhh. Now here's the interesting bit.:)
From their FAQ:
# What license will be used?
* The code will be released under the GNU General Public License. The content will likely be released under something similar, but that remains to be seen.
# What features are you going to include?
* We intend to include every feature from the 3DO version and most of those from the PC too. The user will be able to configure which aspects of the game match which version. Version 1.0 will be a straight port: major gameplay additions are not on our agenda until everything that was originally there actually works. Version 1.0 will also include some original media from the original artists and musicians, specifically for this project. These will be included into the release snapshots as we receive them. Once Version 1.0 is completed, then we will become open to all sorts of additions.
One of the interesting parts of another famous GPL release involved the media files. When iD release Quake I (and later Quake II) as GPL code, it covered only the code. The media files were not included. In the case of Quake I, some simply distribute the shareware release and use those files. Others began a free media project.
This seems to underline one of the problems currently facing Open Source games. Collaberation makes sense to coders. But it seems that the idea hasn't caught on with artists yet. It is currently more difficult to find someone able to generate good media than good code.
Secondly, IP holders seem to warm up to the idea of releaseing old code. But they're hesitant to release old media. Is it an irrational comparison between code and media? Or are the media files the real keys to the gaming kingdom?
In any case... looks like the project leaders are gunning for a "classic" port of the origional game. Once that's done, they'll be looking at new things. I'm sure your interest in new media would be welcomed then (which doesn't mean you can't get a jump on the whole process now).
I wonder how many cool articles like this get pushed aside for the never ending anti-MS crap.
Sure - you're a constant supporter of Microsoft. Others aren't.
On a side note: Given that it's Open Source, I wonder if they'll accept mods to it?
Others have already pointed out that there is already work towards new media files for the game. But even if the current developers won't accept your work - doesn't mean you can't do it. Create it. Put it out there for the public. If this is something the community / public likes, it will catch on - and maybe make it back to the origional project. Or it'll remain its own "advanced" or "custom" fork. In any case - everybody wins.
Of course. This should all be rather obvious. I can't help but feel like I'm being baited for something.:)
My favourite/. quote is the one about Bill being just a monacle and a Persian cat away from being a Bond bad guy.
"Bill Gates is just a monocle and a Persian Cat away from being one of the bad guys in a James Bond movie." -- Dennis Miller
Sometimes its good to know the source of information. In the case of our quote, it actually comes from outside the Slashdot community. And while the quote outlines an idea that is often expressed within that community, the idea is not limited to it. Others are wary of Microsoft too.
Maybe though, before completely calling it a waste of code, we can judge the ideas on their technical merits and make fun of the marketing slime later?
The problem with Microsoft is that its impossible to separate the technology and the marketing. Marketing is infused in to everything Microsoft. The given functionality of any product is based on marketing. And indeed, even before the technology exists, the marketing is in full force.
It would be nice to judge a piece of technology solely on its own merits. But that would assume the technology exists to begin with. And even then, issues such as licensing and Microsoft's intent can have just as much impact to the consumer or a business IT infrastructure as some feature list.
Keep in mind this information comes from Microsoft's marketing. Remember history. And then ignore it at your own peril.
Welcome to humanity. Any time you put a group of people togeather, you're going to have to deal with politics. And one aspect of such politics is clashing egos - the pissing contest. I've seen such clashes in civic and arts groups, sports groups, military oragnizations, government organizations, and corporate organizations. I've seen it played out between entire work groups or divisions and within a small development group. It is certainly not a product of the open source community itself. It is a product of people.
The only possible difference is that the open source community is more transparent than most groups. Discussions, complaints, and outright fueds take place in public forums (and I'm sure there are more than a few goings-on behind closed doors too). And if the forum in question is too obscure for the majority, sites like Slashdot are sure to tune everyone in on the juicy details.
Steve Jobs supposedly claimed that creating was a messy process. Perhapse he's right. There will be disagreements and conflicting ideas. These will lead to code forks and duplicated effort. Projects will compete. Some will die. The successful ones will flourish.
Does it always have to be this way? No. A lot can be done with complete cooperation. But it is simply not within human nature to cooperate fully all the time - within open source projects or any other endeavor.
You'd think he would make a better comparison considering his background. Even if he wasn't up on the technology itself, surely he's aware of Doubleclick's history.
Maybe I misjudged Bob. He could be making a snide side-remark.
Sure - the initial knee-jerk reaction is concern for privacy. But thankfully, Bob Garfield ("ad critic for the trade magazine Advertising Age") asures us:
Garfield said the billboards are similar to Internet banner ads, which are sensitive to the user's Internet history.
Yea. Thanks. I feel better now, Bob.
Sure. He's got a point. Its not likely this particular bit of tech is all that intrusive. But he picked a horrible way of trying to make the point. Doubleclick was constantly criticized for their use of tracking cookies (and why I block them, but not neccissarily other ad banner sources). Then they were lambasted when, after several years of creating a database on tracking user traffic, went back on their word and announced they would use their newly purchased commercial mail database of US residents and attempt to merge the two; thus removing the promised annonymity.
Perhapse Bob will pick his comparisons better next time around. Of course, he's in the advertising industry. "Critic" or not - he's probably pretty clueless on the topic of personal privacy.
While Linus wrote Linux for a 386, that was kernel 0.0.1 way back in the early 90s. Things have changed, times have changed. And the grandparent post's supposedly levelheaded comparison of "just try running Windows XP on that machine" made me retch in disgust, as it was supposed to be a valid comparison? How about, "Let's see KDE3 run on a 386 with 8M ram." What an asshole. (I know someone will prove me wrong, but...) the only thing remotely useful that you could do on that machine is run vi.
In a way, we're running in to some of the fundimental differences between Windows and Linux (or any Unix-like environment, for that matter). With Windows, the GUI is an intrical part of the system. With Linux, it is not. And if you do throw a GUI in to the Linux mix... exactly what is your recipe? What version of X? What window manager? But do you really NEED the GUI?
I agree that the claims of Linux effeciency on antiquated hardware can be confusing. One is not going to have the latest desktop environment running on such minimal hardware (heck - most handhelds these days are more powerful). But on the other side of the argument, Linux is still useful even without its admittedly resource-heavy GUI environment(s).
I have seen 386 machines run *BSD and Linux to become web servers, firewalls, email servers, etc. Granted - these machines were for small networks. But they performed admirably at their task. Considerably more useful than simply running vi. And they used up-to-date code.
Whether India would find this a usefull point depends, of course. Pitty the poor sod who has to compile code on a scavenged 386 or 486. Unless, of course, the alternative would be nothing to compile code on at all.
You, sir, have won an express ticket to my foes list. Sure I *could* run Slackware 3 with Linux kernel 2.0 with barely any drivers loaded and just running c-shell (really slowly I might add) on that hardware, but not much else.
Of course you could just run DOS 6.22 on there as well.
As dubious as the origional poster's claim is... he still has a somewhat valid point. It is possible to make older systems functional under linux that simply would not be at all useful under the latest windows. Of course - Linux "cheats" - it doesn't NEED a GUI to operate.
I've given up on old 386 hardware, but I do have a 486 DX2-66 still running the latest Debian release (Unstable - currently with a Linux kernel 2.4.19). Its a very useful little machine for what I need it for. And the software is current - unlike the suggested DOS 6.22. Granted - this box could possibly handle Win95... but then, that is long past its EOL and is no longer developed. Unlike Linux.
By the way, I can get XP running faster than you can ever get KDE3/GNOME2 running on an identical system. That's a fact, not uninformed FUD.
Which brings up an interesting point. Its long been pointed out that Linux' GUI environment has had a bit of a disadvantage... XFree86. Granted, its a tradeoff. There are some advantages. But there has always been that hit on speed from a system like X Windows.
But I wonder if its beginning to not matter anymore.
As I traverse between my Linux and Windows workstations, I've always noted the performance hit for Linux. I'm a sucker for eye candy, so a great deal of that suffering is self-inflicted. But as my desktop hardware has become more powerful, and as the various cycle-sucking eye candy GUI components for Linux are improved, that difference is less and less noticeable.
The GUI is not the only benefactor here. Emulators such as VMWare and "compatability layers" like WINE/Transgaming/Crossover also enjoy the available spare cycles. Even when there is not a native port for the desired software package, running it under Linux is more often a valid option.
Sure, Microsoft has a well-deserved reputation for raising the minimal requirements for a desktop. And the mantra for Linux and its supporters has always been efficency. But in the end, it may be that Moore's Law is becoming more a friend to Linux than Microsoft.
Effecient design and constant improvement should continue to be a part of Linux development. And native applications are better than emulated environments. But it is less likely to be noticed when, for one reason or another, one is forced to rely more available cycles than the perfect ideal.
It should cause some gnashing of teeth in both the Windows and Linux camps. But the irony is that "good enough" has often been atributed to Microsoft's products. With more power in the avarage desktop, Linux may suddenly find itself the new "good enough".
Re:OT: Slashdot using Flash ads!!!
on
As the Spam Turns
·
· Score: 2
Check out the FAQ. Specifically talking about selling Slashdot and the PT Cruiser. Slashdot has not controled the ads for years. No wonder we get Doubleclick, Microsoft, and Flash showing up from time to time. But hey - that's what a nicely tuned Privoxy config is for.
I define commercial use as trying to sell a product on the Internet and communicate with customers. You send one single email to an unconfirmed email address and you can be blocked for days. Do that enough and you are out of business.
And what would it have taken to confirm that address? Perhapse ensure that you weren't opening yourself, and some unwitting third party, to abuse?
Slashdot Mirror
Actually - I find it kind of interesting you attribute IM shorthand with "nerd" behavior. I always considered shorthand a crutch for those who couldn't type fast enough to use regular words. Someone new to a keyboard. More mundane and less nerd, if you will.
Ironically, out of the adult population, its usually business types that I see using this. And an over-abundance of emoticons. They get some little IM dictionary with their two-way text pager and go hog-wild. They're now part of the "in" wired crowd and want to show it. Right before going back to some email full of terms like synergy and paradigm.
Having said that, to each their own. For me, it does interfere with communication. And it might be worth noting that. After all, its up to the writer to convey their message - even if it carries baggage they didn't intend. But I'm more than happy to let the author have their way.
I suppose spelling (your / you're) and other rules apply here too. But then, I'm pretty bad when it comes to that stuff. So I'll refrain from comment.
Military actions tend to lack the longstanding effectiveness of financial ones.
Its my impression that the market and consolidation within the telecom industry has created a large amount of Internet backbone centralization over the years. Thus, the worry over Worldcom.
India hardly suffers from a shortage of labor. The labor charge for administration and customization will be trivial compared to any licensing. Finding necessary applications won't be much of a problem unless they have a very niche requirement - and even then, a Linux infrastructure will likely work well for most of the environment.
And finally - training and support. You forget that India is growing their IT industry (and fighting brain-drain to some extent). Training is the entire point of the operation. Support exists in abundance with proper training (those stumped by "RTFM" forget that one either has to do some basic footwork oneself or pay for the expertise).
Open Source solutions won't always be the answer. But it will be more and more often. It all depends on the specifics of one's needs - what is being sought. India is wise to not allow a single corporate interest to dictate their search.
As someone else pointed out - a group moving from another Unix platform to Linux is a group not moving to Windows. I know that there are other Unix environments even within the Directorate that McCartney works that moved from HP/UX and Solaris to WinNT / 2K. Despite the engineer's preferences. Cheap hardware is a strong draw for management. Linux provides a link between the preferred Unix (or unix-like) environment and commodity hardware pricing.
It might also be worth mentioning that the more Linux is used, the more the JSC / NASA environment becomes used to seeing Linux. And once they're familiar with it, they're much more likely to accept it as a solution. Old biases against "freeware" fade. And "Microsoft" is no longer the knee-jerk response to any form of IT question.
Finally, you have to consider the internal politics within JSC's IT environment. JSC was, at the direction of CIO Jack Garman, heavily Microsoft centric. The great exodus of Mac workstations was due to this policy. As was the slow shift away from Unix to WinNT. Today, JSC is still widely Microsoft centric. The "requirement" mentioned has more to do with the need to handle certain Microsoft protocols and data formats for day-to-day office automation than specific policy. The fact that Linux solutions are being implemented shows that the old single-vendor mentality is no longer the guiding force within JSC. And that's a win for Linux... and everyone else. Except, perhaps, Microsoft.
Wow. Good point. Just think of all that money flowing out of third world countries due the the help of, now wealthy, random investors! Man. What a gold mine!
Of course - repetition of spam has nothing to do with sales. It has much, much more to do with the low cost nature of the medium. And the tactics involved.
Odd how during the whole Communications Decency Act squable, ISPs were trying really hard to establish, if not maintain, a common carrier status.
It might be worth noting that this is a major point of iDefense; payment for exploits. Its also been a source of criticism - be it valid or not.
I have to wonder if the delay was over verification of the exploit and the decission process involved in awarding payment for discovery. If payment wasn't a part of the process, would the system be faster to report? But then - would it have been reported in the first place?
Of course... you don't mind a history of unstable updates, an update process that will undo configurations or re-install components that have been removed for security concerns, nor security updates that re-define your license to the entire product.
To each their own. Click away.
After all, who needs to know whats running on their system or their rights as consumers.
This would make a much better comparison if clinic workers were grabbing thousands of random people off the streets and performing operations on them. It would be a better point if anti-spam sites listed the home addresses of spammers with violent speach, blood-dripping graphics, and X-ed off the portraits of those who had been murdered.
It does make one good point - physical threats against spammers do no good. But then, the focus of this story thread has not been threatening the spammer in question. It has been uncovering his operation. And repaying the "service" this individual has performed for so many others.
Perhapse it wasn't wise. But it does underscore that those behind these large scale spamming operations play rather fast and loose with morality and legal action. Those who decide to oppose spammers should keep this in mind and be prepared for this kind of behavior.
There are two interesting points to touch on.
First is that awareness of security issues is not automatic. I used to believe infosec issues were just a part of being a good system admin. Then I found myself working for a very forward-thinking IT company. And also found my group (corporate infosec) in constant struggle with the internal IT group over various issues - even basic infosec procedures. Its not that the IT group didn't have good admins - many were far better sysadmins than I ever was. Its that being familiar with a system does not mean one understands how to maliciously fail a system... or appreciate that people will seek to do just that. Infosec involves a healthy dose of paranoia. Not everyone has that.
Secondly, Microsoft is simply not geared to handle infosec issues. Microsoft is not run by developers and code quality is, at best, a minor focus point.
There was an article in Slate a few years back from an inside developer involved with Outlook (or Office - I forget which). One of the interesting tidbits of insight was that bugfix cycles always take a back seat to feature additions. The article noted that it wasn't too uncommon to be in the middle of a bughunt and have Marketing come down with a must-have feature to be added in. Bughunting would stop. Feature would be added. And now there was even less time to an already time-crunched bughunt cycle (and possibly new bugs generated by the new feature code).
There is also another intersting insider article that talks, amoung other things, the pace that Microsoft keeps. Its a fast pace, to say the least.
Is it any suprise that, under the pressure of this ultra-fast pace... one being driven by marketing, not development... that bugs make it to the final release? That there may be a fairly high number of bugs? And that these bugs may be exploited in a security context?
It might be worth noting that, sucky article or not, it could be something to pay attention to. As Shorti9 noted, the article may garner far more attention than it should. That means this half-baked article may be germinating ideas in an IT manager near you.
With this in mind, those in the IT industry trenches should welcome the chance to discuss this article, define the problems with its line of thinking and stated points, and be prepared to flog down the stupidity that'll spawn from it in our collective workplaces.
Yes and no. Using a STU-III (my sole experience - I have no idea if this system is current) is fairly simple. Enabling the crypto feature is as simple as turning a key-like device. So its almost like hitting a button. But that entirely ignores the issue of key management (the key-like device is rather like civilian smartcards).
It might be worth noting that this makes a rather interesting example. Conversations (and data - the STU-III can handle FAX and MODEM traffic too) are only protected when the encryption mechanism is engaged. Otherwise, its a standard phone. Which makes sense since most phone devices are not STU-IIIs. But it also relies on the end-user(s) for security.
The preceived weakness of the STU-III is not its encryption. The issue is that STU-III units are identified and heavily monitored for intelligence during unencrypted conversations before (or after ) encrypted communications. Information is gathered before users decide to engange the STU-III's encryption mechanism.
And that's a laudable goal. However, keep in mind that invisiblity is no holy grail either.
CCS was very "under the hood". Yet a mistake in one vendor's implementation has made the system all but worthless.
Microsoft's code signing is also another good "under the hood" example. But mistakes in issuing certificates as well as recent problems with faulty activex controls show that this system also has issues.
Fair enough. Linux (or perhapse more specifically KDE/GNOME) deserves criticism. Keeps everyone honest. And it reminds us that improvement is an ongoing process.
Having said that, I wouldn't describe all of Slashdot's anti-MS articles as a "FUD campaign". Microsoft is in a unique position on a couple of points. First, no matter what computing platform you use - you will be affected by Microsoft. Secondly, Microsoft has done a lot over the years to gain distrust. Considering these points, there is little wonder Slashdot includes a fair amount of Micrsoft articles. And those articles tend to be critical.
I wouldn't claim that these articles are 100% on-target. Criticism is a two-way street. But I would hardly label this as "anti-MS crap" or a "FUD campaign".
Ahhh. Now here's the interesting bit.
From their FAQ:
One of the interesting parts of another famous GPL release involved the media files. When iD release Quake I (and later Quake II) as GPL code, it covered only the code. The media files were not included. In the case of Quake I, some simply distribute the shareware release and use those files. Others began a free media project.
This seems to underline one of the problems currently facing Open Source games. Collaberation makes sense to coders. But it seems that the idea hasn't caught on with artists yet. It is currently more difficult to find someone able to generate good media than good code.
Secondly, IP holders seem to warm up to the idea of releaseing old code. But they're hesitant to release old media. Is it an irrational comparison between code and media? Or are the media files the real keys to the gaming kingdom?
In any case... looks like the project leaders are gunning for a "classic" port of the origional game. Once that's done, they'll be looking at new things. I'm sure your interest in new media would be welcomed then (which doesn't mean you can't get a jump on the whole process now).
Sure - you're a constant supporter of Microsoft. Others aren't.
Others have already pointed out that there is already work towards new media files for the game. But even if the current developers won't accept your work - doesn't mean you can't do it. Create it. Put it out there for the public. If this is something the community / public likes, it will catch on - and maybe make it back to the origional project. Or it'll remain its own "advanced" or "custom" fork. In any case - everybody wins.
Of course. This should all be rather obvious. I can't help but feel like I'm being baited for something.
"Bill Gates is just a monocle and a Persian Cat away from being one of the bad guys in a James Bond movie." -- Dennis Miller
Sometimes its good to know the source of information. In the case of our quote, it actually comes from outside the Slashdot community. And while the quote outlines an idea that is often expressed within that community, the idea is not limited to it. Others are wary of Microsoft too.
The problem with Microsoft is that its impossible to separate the technology and the marketing. Marketing is infused in to everything Microsoft. The given functionality of any product is based on marketing. And indeed, even before the technology exists, the marketing is in full force.
It would be nice to judge a piece of technology solely on its own merits. But that would assume the technology exists to begin with. And even then, issues such as licensing and Microsoft's intent can have just as much impact to the consumer or a business IT infrastructure as some feature list.
Keep in mind this information comes from Microsoft's marketing. Remember history. And then ignore it at your own peril.
Welcome to humanity. Any time you put a group of people togeather, you're going to have to deal with politics. And one aspect of such politics is clashing egos - the pissing contest. I've seen such clashes in civic and arts groups, sports groups, military oragnizations, government organizations, and corporate organizations. I've seen it played out between entire work groups or divisions and within a small development group. It is certainly not a product of the open source community itself. It is a product of people.
The only possible difference is that the open source community is more transparent than most groups. Discussions, complaints, and outright fueds take place in public forums (and I'm sure there are more than a few goings-on behind closed doors too). And if the forum in question is too obscure for the majority, sites like Slashdot are sure to tune everyone in on the juicy details.
Steve Jobs supposedly claimed that creating was a messy process. Perhapse he's right. There will be disagreements and conflicting ideas. These will lead to code forks and duplicated effort. Projects will compete. Some will die. The successful ones will flourish.
Does it always have to be this way? No. A lot can be done with complete cooperation. But it is simply not within human nature to cooperate fully all the time - within open source projects or any other endeavor.
I always knew all this nuclear testing would come around to bite us in the ass some day.
You'd think he would make a better comparison considering his background. Even if he wasn't up on the technology itself, surely he's aware of Doubleclick's history.
Maybe I misjudged Bob. He could be making a snide side-remark.
Or he just goofed.
(or more likely the reporter did)
Yea. Thanks. I feel better now, Bob.
Sure. He's got a point. Its not likely this particular bit of tech is all that intrusive. But he picked a horrible way of trying to make the point. Doubleclick was constantly criticized for their use of tracking cookies (and why I block them, but not neccissarily other ad banner sources). Then they were lambasted when, after several years of creating a database on tracking user traffic, went back on their word and announced they would use their newly purchased commercial mail database of US residents and attempt to merge the two; thus removing the promised annonymity.
Perhapse Bob will pick his comparisons better next time around. Of course, he's in the advertising industry. "Critic" or not - he's probably pretty clueless on the topic of personal privacy.
The PERV in front of you is listening to 'LOVE LINES'!
Paid for by:
The Moral Majority
In a way, we're running in to some of the fundimental differences between Windows and Linux (or any Unix-like environment, for that matter). With Windows, the GUI is an intrical part of the system. With Linux, it is not. And if you do throw a GUI in to the Linux mix... exactly what is your recipe? What version of X? What window manager? But do you really NEED the GUI?
I agree that the claims of Linux effeciency on antiquated hardware can be confusing. One is not going to have the latest desktop environment running on such minimal hardware (heck - most handhelds these days are more powerful). But on the other side of the argument, Linux is still useful even without its admittedly resource-heavy GUI environment(s).
I have seen 386 machines run *BSD and Linux to become web servers, firewalls, email servers, etc. Granted - these machines were for small networks. But they performed admirably at their task. Considerably more useful than simply running vi. And they used up-to-date code.
Whether India would find this a usefull point depends, of course. Pitty the poor sod who has to compile code on a scavenged 386 or 486. Unless, of course, the alternative would be nothing to compile code on at all.
As dubious as the origional poster's claim is... he still has a somewhat valid point. It is possible to make older systems functional under linux that simply would not be at all useful under the latest windows. Of course - Linux "cheats" - it doesn't NEED a GUI to operate.
I've given up on old 386 hardware, but I do have a 486 DX2-66 still running the latest Debian release (Unstable - currently with a Linux kernel 2.4.19). Its a very useful little machine for what I need it for. And the software is current - unlike the suggested DOS 6.22. Granted - this box could possibly handle Win95... but then, that is long past its EOL and is no longer developed. Unlike Linux.
Which brings up an interesting point. Its long been pointed out that Linux' GUI environment has had a bit of a disadvantage... XFree86. Granted, its a tradeoff. There are some advantages. But there has always been that hit on speed from a system like X Windows.
But I wonder if its beginning to not matter anymore.
As I traverse between my Linux and Windows workstations, I've always noted the performance hit for Linux. I'm a sucker for eye candy, so a great deal of that suffering is self-inflicted. But as my desktop hardware has become more powerful, and as the various cycle-sucking eye candy GUI components for Linux are improved, that difference is less and less noticeable.
The GUI is not the only benefactor here. Emulators such as VMWare and "compatability layers" like WINE/Transgaming/Crossover also enjoy the available spare cycles. Even when there is not a native port for the desired software package, running it under Linux is more often a valid option.
Sure, Microsoft has a well-deserved reputation for raising the minimal requirements for a desktop. And the mantra for Linux and its supporters has always been efficency. But in the end, it may be that Moore's Law is becoming more a friend to Linux than Microsoft.
Effecient design and constant improvement should continue to be a part of Linux development. And native applications are better than emulated environments. But it is less likely to be noticed when, for one reason or another, one is forced to rely more available cycles than the perfect ideal.
It should cause some gnashing of teeth in both the Windows and Linux camps. But the irony is that "good enough" has often been atributed to Microsoft's products. With more power in the avarage desktop, Linux may suddenly find itself the new "good enough".
Check out the FAQ. Specifically talking about selling Slashdot and the PT Cruiser. Slashdot has not controled the ads for years. No wonder we get Doubleclick, Microsoft, and Flash showing up from time to time. But hey - that's what a nicely tuned Privoxy config is for.
And what would it have taken to confirm that address? Perhapse ensure that you weren't opening yourself, and some unwitting third party, to abuse?