It could just as easily be said that the IP issues surrounding Open Source are not well understood and prone to violation when mixed with proprietary IP.
The issues surrounding Open Source are the same that surround proprietary licensed "IP". The same copyright is involved. The same requirement to follow licensing is involved. The trick is to pay attention to that mix of licenses. When I go and buy a Dell laptop and it comes with a package of software pre-installed, I still have to pay attention to the licenses involved for each piece of software that came bundled with that system. We've been able to survive this mix of proprietary licenses for decades yet when an OSS license (or two) is thrown in to the mix, it's suddenly all a mystery?
The assumption that Android was going to be an open system was clearly false, and Google's reliance on Linux has opened them up to unwanted competition.
Because stopping the unauthorized distribution of a proprietary application is a complete lock-down of the system. Right?
Shouldn't you be working out a car analogy for this?
It got attention. Isn't that the point of marketing?
Not entirely. Take the Taco Bell Dog as an example. From Snopes:
In July 2000 fast food giant Taco Bell (a subsidiary of Yum! Brands, Inc.) did the ostensibly unthinkable: it abruptly ended what appeared to be a highly successful ad campaign that had worked to establish this memorable brand identity. Seemingly out of the blue, the corporation announced it would no longer feature the wise-cracking Chihuahua in its ads. Though the Taco Bell dog might make cameo appearances in subsequent commercials, he was being retired as company spokespooch.
The reason behind the move was simple enough: the dog, though beloved of consumers, wasn't working magic on the company's bottom line. Though Taco Bell had succeeded in creating a cultural icon, the resultant symbol wasn't inspiring a great enough segment of the fast food-buying public to make a run for the border. Same-store sales were down 6 percent in the second quarter of 2000, a result the company could only regard as alarming and a certain sign that changes had to be made.
So while Microsoft's marketing may bring smiles to churro vendors everywhere, it doesn't mean the attention is really getting anything for Microsoft.
Excellent point. Because, after all, Microsoft has such a hard time generating free press. What they really need now is to get their name out there no matter what connotation is involved with it. Once that happens, THEN they can worry about image.
They're paying people more for their expertise. Why are we upset about this? This is really a stretch as far as Microsoft hatred goes on Slashdot.
Maybe you read something in to the article? I didn't see any MS hatred at all. Only what you noted - Microsoft trying to hire away top experience from a competitor. If you want to read something nefarious (or hateful) in that - that's your baggage.
Pity the poor admins - having to actually [shudder] do what their boss wants rather than having the boss catering to their whims and biases.
Right now, I'm in the process of implementing several projects that came down via fiat. In the process I've discovered that the products we bought don't work together. They don't do everything we expected they would do. And they are implemented on platform choices that the CIO, who purchased all this, has specifically stated we would not implement in our environment. I will be expected to make it all work now and in the future.
This isn't about simple whim. This is about people doing their jobs. The high-up management deals with the big picture. The folks in the trenches deal with all the technical details that can make or break a project. And while everyone affects each other, we all have our little piece of the puzzle to hash out.
Nothing stops these same kind of "PEBKAC" attacks from working on linux too. If a user is going to download an EXE because they got a greeting card on windows, I doubt they would hesitate to do something similar on linux.
The Dancing Pigs problem is pretty formidable. And I have to agree - ultimately, if an end user is determined enough, they're going to do everything to see the promised pigs dance. But there ARE some differences between Windows and Linux that help raise the bar to that happening.
But yes - that doesn't mean it won't happen. The OSF.8759 virus I noted previously was (if I remember right) originally introduced via binaries claiming to exploit Samba (before becoming a rootkit staple). But again - it wasn't clicky-clicky easy for people to fall for this.
I don't think anyone can reasonably ignore the fact that sheer numbers are in Linux's favor right now. Simple math (as with your hypothetical example) will show that pool of potential victims is much larger on a Windows platform. I remember back in the day when WinNT was coming on the scene and enthusiasts boasted how few attacks targeted the platform. The same argument was made back then - wait until you're more popular. The prediction came to pass. And it isn't too unreasonable to assume the same scenario would apply to Linux as well. But there are some subtle differences between the two situations.
One big difference is that Linux isn't new to the scene. It's had its day in the sights of attackers. But malware largely petered out for Linux (and Unix in general - yes, I know they're not the same, but the similarities are enough for the purpose of this discussion) around 2003 / 2004. It's certainly still around. There are new variations developed all the time - you can find copies at your favorite malware zoo. But you just don't see these beasts running around in the wild (unless you count OSF.8759 which is often used to establish a backdoor on compromised hosts). Despite the existence of Linux malware, it just doesn't survive unless given a helping hand.
Having a smaller target user base helps. But if the platform is vulnerable, someone will target it. The Witty worm provides a great example. Witty only had a target base of about 12,000 systems - and it managed to infect all of them within 45 minutes. Not only was it targeting a very small subset of Windows users (ISS BlackICE/RealSecure products), but it was targeting users security-savvy enough to use security software.
Again - I should stress that I'm not saying Linux is invulnerable. But it is resilient - at least more resilient than other players in the market. And despite the doom-and-gloom messages over the past decade that Linux is due for a malware apocalypse... such an event has yet to come to pass.
It's also been reported that Blizzard is suspending accounts that are played on machines that they detect have spyware on for 24 hours. It's started happening when they began collecting "Non-identifiable system information" again. They don't won't suspend the account though if you have an authenticator attached to your account.
What I find especially interesting is that initial reports claim Blizzard will not tell the customer what Warden found. Warden reports a keylogger - you're disabled for your own protection to give you a chance to clean up your system before gold sellers liquidate all your (and your guild bank's) gear. Good luck.
The big question is why not note what was found? I'm wondering if this reveals that Warden truely does not report any sort of details at all about what it's crawling. My guess is that they added hash signatures to known keyloggers. And while they can detect the existence of a suspected keylogger, they don't have enough information to really let the customer know what they found.
Now - even as I make this argument, I can't help but question it. While they may not be able to identify the details of where a keylogger was located, they could at least note that they found Keylogger X or Keylogger Y. So either the alerting method isn't that granular or they're also detecting using something more general - such as an unexpected attempt to hook in to a function.
Now take that above and toss nerfs into the mix. Not just item nerfs or class nerfs, but CONTENT nerfs. Making "epic" raid encounters so trivial that almost any casual guild with all green gear and ventrilo can take out most of the upper-tier content. Then mix that all together with a healthy dose of balancing classes mostly around PvP, thereby hurting PvE and you have nothing but a foul tasting mix of crap left.
Yeah - it's awesome. Everyone gets a chance to experience all this content Blizzard has created. It's no longer some private club for the elite. I'm sure it makes hanging around outside the bank in your matched gear a lot less fun when some casual walks by in the same kit on their way to doing something other than hanging around outside the bank. But hey - the elitist's lost is everyone else's gain. And by definition - that's a gain for a lot more people.
Blizzard has been GIVEN 4 years of my money - for multiple accounts in my household. It's been worth (almost) every dollar. I've had 4 years of continued entertainment. I've even gotten a chance to go back and see most of the old content that used to be club-houses for elite raiders. Pitty I missed out on it all when it was a challenge. We were busy defending cities and running lower-end content (and defending cities has never really had much a pay off besides the thrill of world PvP). But at least I've seen things that I've missed. And I'm not missing out on as many things these days - even if I couldn't even begin to tackle all the hard modes that produce the nifty mounts that elitsts use to hang out and over around the landing pad so that they can look different than all the casuals mounting up and flying off to do something.
Alternatively, Blizz could use those deep pockets to settle as MS did, leaving a smaller competitor MMO company to fight it in court, or to also get fleeced. It would be a pretty ugly response/strategy, but I wouldn't put it past them just yet.
Games are one of many business interests for Microsoft. But games are THE business for Blizzard. Microsoft can afford to poison the well in that sector - if it becomes unmanageable / unprofitable (or they can't fend off attacks with their own patent portfolio), they can simply pull up their stakes and continue in other markets. If that happens to Blizzard, it's the end of what they do.
Blizzard has shown a desire to go to great lengths to eliminate anything that they see threatens their business (with ugly precedents IMHO, but that's another discussion). I would expect them to go after this with the resources they've brought to bear in other cases. And I would expect they would do everything they can to avoid poisoning the environment they operate in (in so far as whatever strategy they pick would interfere with their own business interests - whether that causes issues to the private citizen is again, another discussion).
Wow, what arrogance. Who the fuck are you to say that those people did not heal anyone? My dad lasted five years longer with his cancer than the doctor told him he would, after having two thirds of his liver and his right lung removed. When you are going to die in horrible pain, you stop giving a shit about "truth" and "science", and start looking for anything that works.
Having family members with chronic diseases has taught me a little about medicine. The first misconception to be dispelled is that medicine is all an exact science. The more complex conditions involve a lot of educated guessing. So when a Doctor says something like one having X years to live, it's not because he's gleened some hidden expiration date stamped on your foot. It's a guess. People die unexpectedly. People survive longer than could be expected. My father-in-law lived for over 30 years longer than Doctors initially expected he would (though he wasn't cured and his life was extremely difficult and painful). I don't blame the Doctors for being "wrong" any more than I'd credit "healers" who's methods can't live up to scientific scrutiny (not that I am aware of him putting any trust in any such individuals).
I realize that desperate people do desperate things. But that doesn't make those who pray on desperation respectful or desperate acts any more sensible.
I was thinking more along the lines of what "works" for the carriers may not be what "works" for the end user. Once again - "customers" are not always end users.
But yes, it's a reference to the moral and social decay that allowed a whole nation to destroy their economic future in what devolved into a get-rich-quick Ponzi scheme.
Nice rant aside, you're not actually claiming that Ireland has changed it's cultural attitude nor denying that the "Celtic Tiger" period had an effect on it.
Slashdot Mirror
Heck - Windows doesn't provide MS Office.
It could just as easily be said that the IP issues surrounding Open Source are not well understood and prone to violation when mixed with proprietary IP.
The issues surrounding Open Source are the same that surround proprietary licensed "IP". The same copyright is involved. The same requirement to follow licensing is involved. The trick is to pay attention to that mix of licenses. When I go and buy a Dell laptop and it comes with a package of software pre-installed, I still have to pay attention to the licenses involved for each piece of software that came bundled with that system. We've been able to survive this mix of proprietary licenses for decades yet when an OSS license (or two) is thrown in to the mix, it's suddenly all a mystery?
The assumption that Android was going to be an open system was clearly false, and Google's reliance on Linux has opened them up to unwanted competition.
Because stopping the unauthorized distribution of a proprietary application is a complete lock-down of the system. Right?
Shouldn't you be working out a car analogy for this?
Well, sure. But that doesn't mean everything is continuously licensed under the Apache license.
It got attention. Isn't that the point of marketing?
Not entirely. Take the Taco Bell Dog as an example. From Snopes:
In July 2000 fast food giant Taco Bell (a subsidiary of Yum! Brands, Inc.) did the ostensibly unthinkable: it abruptly ended what appeared to be a highly successful ad campaign that had worked to establish this memorable brand identity. Seemingly out of the blue, the corporation announced it would no longer feature the wise-cracking Chihuahua in its ads. Though the Taco Bell dog might make cameo appearances in subsequent commercials, he was being retired as company spokespooch.
The reason behind the move was simple enough: the dog, though beloved of consumers, wasn't working magic on the company's bottom line. Though Taco Bell had succeeded in creating a cultural icon, the resultant symbol wasn't inspiring a great enough segment of the fast food-buying public to make a run for the border. Same-store sales were down 6 percent in the second quarter of 2000, a result the company could only regard as alarming and a certain sign that changes had to be made.
So while Microsoft's marketing may bring smiles to churro vendors everywhere, it doesn't mean the attention is really getting anything for Microsoft.
Well, yes... but those are from an entirely different era. The entire Industry was different at that time, much less Microsoft.
Excellent point. Because, after all, Microsoft has such a hard time generating free press. What they really need now is to get their name out there no matter what connotation is involved with it. Once that happens, THEN they can worry about image.
Twitter meets banking: a whale too large to fail.
If they told the US, it would only lead to an eventual Doomsday gap.
That whooshing sound you heard was Slim Pickens passing overhead.
They're paying people more for their expertise. Why are we upset about this? This is really a stretch as far as Microsoft hatred goes on Slashdot.
Maybe you read something in to the article? I didn't see any MS hatred at all. Only what you noted - Microsoft trying to hire away top experience from a competitor. If you want to read something nefarious (or hateful) in that - that's your baggage.
Pity the poor admins - having to actually [shudder] do what their boss wants rather than having the boss catering to their whims and biases.
Right now, I'm in the process of implementing several projects that came down via fiat. In the process I've discovered that the products we bought don't work together. They don't do everything we expected they would do. And they are implemented on platform choices that the CIO, who purchased all this, has specifically stated we would not implement in our environment. I will be expected to make it all work now and in the future.
This isn't about simple whim. This is about people doing their jobs. The high-up management deals with the big picture. The folks in the trenches deal with all the technical details that can make or break a project. And while everyone affects each other, we all have our little piece of the puzzle to hash out.
Nothing stops these same kind of "PEBKAC" attacks from working on linux too. If a user is going to download an EXE because they got a greeting card on windows, I doubt they would hesitate to do something similar on linux.
The Dancing Pigs problem is pretty formidable. And I have to agree - ultimately, if an end user is determined enough, they're going to do everything to see the promised pigs dance. But there ARE some differences between Windows and Linux that help raise the bar to that happening.
But yes - that doesn't mean it won't happen. The OSF.8759 virus I noted previously was (if I remember right) originally introduced via binaries claiming to exploit Samba (before becoming a rootkit staple). But again - it wasn't clicky-clicky easy for people to fall for this.
I don't think anyone can reasonably ignore the fact that sheer numbers are in Linux's favor right now. Simple math (as with your hypothetical example) will show that pool of potential victims is much larger on a Windows platform. I remember back in the day when WinNT was coming on the scene and enthusiasts boasted how few attacks targeted the platform. The same argument was made back then - wait until you're more popular. The prediction came to pass. And it isn't too unreasonable to assume the same scenario would apply to Linux as well. But there are some subtle differences between the two situations.
One big difference is that Linux isn't new to the scene. It's had its day in the sights of attackers. But malware largely petered out for Linux (and Unix in general - yes, I know they're not the same, but the similarities are enough for the purpose of this discussion) around 2003 / 2004. It's certainly still around. There are new variations developed all the time - you can find copies at your favorite malware zoo. But you just don't see these beasts running around in the wild (unless you count OSF.8759 which is often used to establish a backdoor on compromised hosts). Despite the existence of Linux malware, it just doesn't survive unless given a helping hand.
Having a smaller target user base helps. But if the platform is vulnerable, someone will target it. The Witty worm provides a great example. Witty only had a target base of about 12,000 systems - and it managed to infect all of them within 45 minutes. Not only was it targeting a very small subset of Windows users (ISS BlackICE/RealSecure products), but it was targeting users security-savvy enough to use security software.
Again - I should stress that I'm not saying Linux is invulnerable. But it is resilient - at least more resilient than other players in the market. And despite the doom-and-gloom messages over the past decade that Linux is due for a malware apocalypse... such an event has yet to come to pass.
It's also been reported that Blizzard is suspending accounts that are played on machines that they detect have spyware on for 24 hours. It's started happening when they began collecting "Non-identifiable system information" again. They don't won't suspend the account though if you have an authenticator attached to your account.
What I find especially interesting is that initial reports claim Blizzard will not tell the customer what Warden found. Warden reports a keylogger - you're disabled for your own protection to give you a chance to clean up your system before gold sellers liquidate all your (and your guild bank's) gear. Good luck.
The big question is why not note what was found? I'm wondering if this reveals that Warden truely does not report any sort of details at all about what it's crawling. My guess is that they added hash signatures to known keyloggers. And while they can detect the existence of a suspected keylogger, they don't have enough information to really let the customer know what they found.
Now - even as I make this argument, I can't help but question it. While they may not be able to identify the details of where a keylogger was located, they could at least note that they found Keylogger X or Keylogger Y. So either the alerting method isn't that granular or they're also detecting using something more general - such as an unexpected attempt to hook in to a function.
Now take that above and toss nerfs into the mix. Not just item nerfs or class nerfs, but CONTENT nerfs. Making "epic" raid encounters so trivial that almost any casual guild with all green gear and ventrilo can take out most of the upper-tier content. Then mix that all together with a healthy dose of balancing classes mostly around PvP, thereby hurting PvE and you have nothing but a foul tasting mix of crap left.
Yeah - it's awesome. Everyone gets a chance to experience all this content Blizzard has created. It's no longer some private club for the elite. I'm sure it makes hanging around outside the bank in your matched gear a lot less fun when some casual walks by in the same kit on their way to doing something other than hanging around outside the bank. But hey - the elitist's lost is everyone else's gain. And by definition - that's a gain for a lot more people.
Blizzard has been GIVEN 4 years of my money - for multiple accounts in my household. It's been worth (almost) every dollar. I've had 4 years of continued entertainment. I've even gotten a chance to go back and see most of the old content that used to be club-houses for elite raiders. Pitty I missed out on it all when it was a challenge. We were busy defending cities and running lower-end content (and defending cities has never really had much a pay off besides the thrill of world PvP). But at least I've seen things that I've missed. And I'm not missing out on as many things these days - even if I couldn't even begin to tackle all the hard modes that produce the nifty mounts that elitsts use to hang out and over around the landing pad so that they can look different than all the casuals mounting up and flying off to do something.
His brain is probably still lagging a bit; possibly stuck in a mental Battle Ground.
Alternatively, Blizz could use those deep pockets to settle as MS did, leaving a smaller competitor MMO company to fight it in court, or to also get fleeced. It would be a pretty ugly response/strategy, but I wouldn't put it past them just yet.
Games are one of many business interests for Microsoft. But games are THE business for Blizzard. Microsoft can afford to poison the well in that sector - if it becomes unmanageable / unprofitable (or they can't fend off attacks with their own patent portfolio), they can simply pull up their stakes and continue in other markets. If that happens to Blizzard, it's the end of what they do.
Blizzard has shown a desire to go to great lengths to eliminate anything that they see threatens their business (with ugly precedents IMHO, but that's another discussion). I would expect them to go after this with the resources they've brought to bear in other cases. And I would expect they would do everything they can to avoid poisoning the environment they operate in (in so far as whatever strategy they pick would interfere with their own business interests - whether that causes issues to the private citizen is again, another discussion).
That's a funny way of saying "beer and hookers."
Wow, what arrogance. Who the fuck are you to say that those people did not heal anyone? My dad lasted five years longer with his cancer than the doctor told him he would, after having two thirds of his liver and his right lung removed. When you are going to die in horrible pain, you stop giving a shit about "truth" and "science", and start looking for anything that works.
Having family members with chronic diseases has taught me a little about medicine. The first misconception to be dispelled is that medicine is all an exact science. The more complex conditions involve a lot of educated guessing. So when a Doctor says something like one having X years to live, it's not because he's gleened some hidden expiration date stamped on your foot. It's a guess. People die unexpectedly. People survive longer than could be expected. My father-in-law lived for over 30 years longer than Doctors initially expected he would (though he wasn't cured and his life was extremely difficult and painful). I don't blame the Doctors for being "wrong" any more than I'd credit "healers" who's methods can't live up to scientific scrutiny (not that I am aware of him putting any trust in any such individuals).
I realize that desperate people do desperate things. But that doesn't make those who pray on desperation respectful or desperate acts any more sensible.
I was thinking more along the lines of what "works" for the carriers may not be what "works" for the end user. Once again - "customers" are not always end users.
But yes, it's a reference to the moral and social decay that allowed a whole nation to destroy their economic future in what devolved into a get-rich-quick Ponzi scheme.
Nice rant aside, you're not actually claiming that Ireland has changed it's cultural attitude nor denying that the "Celtic Tiger" period had an effect on it.
We're all paying for the last decade's foolishness, and so will the next generation.
I'm sure you had a point about culture in this somewhere and aren't just commenting on financial shennanigans. However, I'm failing to find it.
It just depends on who's definition of "works" you're going by.
The "Celtic Tiger" is dead
That doesn't mean those heady years haven't had an impact on the culture.
I get it - the "I missed the joke" is the joke, right?