It would be intellectually dishonest to equate inheritance of acquired traits with Lamarck -- the traits that Lamarck talked about are traits affected specifically through activity (or "use") of organ or trait that modified it over a lifetime into a specific direction (changing shape, exercising, etc.) Those traits are still known to be non-inheritable -- for example, generations of people wearing corsets or performing physical exercises do not in any way affect the distribution of body shapes, and the fact that appendix mostly does nothing useful, does not affect its shape or existence in modern humans.
If there will be inheritable changes of body shape/muscle development, and they will by any chance caused by epigenetics, it would be a shocking coincidence if those changes were triggered by the same factors (wearing corsets and exercise) that the organism (in this case, human) would be somehow subjected due to conditions that make those changes beneficial. If humans will at some point develop a method of changing their gene expression specifically toward some beneficial traits, and it will also happen to be inheritable, it will be the first instance of such development -- and such goal-oriented development would be completely outside of any biological evolutionary mechanism.
This contradicts the core of Lamarck's hypothesis -- that direction of changes toward beneficial and against harmful, is dictated by the environmental factor itself, through some kind of "exercise" or being "molded" into a more adapted form, and those changes are inherited. Such development, if it was possible, would work in complete absence of natural selection, while in fact it does not -- changes in gene expression or their ability to be inherited do not exhibit any tendency toward being beneficial, but beneficial changes are selected through survival and mating.
The fact that SOME acquired traits can be inherited, was not even discussed at the time of Lamarck or Darwin, as mechanism of inheritance was completely unknown by then -- for Lamarck it was one of the base assumptions, for Darwin it would be an irrelevant detail.
Environmental factors also can cause mutations (what was known before genetics and before Darwin -- except, of course, mechanism and role in development of new species were not known at the time), and it still has absolutely nothing to do with anything Lamarck ever said.
which is why epigenetics is called Neo-Lamarckianism by that reference above.
What is stupid because it misrepresents both Lamarck's hypothesis, and actual processes being studied now. Lamarck described development of traits directed by the nature of environment and organism's capability to adapt over its lifetime. The actual mechanism produces random results, and the direction of phenotype change is in no way related to the environmental factor that causes it. Lamarck's hypothesis required no selection because direction of changes was always to adapt. In reality, selection is a necessary part of the process because harmful changes are very common, they just aren't passed to next generations as much. Lamarck described development of species. New species can not be produced by keeping genome the same and modifying its expression, because without a chain of mutations genome remains compatible. As I said, nothing like Lamarck.
That has nothing to do with Lamarck's ideas -- other than that people who are still angry at Darwin are constantly bringing up Lamarck in relation to it.
Both Darwin and Lamarck were describing a process of developing species over multiple generations.
Lamarck (without any specification of the mechanism of inheritance) claimed that traits acquired through various kinds of activity are inherited without any kind of evolutionary selection mechanism involved. In his opinion, new generation "started" with some modifications that older generations developed over their lifetime through their everyday activity, and continued development into those directions to end up with variations far beyond the level of variations that would be possible to develop over a single lifetime.
Darwin (without any specification of the mechanism of variation or inheritance) claimed that random inheritable variations are constantly introduced into population, and individuals with traits that make them more suitable for survival and reproduction, have greater numbers of offspring, and thus those traits become more common in later generations. Eventually this results in various new species representing mutually incompatible ways or directions of such development.
Neither Lamarck nor Darwin ever mentioned DNA -- it was unknown at the time, the only thing known about inheritance was that it exists, and sufficiently different set of inherited traits prevents interbreeding thus forming distinct species.
Discovering a mechanism that introduces random variations over a lifetime of an organism, as opposed to only over reproduction process, does not make Lamarck any less wrong. He would be somewhat right only if:
1. There was a mechanism that allows or causes organisms to direct those variations toward in some beneficial direction (thus making natural selection unnecessary, as all changes provide benefit that organism was "looking for"), as opposed to being as random as normal mutations (and relying on selection for beneficial and against harmful modifications).
2. Variation would be possible to "accumulate" and continue development into some direction progressively over multiple generations.
3. The mechanism that makes acquired traits inheritable could eventually produce distinct, non-interbreeding species.
The first is not entirely out of the realm of possibility but never was observed and is likely false -- changes are still random, and selection is necessary to make the next generation more adapted than the previous one. The second is most likely false because modulation mechanisms that work while the organism is alive, do not gain any additional flexibility in the next generation, as base genome is either unchanged or randomly mutated. The third is definitely false, as no modulation of gene expression can prevent combination of all such variants as long as reproduction is possible at all, so new species can't be formed that way.
In other words, this does not make Lamarck any less wrong, his theory was a really bad guess.
I would guess, the device is actually very primitive -- it either:
1. Acts as RF man in the middle between the phone and tower. Since it can't get identifying information, someone has to make a very short phone call that will be dropped immediately after they noticed that connection is established (and that is a BIG SECRET they are trying to protect). 2. Forces fallback into an unencrypted or weakly encrypted mode (and then BIG SECRET is that the device is actually perfectly capable of intercepting conversations).
All the high-tech-looking stuff is likely for analog measurements and antenna pattern control that allows easier and more precise procedure to determine the location of the phone.
In the former USSR it was believed to be commonplace, however it was technically impossible. The 30V loudspeakers connected to the local radio, on the other hand, were perfectly usable as microphones, and I would guess, some lucky KGB agents found such speakers in a mode suitable for listening. But everyone over the age of 15 knew that it's possible -- those speakers were commonly used as microphone replacement in home recording.
If they were hundreds of kilometers from the power plant, they could not get any thyroids problem from it. Birth defects can be caused by plenty of things, but effects of radiation from Chernobyl disaster would amount to less than being exposed to the sun or eating bananas at such distance.
There are plenty of people who attributed medical problems to disaster though. Right after it happened, many complained about getting headaches "from radiation". If they were able to get enough radiation to produce a headache, the city would be littered with corpses in a few weeks.
I have recorded my measurements in relative units, and calibrated the meter later after I got access to a suitable reference meter. I used my shoes as a test sample to be measured simultaneously by both meters in the same conditions, so the types and spectrum of radiation remained approximately the same as one involved in measurements (except some distortion caused by higher percentage of radiation being produced by I-131 initially and less few weeks later when I have performed the calibration). Then I have translated initial measurements into absolute units. While imprecise, it was perfectly suitable for the purpose of safety assessment and finding the relative distribution of contamination.
No. IE4 was competing with Netscape Navigator/Communicator 4 and inexplicably won despite being an inferior product. After that, Netscape made little progress because it couldn't support development. IE 5 and 6 then focused on adding worthless doodads and providing new functionality only in cases when it was possible to do it in a way that can not be reproduced in non-Microsoft products or on non-Microsoft OS. Browser monopoly, once achieved, was supporting OS monopoly, not the other way around like if was at the beginning.
It does. The accepted meaning of the phrase had changed in common usage, and this new meaning is not in any way inconsistent or erroneous. If anything, it is more literal and less an of an idiom, as a given line of reasoning indeed requires a certain question to be asked at some point. Take into account that the original meaning came from Latin, and was a very bad translation to begin with.
Because I lived less than 100km from Chernobyl power plant, built a simple radiation meter a week after the disaster, used it to evaluate level of radiation, and years later worked in an organization that did health safety/contamination monitoring in that area.
Unless someone is actually at the disaster site, the only way to be affected is to eat or drink something that grew in a heavily contaminated area, over extended period of time. Food safety inspections prevented that from happening (among many other, usually unnecessary things that politicians insisted on).
I happened to be within few hundred km of both Chernobyl and Fukushima when they happened, and have to bear the cost of the consequences of two nuclear disasters myself.
If you were "few hundred km" from there, then you definitely don't.
This won't even stop rootkits -- rootkits will merely switch to messing with parts of OS that are not signed. What in Windows would be all of it except for a tiny bootloader, because they will have to allow third-party drivers, services and countless subsystems updates.
Well one way is to see the frequency with which the kernel binary is patched. A ton of malware is created after a OS patch is pushed (since most people run unpatched versions of windows anyway) . You can easily diff the patched binary and understand the code that was patched and create a working exploit.
No one does it on Windows -- there are plenty of low-hanging fruits, thanks for lack of secure design even when kernel works exactly as intended.
What I meant was if you do a total bug count of a fresh Windows install with a fresh Linux install, the linux install will have a higher bug count because of all the 3rd party crap that comes with it.
And most of that is not a security threat. In Windows, things like denial of service or potentially exploitable problems don't even show up on the radar. On Linux every instance of buffer overflow is automatically marked as "potentially executes arbitrary code" and is instantly fixed without questions. Following your logic, the most secure version of Windows is Windows 95 because nothing was actually reported or acknowledged by Microsoft for it.
Read Inside Windows NT , or The NT Design Workbook
Judging by the table of contents, it's not an OS design or implementation document, it's a random set of specifications, used somewhere by its kernel. They have no effect on anything that does anything of importance in Windows. I am sure, Windows at this point can be transferred to XNU or rebuilt on top of Linux, or, say, OpenBSD, and it would suck approximately as much.
If you want acess to the source code of windows you can easily get it if you're taking any computer science course in college/grad school or know anyone who does. But ofcource reading tons of implementation code to understand high level design would be a huge waste of time. I have it on my PC right now. I believe its a live snapshot of an XP era kernel from 2003.
It's only good tool for keeping people who are interested in it, yourself included, away from any other OS design.
Well-designed systems, of course, have readable and usable source.
By design "UNIX Security" is nothing more than enforcing simplistic rwx permissions of files and mapped devices, etc. Process isolation is just the the MMU doing its job. Which is ironic because original UNIX was targeted for single processor with a swap file & no virtual memory. NTs object/token design is vastly superior to anything the unix based operating systems have come up with. Using basic NT functionality you can take any running process token and reduce its rights (for e.g. reading/writing to a specific folder or controlling any other I/O) dynamically.
Again, you don't understand. First of all, things that you are talking about are "security features". Bells and whistles that do not actually provide any security, but allow creating all kinds of restrictions that in reality mean nothing. Second, Unix security can be simple because Unix does not have multiple type of objects and interfaces -- it has one, and such object is file descriptor. File permissions are only relevant when file, device or sockets are opened -- from system security point of view that procedure is not fundamentally different from, say, establishing TCP connection, exchanging keys and communicating over it using some encryption. At that point, the important things worth protecting are file descriptors because they represent somehow authenticated connections.
HTTP client's session may be completely un-authenticated, while sysadmin logged in over SSH may be authenticated and have unlimited access to the system, however, contrary to their name, there are no files or permissions in sight, even though in both of those example
How is it misplaced? Take an educated guess at the number of apps on the windows platform. For e.g. qwindows 7 32bit can run 16bit apps from DOS, Win 3.1 era Count all of them and given the number of distro volunteers they wont ever have time to create rules for even 10% of the apps. My point is you would require several orders of magnitudes of competent staff to maintain a repo on the scale of windows applications.
Repository maintenance != Your warez collection.
If you really care, DOS applications run on Linux just fine (and are sandboxed), however this has nothing to do with distribution maintainers keeping track of applications and their configuration -- including security settings. Indeed, that would be unthinkable in Windows world, when no one knows what exactly does he run and where does it come from.
False. If printer supports postscript, pcl, and other common printer tech you can use a generic driver for that. You will not get access to advanced featuress of the printer though, but that is obvious.
Except, of course, there is no infrastructure to reuse printer filters independently from port type, so those are the only printers supported. Even with network printing, it's a task of each client to generate the output in the format that can be sent directly to the printer. Great design, indeed.
You can look up any security databse. Bugs in the Linux kernel outnumber bugs in the NT kernel in recent years.
As I explained before, those are not the same kinds of bugs, and they are reported under vastly different standards of security research and disclosure.
Ofcource I am being nice in only comparing bugs in the kernel.
You mean, the part of Windows that no one would ever reliably attribute to any instance of successful exploit unless it happened in a lab while running under a hardware debugger?
If we were to compare a default install of an average consumer linux distro vs any store bought computer that runs windows, it would be laughable.
This is false.
At this point Linux fans will point out that the number of applications shipped is greater with a linux distro. But so what? If you ship it you should take responsibility for it.
What is it supposed to mean? Proprietary software vendors don't take responsibility for anything at all, least of all security of their software or any software that runs on their platform.
I have seen more kernel panics and BSODs than I can count but I have never ever encountered the windows subsystem ever crashing on NT.
Again, WTF are you talking about?
You're full of shit. You have half-baked knowledge about NT design.
There is no "NT design". There was a kinda-microkernel architecture of the original NT that was quickly drowned in ad-hoc stuff bolted on top of it. No one knows how much of it remains there, or what it does now.
Go and educate yourself
Where am I supposed to get any reliable information about Windows internals?
All the security features that Linux has bolted on ACLs/Apparmour/capabilities/etc have been in NT design since the start.
Linux has Unix security and IPC at its core. It also has various forms of containers that properly isolate sets of processes (and happen to do everything virtualization does except running a different OS). That's actual security. Filesystem ACLs are a worthless add-on that I have never ever seen being used on anything Unix-like because they are a stupid idea. If you have actual human users, their access has to be controlled by applications, not file permissions, and if "users" are actually applications, their access always fits into Unix user/group ID model. ACLs are a holdover from the time when file servers and multi-user computers with remote term
Slashdot Mirror
You are an idiot (and so are American Boards of Education, that reduced teaching to handing out assignments and assigning meaningless scores).
It would be intellectually dishonest to equate inheritance of acquired traits with Lamarck -- the traits that Lamarck talked about are traits affected specifically through activity (or "use") of organ or trait that modified it over a lifetime into a specific direction (changing shape, exercising, etc.) Those traits are still known to be non-inheritable -- for example, generations of people wearing corsets or performing physical exercises do not in any way affect the distribution of body shapes, and the fact that appendix mostly does nothing useful, does not affect its shape or existence in modern humans.
If there will be inheritable changes of body shape/muscle development, and they will by any chance caused by epigenetics, it would be a shocking coincidence if those changes were triggered by the same factors (wearing corsets and exercise) that the organism (in this case, human) would be somehow subjected due to conditions that make those changes beneficial. If humans will at some point develop a method of changing their gene expression specifically toward some beneficial traits, and it will also happen to be inheritable, it will be the first instance of such development -- and such goal-oriented development would be completely outside of any biological evolutionary mechanism.
This contradicts the core of Lamarck's hypothesis -- that direction of changes toward beneficial and against harmful, is dictated by the environmental factor itself, through some kind of "exercise" or being "molded" into a more adapted form, and those changes are inherited. Such development, if it was possible, would work in complete absence of natural selection, while in fact it does not -- changes in gene expression or their ability to be inherited do not exhibit any tendency toward being beneficial, but beneficial changes are selected through survival and mating.
The fact that SOME acquired traits can be inherited, was not even discussed at the time of Lamarck or Darwin, as mechanism of inheritance was completely unknown by then -- for Lamarck it was one of the base assumptions, for Darwin it would be an irrelevant detail.
...run on top of PC BIOS.
If anything, they add more crap to the giant stinking pile of crap that is PC BIOS.
Environmental factors also can cause mutations (what was known before genetics and before Darwin -- except, of course, mechanism and role in development of new species were not known at the time), and it still has absolutely nothing to do with anything Lamarck ever said.
which is why epigenetics is called Neo-Lamarckianism by that reference above.
What is stupid because it misrepresents both Lamarck's hypothesis, and actual processes being studied now. Lamarck described development of traits directed by the nature of environment and organism's capability to adapt over its lifetime. The actual mechanism produces random results, and the direction of phenotype change is in no way related to the environmental factor that causes it. Lamarck's hypothesis required no selection because direction of changes was always to adapt. In reality, selection is a necessary part of the process because harmful changes are very common, they just aren't passed to next generations as much. Lamarck described development of species. New species can not be produced by keeping genome the same and modifying its expression, because without a chain of mutations genome remains compatible. As I said, nothing like Lamarck.
That has nothing to do with Lamarck's ideas -- other than that people who are still angry at Darwin are constantly bringing up Lamarck in relation to it.
Both Darwin and Lamarck were describing a process of developing species over multiple generations.
Lamarck (without any specification of the mechanism of inheritance) claimed that traits acquired through various kinds of activity are inherited without any kind of evolutionary selection mechanism involved. In his opinion, new generation "started" with some modifications that older generations developed over their lifetime through their everyday activity, and continued development into those directions to end up with variations far beyond the level of variations that would be possible to develop over a single lifetime.
Darwin (without any specification of the mechanism of variation or inheritance) claimed that random inheritable variations are constantly introduced into population, and individuals with traits that make them more suitable for survival and reproduction, have greater numbers of offspring, and thus those traits become more common in later generations. Eventually this results in various new species representing mutually incompatible ways or directions of such development.
Neither Lamarck nor Darwin ever mentioned DNA -- it was unknown at the time, the only thing known about inheritance was that it exists, and sufficiently different set of inherited traits prevents interbreeding thus forming distinct species.
Discovering a mechanism that introduces random variations over a lifetime of an organism, as opposed to only over reproduction process, does not make Lamarck any less wrong. He would be somewhat right only if:
1. There was a mechanism that allows or causes organisms to direct those variations toward in some beneficial direction (thus making natural selection unnecessary, as all changes provide benefit that organism was "looking for"), as opposed to being as random as normal mutations (and relying on selection for beneficial and against harmful modifications).
2. Variation would be possible to "accumulate" and continue development into some direction progressively over multiple generations.
3. The mechanism that makes acquired traits inheritable could eventually produce distinct, non-interbreeding species.
The first is not entirely out of the realm of possibility but never was observed and is likely false -- changes are still random, and selection is necessary to make the next generation more adapted than the previous one. The second is most likely false because modulation mechanisms that work while the organism is alive, do not gain any additional flexibility in the next generation, as base genome is either unchanged or randomly mutated. The third is definitely false, as no modulation of gene expression can prevent combination of all such variants as long as reproduction is possible at all, so new species can't be formed that way.
In other words, this does not make Lamarck any less wrong, his theory was a really bad guess.
I would guess, the device is actually very primitive -- it either:
1. Acts as RF man in the middle between the phone and tower. Since it can't get identifying information, someone has to make a very short phone call that will be dropped immediately after they noticed that connection is established (and that is a BIG SECRET they are trying to protect).
2. Forces fallback into an unencrypted or weakly encrypted mode (and then BIG SECRET is that the device is actually perfectly capable of intercepting conversations).
All the high-tech-looking stuff is likely for analog measurements and antenna pattern control that allows easier and more precise procedure to determine the location of the phone.
In the former USSR this was commonplace.
In the former USSR it was believed to be commonplace, however it was technically impossible.
The 30V loudspeakers connected to the local radio, on the other hand, were perfectly usable as microphones, and I would guess, some lucky KGB agents found such speakers in a mode suitable for listening. But everyone over the age of 15 knew that it's possible -- those speakers were commonly used as microphone replacement in home recording.
Yes, and some people died to prevent it from spreading further. Sometimes heroic efforts actually save huge numbers of people.
Worthless IP is worthless.
If a tax loophole is patented, isn't it the duty of the government to make it illegal, thus making the patent worthless?
People still talk about Lamarckian inheritance as if it was completely wrong, instead of mostly being wrong. =)
lol wut
If they were hundreds of kilometers from the power plant, they could not get any thyroids problem from it. Birth defects can be caused by plenty of things, but effects of radiation from Chernobyl disaster would amount to less than being exposed to the sun or eating bananas at such distance.
There are plenty of people who attributed medical problems to disaster though. Right after it happened, many complained about getting headaches "from radiation". If they were able to get enough radiation to produce a headache, the city would be littered with corpses in a few weeks.
I have recorded my measurements in relative units, and calibrated the meter later after I got access to a suitable reference meter. I used my shoes as a test sample to be measured simultaneously by both meters in the same conditions, so the types and spectrum of radiation remained approximately the same as one involved in measurements (except some distortion caused by higher percentage of radiation being produced by I-131 initially and less few weeks later when I have performed the calibration). Then I have translated initial measurements into absolute units. While imprecise, it was perfectly suitable for the purpose of safety assessment and finding the relative distribution of contamination.
No. IE4 was competing with Netscape Navigator/Communicator 4 and inexplicably won despite being an inferior product. After that, Netscape made little progress because it couldn't support development. IE 5 and 6 then focused on adding worthless doodads and providing new functionality only in cases when it was possible to do it in a way that can not be reproduced in non-Microsoft products or on non-Microsoft OS. Browser monopoly, once achieved, was supporting OS monopoly, not the other way around like if was at the beginning.
It does. The accepted meaning of the phrase had changed in common usage, and this new meaning is not in any way inconsistent or erroneous. If anything, it is more literal and less an of an idiom, as a given line of reasoning indeed requires a certain question to be asked at some point. Take into account that the original meaning came from Latin, and was a very bad translation to begin with.
Because I lived less than 100km from Chernobyl power plant, built a simple radiation meter a week after the disaster, used it to evaluate level of radiation, and years later worked in an organization that did health safety/contamination monitoring in that area.
Unless someone is actually at the disaster site, the only way to be affected is to eat or drink something that grew in a heavily contaminated area, over extended period of time. Food safety inspections prevented that from happening (among many other, usually unnecessary things that politicians insisted on).
I happened to be within few hundred km of both Chernobyl and Fukushima when they happened, and have to bear the cost of the consequences of two nuclear disasters myself.
If you were "few hundred km" from there, then you definitely don't.
Everything that runs as administrator (what is, really, everything executable). Ring 0 is completely irrelevant.
If so, good riddance!
This won't even stop rootkits -- rootkits will merely switch to messing with parts of OS that are not signed. What in Windows would be all of it except for a tiny bootloader, because they will have to allow third-party drivers, services and countless subsystems updates.
Well one way is to see the frequency with which the kernel binary is patched. A ton of malware is created after a OS patch is pushed (since most people run unpatched versions of windows anyway) . You can easily diff the patched binary and understand the code that was patched and create a working exploit.
No one does it on Windows -- there are plenty of low-hanging fruits, thanks for lack of secure design even when kernel works exactly as intended.
What I meant was if you do a total bug count of a fresh Windows install with a fresh Linux install, the linux install will have a higher bug count because of all the 3rd party crap that comes with it.
And most of that is not a security threat. In Windows, things like denial of service or potentially exploitable problems don't even show up on the radar. On Linux every instance of buffer overflow is automatically marked as "potentially executes arbitrary code" and is instantly fixed without questions. Following your logic, the most secure version of Windows is Windows 95 because nothing was actually reported or acknowledged by Microsoft for it.
Read Inside Windows NT , or The NT Design Workbook
http://www.facultyresourcecenter.com/curriculum/BZ/pfv.aspx?ID=7401 [facultyres...center.com]
Judging by the table of contents, it's not an OS design or implementation document, it's a random set of specifications, used somewhere by its kernel. They have no effect on anything that does anything of importance in Windows. I am sure, Windows at this point can be transferred to XNU or rebuilt on top of Linux, or, say, OpenBSD, and it would suck approximately as much.
If you want acess to the source code of windows you can easily get it if you're taking any computer science course in college/grad school or know anyone who does. But ofcource reading tons of implementation code to understand high level design would be a huge waste of time. I have it on my PC right now. I believe its a live snapshot of an XP era kernel from 2003.
It's only good tool for keeping people who are interested in it, yourself included, away from any other OS design.
Well-designed systems, of course, have readable and usable source.
By design "UNIX Security" is nothing more than enforcing simplistic rwx permissions of files and mapped devices, etc. Process isolation is just the the MMU doing its job. Which is ironic because original UNIX was targeted for single processor with a swap file & no virtual memory. NTs object/token design is vastly superior to anything the unix based operating systems have come up with. Using basic NT functionality you can take any running process token and reduce its rights (for e.g. reading/writing to a specific folder or controlling any other I/O) dynamically.
Again, you don't understand. First of all, things that you are talking about are "security features". Bells and whistles that do not actually provide any security, but allow creating all kinds of restrictions that in reality mean nothing. Second, Unix security can be simple because Unix does not have multiple type of objects and interfaces -- it has one, and such object is file descriptor. File permissions are only relevant when file, device or sockets are opened -- from system security point of view that procedure is not fundamentally different from, say, establishing TCP connection, exchanging keys and communicating over it using some encryption. At that point, the important things worth protecting are file descriptors because they represent somehow authenticated connections.
HTTP client's session may be completely un-authenticated, while sysadmin logged in over SSH may be authenticated and have unlimited access to the system, however, contrary to their name, there are no files or permissions in sight, even though in both of those example
...and I don't even have to explain why, because every commend before me did it already.
How is it misplaced? Take an educated guess at the number of apps on the windows platform. For e.g. qwindows 7 32bit can run 16bit apps from DOS, Win 3.1 era Count all of them and given the number of distro volunteers they wont ever have time to create rules for even 10% of the apps. My point is you would require several orders of magnitudes of competent staff to maintain a repo on the scale of windows applications.
Repository maintenance != Your warez collection.
If you really care, DOS applications run on Linux just fine (and are sandboxed), however this has nothing to do with distribution maintainers keeping track of applications and their configuration -- including security settings. Indeed, that would be unthinkable in Windows world, when no one knows what exactly does he run and where does it come from.
False. If printer supports postscript, pcl, and other common printer tech you can use a generic driver for that. You will not get access to advanced featuress of the printer though, but that is obvious.
Except, of course, there is no infrastructure to reuse printer filters independently from port type, so those are the only printers supported. Even with network printing, it's a task of each client to generate the output in the format that can be sent directly to the printer. Great design, indeed.
You can look up any security databse. Bugs in the Linux kernel outnumber bugs in the NT kernel in recent years.
As I explained before, those are not the same kinds of bugs, and they are reported under vastly different standards of security research and disclosure.
Ofcource I am being nice in only comparing bugs in the kernel.
You mean, the part of Windows that no one would ever reliably attribute to any instance of successful exploit unless it happened in a lab while running under a hardware debugger?
If we were to compare a default install of an average consumer linux distro vs any store bought computer that runs windows, it would be laughable.
This is false.
At this point Linux fans will point out that the number of applications shipped is greater with a linux distro. But so what? If you ship it you should take responsibility for it.
What is it supposed to mean? Proprietary software vendors don't take responsibility for anything at all, least of all security of their software or any software that runs on their platform.
I have seen more kernel panics and BSODs than I can count but I have never ever encountered the windows subsystem ever crashing on NT.
Again, WTF are you talking about?
You're full of shit. You have half-baked knowledge about NT design.
There is no "NT design". There was a kinda-microkernel architecture of the original NT that was quickly drowned in ad-hoc stuff bolted on top of it. No one knows how much of it remains there, or what it does now.
Go and educate yourself
Where am I supposed to get any reliable information about Windows internals?
All the security features that Linux has bolted on ACLs/Apparmour/capabilities/etc have been in NT design since the start.
Linux has Unix security and IPC at its core. It also has various forms of containers that properly isolate sets of processes (and happen to do everything virtualization does except running a different OS). That's actual security. Filesystem ACLs are a worthless add-on that I have never ever seen being used on anything Unix-like because they are a stupid idea. If you have actual human users, their access has to be controlled by applications, not file permissions, and if "users" are actually applications, their access always fits into Unix user/group ID model. ACLs are a holdover from the time when file servers and multi-user computers with remote term
open source observer Brian Proffitt
lol
Track any protests or civil unrest so they are easier to suppress.
Isn't it the point of a protest to be noticed by the government? Would anyone sane protest in secret?