...you only need to persuade managers that our "solution" (including support etc) will cover their ass should anything go wrong.
Oddly enough, my first reaction on reading the article tittle was "forget Solaris - try getting SUPPORT out of Sun / Oracle even when you have a contract."
And on the pedestal these words appear: "My name is Ozymandias, king of kings: Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!" Nothing beside remains. Round the decay Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare The lone and level sands stretch far away.
Re:Seven years for eight hours work
on
Novell Wins vs. SCO
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
These guys solicit money from these "interested investors", they put together a really bad film crew, some really bad actors and they make a movie. Sometimes they hire a has been or two for walk ons, they put together a lame party for the "investors" with the has beens as main course.
Excellent. Then we'll discover that Murdoch's empire isn't the sole source of news in the world. Either it isn't from the beginning, or the void will soon be filled.
"Your same data shows that this version has a history of vulnerabilities." - by _Sprocket_ (42527) on Thursday March 25, @04:52PM (#31617462)
Hold on: Did I EVER SAY that any complex xoftware "never has or had bugs"? No, I said QUITE THE OPPOSITE, here, in my P.S. in fact in this URL below (& before or after that again mind you, & FAR BEFORE YOU EVER DID):
I know I said I was done with this conversation, but since you were nice enough to actually get on topic again, I'll reply to the one thing you've managed to be somewhat coherent about. When the parent poster says:
I don't want software that patches exploits quickly, I want software that was correctly written and had no exploits to begin with.
And you reply with:
Ask & ye shall receive (OPERA!)
One is going to expect that you've provided an example of software that was, in fact, without vulnerabilities. Yet the first data you provide shows this is not the case. Perhaps you saw the 0 unpatched vulnerabilities and misunderstood what that meant (you might have even missed that Secunia notes 9 vulnerabilities, not 5). This means that the Opera code has, in fact, had vulnerabilities that needed to be patched. I would assume it was patched quickly. But none the less, it falls out of line with what the parent was talking about.
Again - let me repeat this again just in case you're missing the point. When you note (and I'm quoting you here, not putting words in your mouth) "NO KNOWN SECURITY VULNERABILITIES FOR OPERA UNPATCHED @ PRESENT" that misses the point. The parent said no bugs. And the fact that you even note "Where did I EVER SAY OPERA NEVER HAD A FLAW? Heck - I even stated in the first URL above EVERY COMPLEX SOFTWARE USUALLY DOES" shows that you understand the basic idea. You're just having a hard time getting the two things to mesh together.
Maybe your ego is in the way. I'd work on that a bit more, Ozymandias. It'd be embarrassing for another "nobody" to have to correct you the next time.
Uhm, Sprocket? See subject-line, & realize that I have data that's from a valid respectable source showing Opera currently bearing NO KNOWN SECURITY VULNERABILITIES... for a complex program, especially one online faced w/ javascript exploits & more galore?? Please - enough w/ your WEAK ARGUMENTS - especially coming from a wannabe technically unqualified nobody like you, ok?
Your same data shows that this version has a history of vulnerabilities. Zero un-patched, but hardly zero-defect. When the parent notes "I don't want software that patches exploits quickly, I want software that was correctly written and had no exploits to begin with," showing an example with 9 patched vulnerabilities hardly meets the mark.
Keep dancing around the fact, apk. Post links that have nothing to do with this fact. Post links where I've caught you out before. I've exposed you in the past and I've exposed you here again - you can't avoid it no matter how much noise you generate to disguise it.
As I noted - my job here is done. And as you are unable to address the issue I've pointed out (9 vulnerabilities are not equal to zero vulnerabilities) in the past four postings, I'll let my argument rest and walk away.
What is irrelavant (or wrong) about telling people that Opera's been shown, time & again, that OPERA IS THE FASTEST & SAFEST WEB-BROWSER PROGRAM THERE IS WITH THE LARGEST NATIVE FEATURESET BUILT-IN NATIVELY THERE IS?
The thread was about zero-defect code. You produced an example with defects. All this about being fast, safe, and a large feature set is irrelevant to the thread of the conversation; no matter how many times you repeat it.
"The fun thing here is that you didn't talk about how difficult it is to create complex systems without defects." - by _Sprocket_ (42527) on Thursday March 25, @12:56AM (#31607340)
(You've done that before & you're skimmning man (or, lying, take your pick))!
Pitty you didn't talk about that in your first post. You remember - "ask & ye shall receive"? The place where the parent asked and you failed to produce.
I like it when you pull out that Ozymandias quote and start to list off your "accomplishments". The poem is about a king and his hubris laid to ruin; his accomplishments dust. It's so fitting. Every time you do this quote-and-list act, it's to try and distract from the fact that you're clueless about whatever subject you're talking about at the time. Clearly, having written some shareware doesn't make you an expert in every subject you can cast your bold text at.
And so my job here is done. You've been outed again, apk.
"The problem is that your facts are irrelevant." - by _Sprocket_ (42527) on Wednesday March 24, @10:18PM (#31606602)
Opera = faster than ANY browser & ZERO/0 security vulnerabilities, + the largest set of in-built native features of the "big 3" webbrowsers? Well...
See subject line, & "nuff said"...
I couldn't have made my point any better myself. You quote me about your irrelevant wandering and then you reply with irrelevant wandering. 'Nuff said indeed!
"The thread was talking about zero defects. You reply with an example that has a history of defects" - by _Sprocket_ (42527) on Wednesday March 24, @10:18PM (#31606602)
Show me a complex program that hasn't that's exposed to the internet & javascript especially online... AND, I also point to Opera, with ZERO/0 current security vulnerabilities known for it too!
The fun thing here is that you didn't talk about how difficult it is to create complex systems without defects. You put Opera up as an example. And Operas has a history of defects. Yes - currently there's no unpatched vulnerabilities. That we know about. But there's a history of defects. And that hardly makes Opera the slam-dunk answer you make it out to be.
You're caught clueless again, apk. And you can't avoid it.
"Instead of earning up to this fact" - by _Sprocket_ (42527) on Wednesday March 24, @10:18PM (#31606602)
What is wrong with pointing out to others that OPERA'S THE FASTEST & SAFEST BROWSER OUT THERE I ask you? LOL... I'll tell you what: FireFox fanboyism on your part imo!
I never mentioned Firefox. If anything, this is rampant Opera fanboyism. The fact is that you screwed up (again) and now you're trying to back-peddle. Again.
"Little surprise - it's what you do." - by _Sprocket_ (42527) on Wednesday March 24, @10:18PM (#31606602)
You mean telling others about the FASTEST & SAFEST WEB-BROWSER PROGRAM OUT THERE WITH THE MOST NATIVE FEATURES IN OPERA 10.51?
(YOU BET!)
No - you make grand claims with irrelevant facts. And then you start waving your hands around as soon as someone bothers to follow up and catches you at it.
APK
P.S.=> Fanboys of Firefox - always trying to minimize that Opera's got them outperformed, and is more secure! apk
That's it, apk! Stay on message! This is all about how wonderful Opera is in the face of irrational Firefox fanatics. Nevermind the fact that your zero-defect example is shown to be incorrect even at your first link. But don't admit it. Never admit you're wrong. Don't change a thing.
The problem is that your facts are irrelevant. The thread was talking about zero defects. You reply with an example that has a history of defects. Instead of earning up to this fact, you're trying to call attention away with name-calling and off-topic statements. Little surprise - it's what you do.
Again - it's all about "software that was correctly written and had no exploits to begin with." Speed isn't the issue.
Yes - Opera is speedy. It's a fine browser. Do consider it. But consider it for the right reasons. What was that? "Ask & ye shall receive?" Make sure the answers you're getting even apply to the questions you asked, much less the right questions.
And a fine showing, APK. Once again, you're missing the point and using all manner of hand-waving to avoid having to face the fact.
So when the parent asks for "software that was correctly written and had no exploits to begin with", you provide one that has had 9 vulnerabilities as noted in 5 reports, 60% of which are classified as highly critical with the rest as moderately critical. Excellent work.
Don't get me wrong - Opera is a fine browser and definitely worth consideration. But it hardly meets the criteria.
that while some Internet users in certain Western countries may see the Internet as something which exists independently of society and is merely a medium through which two individuals may communicate, from the Chinese POV it is a part of society and therefore allowed to be controlled.
To be totally honest, I agree with the Chinese POV, since $People \in Society$ and $Internetusers \subset Society$.
Actually - the Chinese are right. In Western countries, we both value and allow two individuals the freedom to communicate.
Is this why US law like DMCA is imposed to me even while I don't live in US? Google removes results based on DMCA notices on all of their sites, not just google.com.
China tries to control it's own Internet. USA tries to control the whole Internet. Which one is worse?
I agree that both are terrible. But I'd hardly equate take-down notices of, say, the latest Harry Potter novel to be equivalent to censoring Tiananmen Square. Google's China operations have to adhere to Chinese regulations as they operate in China. Google's main headquarters, however, is in the US. Are you really shocked that US law has a greater reach in their operations?
I'm not comparing Allende to Pinochet (both had flaws). I'm pointing out that US support for Pinochet wasn't based on his policies towards freedom. The elephant in the room that US critics like to ignore when cherry-picking history is often the Soviet Union.
Don't forget who was very good friends with Pinochet.
And let's not forget Pinochet seized power from Soviet-backed (via direct KGB ties and support) Allende. If you want to shed light on the dirty tricks the US pulled during the Cold War, you should probably allow the same light to be cast on the Soviet Union.
The thing is, I bet your country doesn't allow absolute freedom of speech. If you live in a civilized country then your legal system will certainly have laws which are intended to punish multiple forms of defamation.
We tend to err on the side of openness. If you manage to visit the USA, I'd invite you to go to a supermarket checkout lane and look at the publications being offered. Pay close attention to examples like The Enquirer and Weekly World News. Occasionally these guys go so far over the line, or push the wrong people, that they get caught in the legal system. And rightfully so (in most cases).
The thing is, these publications are trash. But stopping them would stop harm legitimate press. If you look a little above this thread, you'll see some discussion over "Faux News" and "left-wing nutjob 'news' organizations" (to which I think that's referring to CNN and MSNBC). What you see are pretty strong opinions that differ on what constitutes the truth. Trying to crack down on political shenanigans would likely have a chilling effect on much-needed criticism.
We do occasionally have powerful political figures calling for the limitation of openness and freedoms that allow for these sorts of things. But we also tend to make a big deal about it - just like we're making a big deal out of Chavez's comments.
In my opinion, as long as the security industry, and end-users as a whole, continue with the thought that end-user basic security ignorance is OK, things will never get better.
I think it is different. The "security industry" depends upon the ignorance of users and the continuation of those users being infected.
It is not in the "security industry"'s best interest to commit to real improvements in security.
I've seen lots of snakeoil. I've seen sales teams trying to convince folks that they have a problem so that they can then sell the solution. I've seen products fail to deliver on promises. I've seen folks ignore real issues and pursue non-issues. But I have yet to see or hear someone say "you know - if we could just maintain this status quo, we'd all be set."
There is no conflict of interest for the Industry "to commit to real improvements in security." There will never be a point where "security" is achieved and an Industry finds themselves out of work.
Security is a complex set of problems. Threats change (in multiple ways). People rarely change. And so the "security industry" will always have plenty of opportunity whether they tackle today's problems or not.
hey kdawson, if you're going to try to slip in an ad for your sister company in a "news story", at least mark it up as an advertisement.
This is just wrong. kdawson should be fired for such a breach of ethics.
I see where you're coming from. I mean - that absolute shill Schneier also linked to a place to buy these things! That's just advertising. And even worse, he linked to where a year ago, he linked to the very same ThinkGeek product! Talk about duplicity! It's time we take a stand against such blatant disregard for ethics in technology. Where would the technology be today if it involved products?!
Or... ya know... it's just a nifty little gadget with some interesting (albiet minor) implications beyond amusement. And ThinkGeek is one of many sources for them. Granted - that's not as fun as making a big show of indignity and character assassination. But then, I suppose we all have different hobbies.
Slashdot Mirror
...you only need to persuade managers that our "solution" (including support etc) will cover their ass should anything go wrong.
Oddly enough, my first reaction on reading the article tittle was "forget Solaris - try getting SUPPORT out of Sun / Oracle even when you have a contract."
How do you know it's a he? Maybe it was PJ. Or maybe it was a unicorn. Or maybe it was Ozymandias?
Off topic again, apk?
I can't prove that you exist.
These guys solicit money from these "interested investors", they put together a really bad film crew, some really bad actors and they make a movie. Sometimes they hire a has been or two for walk ons, they put together a lame party for the "investors" with the has beens as main course.
But enough about Uwe Boll's career...
Read the whole interview. It's totally worth it. A mans odyssey while trying to get laid at all costs.
I sense a Hollywood pitch...
Today, people have data in H.264 format. A lot of data.
Today, there is even more data wrapped up by Flash. I suppose we should just be pragmatic about it all and keep using that. Right?
Excellent. Then we'll discover that Murdoch's empire isn't the sole source of news in the world. Either it isn't from the beginning, or the void will soon be filled.
"Your same data shows that this version has a history of vulnerabilities." - by _Sprocket_ (42527) on Thursday March 25, @04:52PM (#31617462)
Hold on: Did I EVER SAY that any complex xoftware "never has or had bugs"? No, I said QUITE THE OPPOSITE, here, in my P.S. in fact in this URL below (& before or after that again mind you, & FAR BEFORE YOU EVER DID):
http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1591778&cid=31599332
I know I said I was done with this conversation, but since you were nice enough to actually get on topic again, I'll reply to the one thing you've managed to be somewhat coherent about. When the parent poster says:
And you reply with:
One is going to expect that you've provided an example of software that was, in fact, without vulnerabilities. Yet the first data you provide shows this is not the case. Perhaps you saw the 0 unpatched vulnerabilities and misunderstood what that meant (you might have even missed that Secunia notes 9 vulnerabilities, not 5). This means that the Opera code has, in fact, had vulnerabilities that needed to be patched. I would assume it was patched quickly. But none the less, it falls out of line with what the parent was talking about.
Again - let me repeat this again just in case you're missing the point. When you note (and I'm quoting you here, not putting words in your mouth) "NO KNOWN SECURITY VULNERABILITIES FOR OPERA UNPATCHED @ PRESENT" that misses the point. The parent said no bugs. And the fact that you even note "Where did I EVER SAY OPERA NEVER HAD A FLAW? Heck - I even stated in the first URL above EVERY COMPLEX SOFTWARE USUALLY DOES" shows that you understand the basic idea. You're just having a hard time getting the two things to mesh together.
Maybe your ego is in the way. I'd work on that a bit more, Ozymandias. It'd be embarrassing for another "nobody" to have to correct you the next time.
Also, the internet routes around censorship? Ooops....
Seems we were wrong. Apparently, the Internet detects censorship and routes it around.
Uhm, Sprocket? See subject-line, & realize that I have data that's from a valid respectable source showing Opera currently bearing NO KNOWN SECURITY VULNERABILITIES... for a complex program, especially one online faced w/ javascript exploits & more galore?? Please - enough w/ your WEAK ARGUMENTS - especially coming from a wannabe technically unqualified nobody like you, ok?
Your same data shows that this version has a history of vulnerabilities. Zero un-patched, but hardly zero-defect. When the parent notes "I don't want software that patches exploits quickly, I want software that was correctly written and had no exploits to begin with," showing an example with 9 patched vulnerabilities hardly meets the mark.
Keep dancing around the fact, apk. Post links that have nothing to do with this fact. Post links where I've caught you out before. I've exposed you in the past and I've exposed you here again - you can't avoid it no matter how much noise you generate to disguise it.
As I noted - my job here is done. And as you are unable to address the issue I've pointed out (9 vulnerabilities are not equal to zero vulnerabilities) in the past four postings, I'll let my argument rest and walk away.
What is irrelavant (or wrong) about telling people that Opera's been shown, time & again, that OPERA IS THE FASTEST & SAFEST WEB-BROWSER PROGRAM THERE IS WITH THE LARGEST NATIVE FEATURESET BUILT-IN NATIVELY THERE IS?
The thread was about zero-defect code. You produced an example with defects. All this about being fast, safe, and a large feature set is irrelevant to the thread of the conversation; no matter how many times you repeat it.
"The fun thing here is that you didn't talk about how difficult it is to create complex systems without defects." - by _Sprocket_ (42527) on Thursday March 25, @12:56AM (#31607340)
Now wait a second: Didn't I say "HELLO WORLD" level programs 'need not apply' etc. et al? Sure I did, right here -> http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1591778&cid=31599332...
Sprocket? Who screwed up here now?? You did!
(You've done that before & you're skimmning man (or, lying, take your pick))!
Pitty you didn't talk about that in your first post. You remember - "ask & ye shall receive"? The place where the parent asked and you failed to produce.
I like it when you pull out that Ozymandias quote and start to list off your "accomplishments". The poem is about a king and his hubris laid to ruin; his accomplishments dust. It's so fitting. Every time you do this quote-and-list act, it's to try and distract from the fact that you're clueless about whatever subject you're talking about at the time. Clearly, having written some shareware doesn't make you an expert in every subject you can cast your bold text at.
And so my job here is done. You've been outed again, apk.
"The problem is that your facts are irrelevant." - by _Sprocket_ (42527) on Wednesday March 24, @10:18PM (#31606602)
Opera = faster than ANY browser & ZERO/0 security vulnerabilities, + the largest set of in-built native features of the "big 3" webbrowsers? Well...
See subject line, & "nuff said"...
I couldn't have made my point any better myself. You quote me about your irrelevant wandering and then you reply with irrelevant wandering. 'Nuff said indeed!
"The thread was talking about zero defects. You reply with an example that has a history of defects" - by _Sprocket_ (42527) on Wednesday March 24, @10:18PM (#31606602)
Show me a complex program that hasn't that's exposed to the internet & javascript especially online... AND, I also point to Opera, with ZERO/0 current security vulnerabilities known for it too!
The fun thing here is that you didn't talk about how difficult it is to create complex systems without defects. You put Opera up as an example. And Operas has a history of defects. Yes - currently there's no unpatched vulnerabilities. That we know about. But there's a history of defects. And that hardly makes Opera the slam-dunk answer you make it out to be.
You're caught clueless again, apk. And you can't avoid it.
"Instead of earning up to this fact" - by _Sprocket_ (42527) on Wednesday March 24, @10:18PM (#31606602)
What is wrong with pointing out to others that OPERA'S THE FASTEST & SAFEST BROWSER OUT THERE I ask you? LOL... I'll tell you what: FireFox fanboyism on your part imo!
I never mentioned Firefox. If anything, this is rampant Opera fanboyism. The fact is that you screwed up (again) and now you're trying to back-peddle. Again.
"Little surprise - it's what you do." - by _Sprocket_ (42527) on Wednesday March 24, @10:18PM (#31606602)
You mean telling others about the FASTEST & SAFEST WEB-BROWSER PROGRAM OUT THERE WITH THE MOST NATIVE FEATURES IN OPERA 10.51?
(YOU BET!)
No - you make grand claims with irrelevant facts. And then you start waving your hands around as soon as someone bothers to follow up and catches you at it.
APK
P.S.=> Fanboys of Firefox - always trying to minimize that Opera's got them outperformed, and is more secure! apk
That's it, apk! Stay on message! This is all about how wonderful Opera is in the face of irrational Firefox fanatics. Nevermind the fact that your zero-defect example is shown to be incorrect even at your first link. But don't admit it. Never admit you're wrong. Don't change a thing.
The problem is that your facts are irrelevant. The thread was talking about zero defects. You reply with an example that has a history of defects. Instead of earning up to this fact, you're trying to call attention away with name-calling and off-topic statements. Little surprise - it's what you do.
Again - it's all about "software that was correctly written and had no exploits to begin with." Speed isn't the issue.
Yes - Opera is speedy. It's a fine browser. Do consider it. But consider it for the right reasons. What was that? "Ask & ye shall receive?" Make sure the answers you're getting even apply to the questions you asked, much less the right questions.
And a fine showing, APK. Once again, you're missing the point and using all manner of hand-waving to avoid having to face the fact.
See subject-line above & also, note this report from SECUNIA:
----
Vulnerability Report: Opera 10.x:
http://secunia.com/advisories/product/26745/
Unpatched 0% (0 of 5 Secunia advisories)
So when the parent asks for "software that was correctly written and had no exploits to begin with", you provide one that has had 9 vulnerabilities as noted in 5 reports, 60% of which are classified as highly critical with the rest as moderately critical. Excellent work.
Don't get me wrong - Opera is a fine browser and definitely worth consideration. But it hardly meets the criteria.
And there you have it folks, tyranny is freedom! Without the freedom to establish tyranny, nobody is free.
(I know, I know - don't feed the BSD trolling)
that while some Internet users in certain Western countries may see the Internet as something which exists independently of society and is merely a medium through which two individuals may communicate, from the Chinese POV it is a part of society and therefore allowed to be controlled.
To be totally honest, I agree with the Chinese POV, since $People \in Society$ and $Internetusers \subset Society$.
Actually - the Chinese are right. In Western countries, we both value and allow two individuals the freedom to communicate.
Is this why US law like DMCA is imposed to me even while I don't live in US? Google removes results based on DMCA notices on all of their sites, not just google.com.
China tries to control it's own Internet. USA tries to control the whole Internet. Which one is worse?
I agree that both are terrible. But I'd hardly equate take-down notices of, say, the latest Harry Potter novel to be equivalent to censoring Tiananmen Square. Google's China operations have to adhere to Chinese regulations as they operate in China. Google's main headquarters, however, is in the US. Are you really shocked that US law has a greater reach in their operations?
I'm not comparing Allende to Pinochet (both had flaws). I'm pointing out that US support for Pinochet wasn't based on his policies towards freedom. The elephant in the room that US critics like to ignore when cherry-picking history is often the Soviet Union.
Don't forget who was very good friends with Pinochet.
And let's not forget Pinochet seized power from Soviet-backed (via direct KGB ties and support) Allende. If you want to shed light on the dirty tricks the US pulled during the Cold War, you should probably allow the same light to be cast on the Soviet Union.
The thing is, I bet your country doesn't allow absolute freedom of speech. If you live in a civilized country then your legal system will certainly have laws which are intended to punish multiple forms of defamation.
We tend to err on the side of openness. If you manage to visit the USA, I'd invite you to go to a supermarket checkout lane and look at the publications being offered. Pay close attention to examples like The Enquirer and Weekly World News. Occasionally these guys go so far over the line, or push the wrong people, that they get caught in the legal system. And rightfully so (in most cases).
The thing is, these publications are trash. But stopping them would stop harm legitimate press. If you look a little above this thread, you'll see some discussion over "Faux News" and "left-wing nutjob 'news' organizations" (to which I think that's referring to CNN and MSNBC). What you see are pretty strong opinions that differ on what constitutes the truth. Trying to crack down on political shenanigans would likely have a chilling effect on much-needed criticism.
We do occasionally have powerful political figures calling for the limitation of openness and freedoms that allow for these sorts of things. But we also tend to make a big deal about it - just like we're making a big deal out of Chavez's comments.
I think it is different. The "security industry" depends upon the ignorance of users and the continuation of those users being infected.
It is not in the "security industry"'s best interest to commit to real improvements in security.
I've seen lots of snakeoil. I've seen sales teams trying to convince folks that they have a problem so that they can then sell the solution. I've seen products fail to deliver on promises. I've seen folks ignore real issues and pursue non-issues. But I have yet to see or hear someone say "you know - if we could just maintain this status quo, we'd all be set."
There is no conflict of interest for the Industry "to commit to real improvements in security." There will never be a point where "security" is achieved and an Industry finds themselves out of work.
Security is a complex set of problems. Threats change (in multiple ways). People rarely change. And so the "security industry" will always have plenty of opportunity whether they tackle today's problems or not.
hey kdawson, if you're going to try to slip in an ad for your sister company in a "news story", at least mark it up as an advertisement.
This is just wrong. kdawson should be fired for such a breach of ethics.
I see where you're coming from. I mean - that absolute shill Schneier also linked to a place to buy these things! That's just advertising. And even worse, he linked to where a year ago, he linked to the very same ThinkGeek product! Talk about duplicity! It's time we take a stand against such blatant disregard for ethics in technology. Where would the technology be today if it involved products?!
Or... ya know... it's just a nifty little gadget with some interesting (albiet minor) implications beyond amusement. And ThinkGeek is one of many sources for them. Granted - that's not as fun as making a big show of indignity and character assassination. But then, I suppose we all have different hobbies.
It's not that your math skills are bad, it's that you're still trying to get the hang of time travel.