In this article, a former CIA operative Reuel Marc Gerecht writes:
According to Afghan contacts and Pakistani officials, bin Ladin's men regularly move through Peshawar and use it as a hub for phone, fax, and modem communication with the outside world.
Sure - the individual leader may not be a heavy user of technology... but it would seem, and simply make sense, that his people would make at least rudimentary use of modern communications devices. And in a manner that doesn't leave a tell-tale cable trailing back to Central HQ.
"...simple ones are the most effective.." followed by a sig with a so-called virus pleading the user to propogate it via direct action (copy and paste to their own sig). Joke.
Peter Shipley did that in San Fransisco and found smaling like 2500 access points. The only way this will ever be fixed is if companies realize that you cannot depend on protocol level security.
I agree... but I think for different reasons than most people may think. The technology discussed in this thread tends to be viewed as a mechanism to secure access to the internal network (or external internet - I suspect abuse of resources will become a big issue eventually). That's only part of the issue brought forth by wireless network equipment.
A lot of assumptions are being made on how corporate IT departments deploy wireless networks. And it is a valid issue. Security does not come naturally to a large segment of IT professionals. However, it isn't the only issue.
My favorite point to harp on is - rogue access points.
Wireless network access points are (relatively) cheap. They're designed to go from box to plug-n-play insecure (damned that functionalty vs. security inverse thing) on the network in a few quick, easy steps. This will lead to a large number of corporate internal networks becoming exposed to external, and considerably less noticable, access as individuals begin to provide their own wireless connectivity. And it will be unlikely this issue will go away anytime soon.
The internal network is now a hostile environment (as if it wasn't already). Interenal security practices must be considered and secure protocols implemented. It'll be a hassle for a lot of organizations who have relied on firewalls to provide the hard, crunchy exterior to protect the chewy goodness of the internal network.
It's rather interesting watching slashbots make smug comments about "Microsoft worms" and "Outlook viruses" when the two most damaging worms that have occured this year could have appeared on any platform.
That's true. And they have. You've mentioned the Ramen worm (which was actually more complex than Code Red - taking advantage of 3 exploits). There was li0n. And sadmind (spreading accross Solaris machines, then defacing IIS sites).
They're out there. There are plenty of Linux and Solaris servers to populate. Where's the big outcry and doom stories accompanying all the horrid damage done by these worms?
There are a few possible things happening here. Its possible these systems are better administered - set up and actively administered by knowledgable administrators. Its possible that these machines aren't deployed with everything possible running. Its also possible that these platforms are simply easier to secure and patch.
In any case, the smuggness isn't entirely out of place.
Wow. I finally finished the whole story. And I have to admit, I was surprised at the ending. Its like a good murder mystery. Sure, we no at the end murder was done. But there?s a great twist in this story as to who the guilty party was. And just how a disreputable spammer manages to keep their fat pipe running with the help of a court injunction.
(spoiler warning)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
OK. So throughout the hearing, the judge is pretty hot on the trail of the Plaintiff. Sure, the Defendant?s notice of termination letter brought up some questions (a sub-plot I expect to see played out in detail during the sequel). But the Plaintiff is unable to prove that their email list is, in fact, opt-in and even admits to abusing the Network Solutions whois database for unsolicited commercial email (SPAM).
And then the Judge plunges us in to the plot twist. The butler did it; its the ISP?s fault.
We should have known it all along. First the Defendant should have known better than to do a deal with the Devil - a disreputable spammer. And they even agreed to the Devil?s own terms - a 2% worm hole. Plenty of room to wiggle through the threat of service termination.
But the final blow... the act of injustice itself... is failing to show damage caused by Monsterhut. The judge at one point admits to having a grandson who knew more about computers than he did. And in the end, he describes home computers as sometimes frustrating and that he could understand how interruptions in personal and professional email would be annoying. But he failed to see the damage Monsterhut could do, while Monsterhut was able to demonstrate the damage that they would suffer from termination of service. And so we?re left with the final, grisly scene - the stammer gets their injunction and the status quo is maintained until the actual court case.
And so, this leads me to wonder... IS there damage that will / can be done to the ISP? Can the upstream provider cut off (or filter outgoing SMTP traffic from) the ISP since they are unable to control a spammer THEY had decided to do business with?
The parent as a whole owns the work, of which a small portion was submitted by different authors. There is no taking away the GPL'd version you wrote.I think it all matters is how much you wrote and how you went about releasing the software. It is a somewhat murky ground if for example you wanted to keep some of it, but this is pretty easily resolvable.
Just to clarify the point...
What we're dealing with is who owns what code. In its simplest terms - each entity owns its own code. The GPL, of course, does nothing to alter ownership of the code - it simply defines licencing... who can use the code and how they can use it. Contributed code still remains in the ownership of those who wrote it.
You can relicense the code you own. If you don't own the code, you must first obtain ownership or the appropriate permission / license for it. Or replace it.
In other relicensed projects / products, replacing contributions were apparently trivial (or at least worth the expense). This may also be the case here.
I'd like to advise everyone to hit the link, grab some documents (especially the transcript) and have a good read. I've found the transcript fascinating and I'm only at pg. 47.
Some interesting points so far...
The biggest part of the case is whether this was actually a case of unsolicited email or not. The Defendant has stated that they believed Monsterhut was an opt-in advertising service when, in fact, they buy their lists externally with the apparent assumption that these are genuine opt-in customers.
The Plaintiff has pointed to a provision in the contract that allows for a 2% complaint rate to avoid immediate termination of their contract. First, whoever agreed to this for the ISP should be shot considering the sheer amount of traffic Monsterhut can throw out and the number of spam messages that 2% allows for (the Plaintiff even mentions a number over 6 million outgoing messages to date, if I remember right). Apparently, this provision exists to protect Monsterhut from users who opt-in but later forget (or change their minds). When the ISP receives complaints, they are to forward them to Monsterhut who will verify the address, validity of the complaint, and apparently make the appropriate changes to their database. Makes you warm and fuzzy to know your complaints are, in fact, going directly to the spammer.
An interesting side effect to all this is the ability to verify individuals. Quite a lot of attention is paid to whether the individuals could be identified according to their email addresses and the fact that SpamCop removes this information. It seems this comes in to play during the complaint / remediation process. But it is even more important when dealing with the court. The Defense pointed out that the Plaintiff had ample opportunity to subpoena SpamCop for identifying information, but failed to do so.
One final interesting tidbit... the Judge wanted to define the difference the Defense saw between a case of one of the 2% mistaken users and a "true spam" case. The Defense began to talk about harvested email accounts that are not user email accounts, such as those used for contacts in Network Solution's whois database. The Plaintiff apparently perks up on this, grabs the ball, and attempts to run. It appears that Monsterhut does "use Network Solutions" to identify businesses offering services that could be marketed by Monsterhut. Since they only send mail out to, say, 5 "targeted" customers... why... this isn't the kind of mass emailings that we're all talking about. Not spam at all. Nosir.
Why aren't you complaining that the lazy developers at Mozilla/Netscape, Opera, etc. are not adapting to the REAL defacto standard of ActiveX?
That's the problem right there - just how is ActiveX ANY kind of standard (defacto or not)? The closest thing to a standard ActiveX manages is Microsoft's standard. Nobody else's.
Where do you draw the line? It's quite arbitrary. Why shouldn't we just remove all multimedia and images altogether to make everything "compliant" with Mosaic? Why, we can't leave THEM out, they're cross-platform.
Of course - the img tag IS a standard. Whether Mosaic has implemented it is not the issue.
But for all your posturing, you've stumbled on one valid point. When do we not get upset about non-standard extensions? It doesn't happen. Netscape pushed forward the development of HTML standards by creating their own extensions while pushing standards bodies to adopt them (or adopting extensions before they became standards - can't remember the exact timing off-hand). Netscape had its detractors (for valid reasons, IMHO, although I'm not critical). The difference is - these non-standard extensions were easy to adopt, were not platform specific, and were presented by Netscape to become standards to the appropriate bodies.
ActiveX follows none of this.
Once again - Microsoft is NOT following a standard. They are NOT being criticised for following a standard. They are being criticised for forcing development towards a solution that exists nowhere else but on their own platform.
You'd have a point if video editing and 3D rendering were in the same niche and Apple had much of a share in 3D rendering.
Fair enough. There is quite a leap from one application to another. And Linux has yet to make that jump.
But the point I'm trying to make is - why discount Linux as unable to MAKE that jump? Linux made inroads in professional movie production handling server farm hardware. Now its showing up running workstation hardware (and not just for 3D rendering - I can't find the article, but I remember reading a studio had developed inhouse applications for storyboarding and inking animation frames). Movie studio professionals are being exposed to, and becoming comfortable, with Linux. Why wouldn't these same professionals start looking at Linux as a solution for video editing?
If I had aimed my hopes on a niche market, and watched other's niche markets slowly invaded by Linux (ie: SGI), I might be a bit wary of it myself. Especially if neither my software NOR hardware really was included as Linux's selling point.
In short - I could understand Apple being wary of Linux... if, in fact, that's what is actually happening.
Where Quicktime runs has nothing to do with it. The point is that an activex control is NOT anywhere near to standards complient (strike your "oh woe for the unfair bashing of microsoft" troll). Netscapes' interface has become a defacto standard in so far as many browsers (including IE) support it and it doesn't require a platform specific architecture to implement.
Uhhh....does _anyone_ do professional digital video production on a linux box? (Hint: no.)
Your point may be valid - I'm not aware of any professional studios using Linux for video editing. But I think you might be dismissing a trend. Linux is making headway in the film industry.
Two examples are Pixar (noteably Shrek) and Square (Final Fantasy). Linux has been doing some heavy lifting in render farms for a while now. But note that its also showing up as workstations. Existing product lines and tools are being ported to Linux, and some production houses are generating their own internal tools.
This might not be a solid example of Linux in video editing today - but it does show Linux could compete with Apple for the same niche markets in the future.
A friend of mine once referred to hardening a Windows box as "breaking it gracefully".
Unix systems tend to allow for various services and libraries to be installed and/or removed as neccessary (which doesn't prevent a developer from deciding to require an insecure library or function, but that's another issue). Windows does strange things when you remove what would seem to be unrelated components. A good hardening guide, where someone else has already traversed that minefield, is priceless.
Praise Microsoft for helping open up the PC hardware market.
MicroSoft deserves credit for a major change within the growing personal computer industry. It took it a while from happening. But it sent ripples throughout the industry, forcing established giants to take notice, and enabled MicroSoft to be come the giant that we know today.
In the early period of the microcomputer industry, it was all about hardware. Computer companies were hardware companies. Software packages (applications as well as operating systems) were almost comodities - they were offerings that facilitated the selling of hardware. And while the operating system, or the killer app, might have been key to selling hardware - software companies weren't power houses.
MicoSoft played that game. Most accounts show MicoSoft as being a small company doggedly nipping at the heels of giants, digging up business. They provided software to everyone from the makers of the Altair, to IBM, to Tandy. And when IBM fumbled control of the IBM PC platform and clones sprung up like mushrooms? More business for MicroSoft. And their business exploded as the industry took off.
Suddenly, computer hardware became a commodity. Microsoft was now the gatekeeper to this commodity hardware. What they did... what they decided... was suddenly very important to even the giant hardware manufactorers.
Microsoft helped legitimize the software industry. Software companies could stand on their own with legitimate products. Even the most conservative consumer didn't blink at paying a large sum of money for a shrinkwrapped box that contained just a manual and some media (even paving the way today where its legitimate to pay for a download - no physical product at all).
Sure - software companies existed before and during Microsoft. Microsoft didn't introduce killer apps like VisiCalc and Wordstar. But Microsoft was an important part of that transition.
Or were they simply riding the wave?
One final thought. This week's news is full of debate over WindowsXP. Consumer advocates want to delay release of Microsoft's new flagship product. Industry pundits warn that this delay will cause millions of lost revenue in the computer industry. Only a small portion of that lost revenue would be Microsoft's.
Think about that.
Software, and Microsoft itself, is now so important that an entire industry of hardware manufactorers are depending on the actions of a completely unrelated software company.
It's the 20th anniversary of the first -IBM- pc, not the PC. The altair was made in 1975 or so, was it not?
I've been pondering the personal computer over this the past week. TechTV had asked if IBM was responcible for the popularity of the PC. While most people keyed on "PC" as being "IBM PC" and debated IBM's role in introducing the product line... I thought of "PC" as "personal computer" and thought back to a series of home computers before and after the IBM PC.
I had thought of the Altair... but dismissed it.
I see the label "personal computer" as denoting a consumer device. The Altair was a microcomputer for the home enthusiast. But it required an electronics hobbiest, and perhapse a mathmatics enthusiast, to put togeather and enjoy.
Apple was the first to realize the personal computer - not only a pre-constructed motherboard, but one that included a keyboard, a video driver (and a slick hack, at that) all in a custom plastic case. Granted - it may have taken a computer geek to appreciate it at first. But it paved the way for a killer app (the spreadsheet - VisiCalc, if I remember right) to make the personal computer a standard fixture in offices. And once it was in the office, the personal computer began showing up in households that otherwise wouldn't have had a computer.
I make it sound like the industry WAS Apple. I don't believe that. IBM had an important role. But that role was not origionating the "personal computer".
Well that's kind of my point, it wasn't so much the technology that was the problem it was the roll-out of the technology that caused the problem.
Sure. Even the best technology is dangerous (some more than others) if its not deployed correctly. But wireless brings in a few new variables network managers may not be thinking about, and the glossy pamphlets are certainly not mentioning.
Corporate security structure tends to have a tough shell, with a nice creamy center. That is - security revolves around firewalls to protect the internal network with very little internal security (the logistics of internal security can be insane). A part of this security posture also relies on controlling physical access.
Wireless networking creates havoc with this model.
First, as in my previous example, you have the issue of rogue access points. The equipment tends to come as plug-in-and-go magic boxes. Which provides a functioning access point - but one that has had absolutely no security configuration. Unknowing employees, with the intent to get their laptops running in a conference room or even at the beach down the road (true story), suddenly expand the "internal" network to well beyond what was normally a physical boundry - the building itself.
This is not a minor issue. Before, rogue (and/or potentially dangerous) network equipment (and services) could be disabled with proper firewall rules. There is no such choke-point with wireless access points (heck - they're easier to set up than a MODEM).
It becomes a game of whack-a-mole as you try to hunt down and disable rogue access points. One of our guys built a script that did occasional nmap scans, looking for signigures of known wireless access point hardware. It provided a method to find access points and a step towards shutting them down. But it is far from perfect.
So now this leads to the current news. Network managers who were relying on the strength of WAP will have to reconsider their strategy. Many won't be aware of recent events.
I suspect a lucky few (who are knowledgable and either don't have to fight, or are successful at the political battle with their corporate user base) will be able to deploy sanctioned access points external to their network (on the "big bad internet" side of the firewall) and rely on some sort of VPN solution for internal access.
But that doesn't solve the issues of resource abuse or rogue access points.
Sure. Its all about deployment. But that's still a pretty sizable issue. And its one a lot of managers will have to tackle. Wireless networking technology IS very cool / empowering / usefull.
I'm kinda curious if this guy worked for the same company I worked for. I saw the same thing.
Marketing began pushing wireless access points out in to the corporate business units (heavy discounts for the equipment). They began showing up on internal networks and home networks (that are, via ADSL and ISDN, connected to the internal LAN).
It was a nightmare.
Suddenly our internal network - a network we don't allow access to from the lobby, cafeterea, or other more-or-less external points - became accessable to anyone hanging out in the parking lot with a laptop (or PDA) and a wireless network card.
A lot of backpeddling had to be done. And thus began the new game of whack-a-rogue-access-point-mole.
Would I go in to detail about the company and specific internal policies? No. That wouldn't be right. But it was a big company with a big problem. Wireless.
Does anyone remember the article a while ago, I think in Wired, that detailed the escapades of a couple guys bombing around Silicon Valley with a directional antenna hooked to an 802.11 card?
I used to work for [big network hardware company]. One of the long-running jokes was to look out our windows and see if any new antennas were showing up on [another big network company]'s buildings within a short line of sight from us. Call it morbid humor.
We built 802.11 gear, marketed that gear, and ate our own dogfood. Renegade 802.11 access points became a major issue. Our folks walked around the campus with a WinCE device and network card negotiating to internal networks in (almost) all buildings.
But that wasn't the incident to drive the issue home.
It seems some non-employees were using the light rail to go to work the day after attending some networking convention. They had bought some of our wireless NICs and happened to have them in their laptops when, suddenly, they found themselves on someones network. Ours. Since they knew some of our guys, they sent an email pointing this out. That email made the rounds fairly quickly.
The joke that not only do we provide equipment for the Internet, but also public access to it? More gallows humor. I'm not sure if it was appreciated by management.
Lucas should have embellished the title a little more to "Attack of the Killer Clones from Outer Space", though hopefully it won't be quite that hokey (cross fingers).
That suggestion is too close to the runner-up tittle of "The Empire Plan 9 from Outer Space" which, after much heated debate and several small skirmishes amoung the writers, lost out to the current tittle. We can only hope this doesn't come up again less we have yet another "Retro SciFi" jihad amoung Lucas' staff. There's still "double latte white chocolate mocha" fallout in the conference room ceiling tiles from the last one.
Dude, You burn the strings off, not cut them. Burning them with a lighter will help prevent the strings from unraveling....at least that's what they taught us in boot camp.
Yep. Some people like burning the strings. When I went through Basic Training (different brance of service:), lighters weren't available (no smoking). However, later in tech school some brought out their lighters.
I've always used a blade of some sort (clippers, scissors, or razor). I've never had any BDUs unravel.
Who knows. Fire is just one of those things. Its fun to work with. Some folks swore that setting fresh boot polish alight helped create a better, tougher shine.
I agree. But I specifically like military-issue BDU pants.
All pockets are comfortable and fairly large. The side cargo pockets can accomodate a few small items like a PDA to large items such as your favorite beverage (each pocket can easily hold 12oz 3 cans). The pockets are sewen in a way that allows you to leave the forward buttons unbuttoned to easily slip items in and out without fear of them slipping out on their own.
I tend to like the stereotypical black BDU, but you can get them in a number of other solid colors which don't stand out as much as the numerous cammo varients. You can get different "weights" - usually summer and winter. I prefer the lighter summer weights as they breath well and are even comfortable in the humid southern US. A cotton and polyester blend avoids fading as much as 100% cotton (which fades and wears fairly quickly). Otherwise, BDU pants are very well constructed and will take a good beating (although you have to take some scissors and de-string all the loose sewing threads).
There are two problems with BDU pants. First, your items don't have much protection. You have to keep that in mind as you sit in a tight chair, lie down, or otherwise squeeze between things.
The second issue is fashion. BDU pants won't be acceptable in more strict environments. However, they do look fine with both T-Shirts and polo shirts.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure - the individual leader may not be a heavy user of technology... but it would seem, and simply make sense, that his people would make at least rudimentary use of modern communications devices. And in a manner that doesn't leave a tell-tale cable trailing back to Central HQ.
(sigh) Too much Quake this weekend...
Granted - the whole situation is a bit of a joke.
Careful. Sometimes its the simple ones that are most effecive.
---
Hi! I'm a sig virus! Please copy and paste me to your signature file so that I may propagate!
A lot of assumptions are being made on how corporate IT departments deploy wireless networks. And it is a valid issue. Security does not come naturally to a large segment of IT professionals. However, it isn't the only issue.
My favorite point to harp on is - rogue access points.
Wireless network access points are (relatively) cheap. They're designed to go from box to plug-n-play insecure (damned that functionalty vs. security inverse thing) on the network in a few quick, easy steps. This will lead to a large number of corporate internal networks becoming exposed to external, and considerably less noticable, access as individuals begin to provide their own wireless connectivity. And it will be unlikely this issue will go away anytime soon.
The internal network is now a hostile environment (as if it wasn't already). Interenal security practices must be considered and secure protocols implemented. It'll be a hassle for a lot of organizations who have relied on firewalls to provide the hard, crunchy exterior to protect the chewy goodness of the internal network.
Crunch.
That's true. And they have. You've mentioned the Ramen worm (which was actually more complex than Code Red - taking advantage of 3 exploits). There was li0n. And sadmind (spreading accross Solaris machines, then defacing IIS sites).
They're out there. There are plenty of Linux and Solaris servers to populate. Where's the big outcry and doom stories accompanying all the horrid damage done by these worms?
There are a few possible things happening here. Its possible these systems are better administered - set up and actively administered by knowledgable administrators. Its possible that these machines aren't deployed with everything possible running. Its also possible that these platforms are simply easier to secure and patch.
In any case, the smuggness isn't entirely out of place.
(spoiler warning)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
OK. So throughout the hearing, the judge is pretty hot on the trail of the Plaintiff. Sure, the Defendant?s notice of termination letter brought up some questions (a sub-plot I expect to see played out in detail during the sequel). But the Plaintiff is unable to prove that their email list is, in fact, opt-in and even admits to abusing the Network Solutions whois database for unsolicited commercial email (SPAM).
And then the Judge plunges us in to the plot twist. The butler did it; its the ISP?s fault.
We should have known it all along. First the Defendant should have known better than to do a deal with the Devil - a disreputable spammer. And they even agreed to the Devil?s own terms - a 2% worm hole. Plenty of room to wiggle through the threat of service termination.
But the final blow... the act of injustice itself... is failing to show damage caused by Monsterhut. The judge at one point admits to having a grandson who knew more about computers than he did. And in the end, he describes home computers as sometimes frustrating and that he could understand how interruptions in personal and professional email would be annoying. But he failed to see the damage Monsterhut could do, while Monsterhut was able to demonstrate the damage that they would suffer from termination of service. And so we?re left with the final, grisly scene - the stammer gets their injunction and the status quo is maintained until the actual court case.
And so, this leads me to wonder... IS there damage that will / can be done to the ISP? Can the upstream provider cut off (or filter outgoing SMTP traffic from) the ISP since they are unable to control a spammer THEY had decided to do business with?
Just to clarify the point...
What we're dealing with is who owns what code. In its simplest terms - each entity owns its own code. The GPL, of course, does nothing to alter ownership of the code - it simply defines licencing... who can use the code and how they can use it. Contributed code still remains in the ownership of those who wrote it.
You can relicense the code you own. If you don't own the code, you must first obtain ownership or the appropriate permission / license for it. Or replace it.
In other relicensed projects / products, replacing contributions were apparently trivial (or at least worth the expense). This may also be the case here.
Some interesting points so far...
The biggest part of the case is whether this was actually a case of unsolicited email or not. The Defendant has stated that they believed Monsterhut was an opt-in advertising service when, in fact, they buy their lists externally with the apparent assumption that these are genuine opt-in customers.
The Plaintiff has pointed to a provision in the contract that allows for a 2% complaint rate to avoid immediate termination of their contract. First, whoever agreed to this for the ISP should be shot considering the sheer amount of traffic Monsterhut can throw out and the number of spam messages that 2% allows for (the Plaintiff even mentions a number over 6 million outgoing messages to date, if I remember right). Apparently, this provision exists to protect Monsterhut from users who opt-in but later forget (or change their minds). When the ISP receives complaints, they are to forward them to Monsterhut who will verify the address, validity of the complaint, and apparently make the appropriate changes to their database. Makes you warm and fuzzy to know your complaints are, in fact, going directly to the spammer.
An interesting side effect to all this is the ability to verify individuals. Quite a lot of attention is paid to whether the individuals could be identified according to their email addresses and the fact that SpamCop removes this information. It seems this comes in to play during the complaint / remediation process. But it is even more important when dealing with the court. The Defense pointed out that the Plaintiff had ample opportunity to subpoena SpamCop for identifying information, but failed to do so.
One final interesting tidbit... the Judge wanted to define the difference the Defense saw between a case of one of the 2% mistaken users and a "true spam" case. The Defense began to talk about harvested email accounts that are not user email accounts, such as those used for contacts in Network Solution's whois database. The Plaintiff apparently perks up on this, grabs the ball, and attempts to run. It appears that Monsterhut does "use Network Solutions" to identify businesses offering services that could be marketed by Monsterhut. Since they only send mail out to, say, 5 "targeted" customers... why... this isn't the kind of mass emailings that we're all talking about. Not spam at all. Nosir.
That's the problem right there - just how is ActiveX ANY kind of standard (defacto or not)? The closest thing to a standard ActiveX manages is Microsoft's standard. Nobody else's.Of course - the img tag IS a standard. Whether Mosaic has implemented it is not the issue.
But for all your posturing, you've stumbled on one valid point. When do we not get upset about non-standard extensions? It doesn't happen. Netscape pushed forward the development of HTML standards by creating their own extensions while pushing standards bodies to adopt them (or adopting extensions before they became standards - can't remember the exact timing off-hand). Netscape had its detractors (for valid reasons, IMHO, although I'm not critical). The difference is - these non-standard extensions were easy to adopt, were not platform specific, and were presented by Netscape to become standards to the appropriate bodies.
ActiveX follows none of this.
Once again - Microsoft is NOT following a standard. They are NOT being criticised for following a standard. They are being criticised for forcing development towards a solution that exists nowhere else but on their own platform.
Fair enough. There is quite a leap from one application to another. And Linux has yet to make that jump.
But the point I'm trying to make is - why discount Linux as unable to MAKE that jump? Linux made inroads in professional movie production handling server farm hardware. Now its showing up running workstation hardware (and not just for 3D rendering - I can't find the article, but I remember reading a studio had developed inhouse applications for storyboarding and inking animation frames). Movie studio professionals are being exposed to, and becoming comfortable, with Linux. Why wouldn't these same professionals start looking at Linux as a solution for video editing?
If I had aimed my hopes on a niche market, and watched other's niche markets slowly invaded by Linux (ie: SGI), I might be a bit wary of it myself. Especially if neither my software NOR hardware really was included as Linux's selling point.
In short - I could understand Apple being wary of Linux... if, in fact, that's what is actually happening.
Where Quicktime runs has nothing to do with it. The point is that an activex control is NOT anywhere near to standards complient (strike your "oh woe for the unfair bashing of microsoft" troll). Netscapes' interface has become a defacto standard in so far as many browsers (including IE) support it and it doesn't require a platform specific architecture to implement.
Your point may be valid - I'm not aware of any professional studios using Linux for video editing. But I think you might be dismissing a trend. Linux is making headway in the film industry.
Two examples are Pixar (noteably Shrek) and Square (Final Fantasy). Linux has been doing some heavy lifting in render farms for a while now. But note that its also showing up as workstations. Existing product lines and tools are being ported to Linux, and some production houses are generating their own internal tools.
This might not be a solid example of Linux in video editing today - but it does show Linux could compete with Apple for the same niche markets in the future.
Eh? I was always under the impression MS got its Industry Hardball Bag-o-Tricks Start Kit from IBM.
And then they began refining the art...
You're saying ActiveX controls are standards compliant?
At least the non-standards compliant EMBED tag was supported by a wider range of browsers and wasn't platform-specific.
Unix systems tend to allow for various services and libraries to be installed and/or removed as neccessary (which doesn't prevent a developer from deciding to require an insecure library or function, but that's another issue). Windows does strange things when you remove what would seem to be unrelated components. A good hardening guide, where someone else has already traversed that minefield, is priceless.
In the early period of the microcomputer industry, it was all about hardware. Computer companies were hardware companies. Software packages (applications as well as operating systems) were almost comodities - they were offerings that facilitated the selling of hardware. And while the operating system, or the killer app, might have been key to selling hardware - software companies weren't power houses.
MicoSoft played that game. Most accounts show MicoSoft as being a small company doggedly nipping at the heels of giants, digging up business. They provided software to everyone from the makers of the Altair, to IBM, to Tandy. And when IBM fumbled control of the IBM PC platform and clones sprung up like mushrooms? More business for MicroSoft. And their business exploded as the industry took off.
Suddenly, computer hardware became a commodity. Microsoft was now the gatekeeper to this commodity hardware. What they did... what they decided... was suddenly very important to even the giant hardware manufactorers.
Microsoft helped legitimize the software industry. Software companies could stand on their own with legitimate products. Even the most conservative consumer didn't blink at paying a large sum of money for a shrinkwrapped box that contained just a manual and some media (even paving the way today where its legitimate to pay for a download - no physical product at all).
Sure - software companies existed before and during Microsoft. Microsoft didn't introduce killer apps like VisiCalc and Wordstar. But Microsoft was an important part of that transition.
Or were they simply riding the wave?
One final thought. This week's news is full of debate over WindowsXP. Consumer advocates want to delay release of Microsoft's new flagship product. Industry pundits warn that this delay will cause millions of lost revenue in the computer industry. Only a small portion of that lost revenue would be Microsoft's.
Think about that.
Software, and Microsoft itself, is now so important that an entire industry of hardware manufactorers are depending on the actions of a completely unrelated software company.
It has been a profound change, indeed.
I had thought of the Altair... but dismissed it.
I see the label "personal computer" as denoting a consumer device. The Altair was a microcomputer for the home enthusiast. But it required an electronics hobbiest, and perhapse a mathmatics enthusiast, to put togeather and enjoy.
Apple was the first to realize the personal computer - not only a pre-constructed motherboard, but one that included a keyboard, a video driver (and a slick hack, at that) all in a custom plastic case. Granted - it may have taken a computer geek to appreciate it at first. But it paved the way for a killer app (the spreadsheet - VisiCalc, if I remember right) to make the personal computer a standard fixture in offices. And once it was in the office, the personal computer began showing up in households that otherwise wouldn't have had a computer.
I make it sound like the industry WAS Apple. I don't believe that. IBM had an important role. But that role was not origionating the "personal computer".
Corporate security structure tends to have a tough shell, with a nice creamy center. That is - security revolves around firewalls to protect the internal network with very little internal security (the logistics of internal security can be insane). A part of this security posture also relies on controlling physical access.
Wireless networking creates havoc with this model.
First, as in my previous example, you have the issue of rogue access points. The equipment tends to come as plug-in-and-go magic boxes. Which provides a functioning access point - but one that has had absolutely no security configuration. Unknowing employees, with the intent to get their laptops running in a conference room or even at the beach down the road (true story), suddenly expand the "internal" network to well beyond what was normally a physical boundry - the building itself.
This is not a minor issue. Before, rogue (and/or potentially dangerous) network equipment (and services) could be disabled with proper firewall rules. There is no such choke-point with wireless access points (heck - they're easier to set up than a MODEM).
It becomes a game of whack-a-mole as you try to hunt down and disable rogue access points. One of our guys built a script that did occasional nmap scans, looking for signigures of known wireless access point hardware. It provided a method to find access points and a step towards shutting them down. But it is far from perfect.
So now this leads to the current news. Network managers who were relying on the strength of WAP will have to reconsider their strategy. Many won't be aware of recent events.
I suspect a lucky few (who are knowledgable and either don't have to fight, or are successful at the political battle with their corporate user base) will be able to deploy sanctioned access points external to their network (on the "big bad internet" side of the firewall) and rely on some sort of VPN solution for internal access.
But that doesn't solve the issues of resource abuse or rogue access points.
Sure. Its all about deployment. But that's still a pretty sizable issue. And its one a lot of managers will have to tackle. Wireless networking technology IS very cool / empowering / usefull.
Marketing began pushing wireless access points out in to the corporate business units (heavy discounts for the equipment). They began showing up on internal networks and home networks (that are, via ADSL and ISDN, connected to the internal LAN).
It was a nightmare.
Suddenly our internal network - a network we don't allow access to from the lobby, cafeterea, or other more-or-less external points - became accessable to anyone hanging out in the parking lot with a laptop (or PDA) and a wireless network card.
A lot of backpeddling had to be done. And thus began the new game of whack-a-rogue-access-point-mole.
Would I go in to detail about the company and specific internal policies? No. That wouldn't be right. But it was a big company with a big problem. Wireless.
We built 802.11 gear, marketed that gear, and ate our own dogfood. Renegade 802.11 access points became a major issue. Our folks walked around the campus with a WinCE device and network card negotiating to internal networks in (almost) all buildings.
But that wasn't the incident to drive the issue home.
It seems some non-employees were using the light rail to go to work the day after attending some networking convention. They had bought some of our wireless NICs and happened to have them in their laptops when, suddenly, they found themselves on someones network. Ours. Since they knew some of our guys, they sent an email pointing this out. That email made the rounds fairly quickly.
The joke that not only do we provide equipment for the Internet, but also public access to it? More gallows humor. I'm not sure if it was appreciated by management.
I've always used a blade of some sort (clippers, scissors, or razor). I've never had any BDUs unravel.
Who knows. Fire is just one of those things. Its fun to work with. Some folks swore that setting fresh boot polish alight helped create a better, tougher shine.
All pockets are comfortable and fairly large. The side cargo pockets can accomodate a few small items like a PDA to large items such as your favorite beverage (each pocket can easily hold 12oz 3 cans). The pockets are sewen in a way that allows you to leave the forward buttons unbuttoned to easily slip items in and out without fear of them slipping out on their own.
I tend to like the stereotypical black BDU, but you can get them in a number of other solid colors which don't stand out as much as the numerous cammo varients. You can get different "weights" - usually summer and winter. I prefer the lighter summer weights as they breath well and are even comfortable in the humid southern US. A cotton and polyester blend avoids fading as much as 100% cotton (which fades and wears fairly quickly). Otherwise, BDU pants are very well constructed and will take a good beating (although you have to take some scissors and de-string all the loose sewing threads).
There are two problems with BDU pants. First, your items don't have much protection. You have to keep that in mind as you sit in a tight chair, lie down, or otherwise squeeze between things.
The second issue is fashion. BDU pants won't be acceptable in more strict environments. However, they do look fine with both T-Shirts and polo shirts.