Security is not a hardware issue. If you split open a cat5 that's lying around you can crack right into a unsecure, _wired_ network. Network security is - to most extents - software and transfere protocol reliant and can therefor only exist on a software level. It's fine for vendors to implement hardware firewalling (which really is just hardware implemented software if you get my drift,) but it should not be something to rely on because it's part of the standard (and being part of the standard it would probably be cracked right away.)
No, do not depend on hardware security and don't ever think it's more secure than software security. Secure your LAN as needed, stay in control and know that pretty much anything that goes through the air can be picked up by virtually anyone. VPN, crypt and tunnell (or do whatever it is those security freaks do), don't trust anyone else to secure your network and data.
I've always said the XML Emperor has no clothes: all XML is is a meta-framework for markup languages. No more, no less. And pointless if schemas are never disclosed.
I think that's the way many programmers think (I know I do) it's just a way to avoid yet-another-file-parser for every project. And some - Norwegian SGML guy with a name comes to mind - is not a true, open format because the programmers can use schemas, you still need to know the schema. But then again, is it possible to create a open format which supports everything per default, is human readable and - to the extreme - does not require knowledge about the language. How are aliens going to crack the ASCII code in a binary radio stream from earth? Is there some formulae that makes it easier to decypher than hyeroglyphs?
But you shouldn't demand a refund, but rather get them to sell you the computer without the OS in the first place.
As with the EULA thing it's a mistake by MS, they probably should change the wording so that they don't promise you a refund if you bought it as a part of a package. If you think about it, you never bought Windows, you bought a package which happened to include a version of Windows which you can choose whether or not to use.
Besides this, the manufacturer is de facto forced to pay the component supplier for licenses on the products, even if the customer doesn't want it. It's like paying protection money so that "god forbid...it would be awful if something were to happen to your business......"
Agreed, but that's not a consumers right or fight. The OEM's are welcome to put any OS they want on an computer and should fight unfair deals like MS's. It's one level above users and not our battle.
Again if you don't like the package, don't buy it.
I don't wan't to sound un/.y, but is it really fair to expect a refund for the OS when you buy a computer package? When you buy a computer from some manufacturer you don't come back with just your graphic card and demand a refund because you don't like it. Or when you buy a car, you don't return the rearbumper just because you don't like the brand of it (no auto makers don't make every part themself.) You can't demand a refund for the nVidia GPU on the Gainward card because you want an ATI chip on it. It's a package deal. You bough a package, knowing what's in it and if you're going to get a refund you'll need to return the whole package, except if it's broken. If you don't like the parts in a package you've baught you replace them yourself. You knew exactly what you were getting.
Oh, oh... haven't you read the jargon file? No true hacker calls himself a hacker, it's a title given to you by the community. Now you've really made a boo-boo.
That's not a spoiler. A spoiler reveals details that are crucial for the events of the movie so that you'll know how it ends. Arwen was only put in the film purely because she's a female and because she increases the filmatic appeal. It's not like she's going to make Sauron win.
Apologies to whoever on slashdot who once wrote something very similar to this.
I've got this genious rendering engine called B.R.A.I.N. It renders hundreds of thousands of characters realtime and it looks so realistic. All you have to do is input a text (ASCII not an requirement) and it output gorgeous scenes instantanious.
What have the world come to when the submitters warn the/. crowd about spoilers in a LOTR movie. Doesn't the entire/. crowd know it by heart?? It... makes me sad.
.., perhaps, generating a bigger demand for their hardware.
If they opensourced solaris under a normal OSS license (like GPL) people would start making it run on all kinds of hardware, and do optimization so that SUN's hardware only becomes an expensive alternative with few benefits.
I live in rural Norway and have looked at the possibility for satellite and found TiscaliSat (should be avaiable in most countries), but the prices are high. Setting up the sat costs $2000+ and the monthly fee is $200+. I don't forsee satellite as a viable artenative for private consumers, maybe for small corporations (with need for fast connection in rural areas?)
Because there is somethings called rural areas where cable and DSL providers don't find it profitable to upgrade their equipment for fast internet access (phone and cable centrals need to be improved.)
".., the web server that served this web page to you is running on an old, retired PC that has been recycled after its lifetime as a Windows desktop has passed.
If you consider a dual MP with 2GB ram outdate I guess this could be true. That's about what it takes to withstand the/. effect.
Jokes a side. The article fails to mention the anti OSS advocats main argument, TCO. I am a strong support of OSS, but I don't think anyone can claim that OSS has a $0 TCO. The article should have mentioned that keeping a healthy system for someone without a Linux guru or extensive IT dep. requiers outside consultans, and support is always useful. In addition training of personell requires relatively heavy investment. OSS stands out and is by many conceived as harder to learn than software that follow the MS standards that tey're used to. The $27,000 is therefor IMHO a bit to high.
On the other hand I believe this is outweighted by the (almost) $0 upgrade costs - user interfaces and basis funcitonallity rarely change - the more-for-the-money argument and the no-bloated-window-managing-for-servers argument.
A sound discussion on economical benefits of OSS should always include counter arguments. One angled articles are hard to take serious.
This is sort of besides your point, but why on earth couldn't he get the iDVD (legally (I don't support piracy)) for his excisting mac and buy a DVD burner? MS is a convicted monopolistic force, but I think we ought to be glad Apple is small compared to MS. They controll - as proved by this post - the users choise of hardware and software and dictate unfair (though legal) policies on consumers.
To keep this slightly on-topic, I think it's great that Apple is taking a stand (haven't read the article,/.ed), but it's probably not because it's 'the right thing to do.' They probably just find it a profitable view (or they're building market share.)
There are no nice companies. IBM might support Linux and play by the rules, but their just looking after their market share.
To reduce the numbers of box needed. Routing chews few CPU cycles so it seems irrational to have a dedicated box for it. By centralicing of applications fewer machines are needed and the purchase cost is reduced (and probably the TCO since this is purely software based centralisation.)
Thus, an attacker can easily trojan your machine with man-in-the-middle or DNS attacks, sending you to an update site with a trojanned package signed with his own public key. (...) The key needs to be stored with a trusted entity like Verisign, which is how Windows Update and other commercial-grade updating systems ensure the integrity of their packages.
I find this a weak argument. A man in the middle attack would only get slightly harder if they put keys and packages on different (trusted) servers. Their just harder to fake than one server systems, but by monitoring regular patterns between all servers and a client you'd be able to assemble the right phony proxy (or whatever the cracker's using.)
Slashdot Mirror
Present time: First time the parent troll is slightly on topic and has been modded up as funny.
(We've all seen it before, haven't we?)
Security is not a hardware issue. If you split open a cat5 that's lying around you can crack right into a unsecure, _wired_ network. Network security is - to most extents - software and transfere protocol reliant and can therefor only exist on a software level. It's fine for vendors to implement hardware firewalling (which really is just hardware implemented software if you get my drift,) but it should not be something to rely on because it's part of the standard (and being part of the standard it would probably be cracked right away.)
No, do not depend on hardware security and don't ever think it's more secure than software security. Secure your LAN as needed, stay in control and know that pretty much anything that goes through the air can be picked up by virtually anyone. VPN, crypt and tunnell (or do whatever it is those security freaks do), don't trust anyone else to secure your network and data.
I've always said the XML Emperor has no clothes: all XML is is a meta-framework for markup languages. No more, no less. And pointless if schemas are never disclosed.
I think that's the way many programmers think (I know I do) it's just a way to avoid yet-another-file-parser for every project. And some - Norwegian SGML guy with a name comes to mind - is not a true, open format because the programmers can use schemas, you still need to know the schema. But then again, is it possible to create a open format which supports everything per default, is human readable and - to the extreme - does not require knowledge about the language. How are aliens going to crack the ASCII code in a binary radio stream from earth? Is there some formulae that makes it easier to decypher than hyeroglyphs?
But you shouldn't demand a refund, but rather get them to sell you the computer without the OS in the first place.
As with the EULA thing it's a mistake by MS, they probably should change the wording so that they don't promise you a refund if you bought it as a part of a package. If you think about it, you never bought Windows, you bought a package which happened to include a version of Windows which you can choose whether or not to use.
Besides this, the manufacturer is de facto forced to pay the component supplier for licenses on the products, even if the customer doesn't want it. It's like paying protection money so that "god forbid...it would be awful if something were to happen to your business......"
Agreed, but that's not a consumers right or fight. The OEM's are welcome to put any OS they want on an computer and should fight unfair deals like MS's. It's one level above users and not our battle.
Again if you don't like the package, don't buy it.
I don't wan't to sound un/.y, but is it really fair to expect a refund for the OS when you buy a computer package? When you buy a computer from some manufacturer you don't come back with just your graphic card and demand a refund because you don't like it. Or when you buy a car, you don't return the rearbumper just because you don't like the brand of it (no auto makers don't make every part themself.) You can't demand a refund for the nVidia GPU on the Gainward card because you want an ATI chip on it. It's a package deal. You bough a package, knowing what's in it and if you're going to get a refund you'll need to return the whole package, except if it's broken. If you don't like the parts in a package you've baught you replace them yourself. You knew exactly what you were getting.
Oh, oh ... haven't you read the jargon file? No true hacker calls himself a hacker, it's a title given to you by the community. Now you've really made a boo-boo.
Sklyarov: I'm not a hacker.
Prosecutor: No of course you're not, you're a cracker.
Try imagining _not_ imagining a beowolf cluster of these.
That's not a spoiler. A spoiler reveals details that are crucial for the events of the movie so that you'll know how it ends. Arwen was only put in the film purely because she's a female and because she increases the filmatic appeal. It's not like she's going to make Sauron win.
Apologies to whoever on slashdot who once wrote something very similar to this.
I've got this genious rendering engine called B.R.A.I.N. It renders hundreds of thousands of characters realtime and it looks so realistic. All you have to do is input a text (ASCII not an requirement) and it output gorgeous scenes instantanious.
What have the world come to when the submitters warn the /. crowd about spoilers in a LOTR movie. Doesn't the entire /. crowd know it by heart?? It ... makes me sad.
... over 3600 of them a year [snip]... an inch or two.
Shouldn't it grow by 3600 inches then?
.., perhaps, generating a bigger demand for their hardware.
If they opensourced solaris under a normal OSS license (like GPL) people would start making it run on all kinds of hardware, and do optimization so that SUN's hardware only becomes an expensive alternative with few benefits.
Printer ink cartridge empty. Using secondary output; tattoo device.
... the company thinks, a single program should handle it all.
Another innovation from MS, their going to recreat Emacs.
Microshaft Internet Exploder
*duck*
You're on /. and haven't read LOTR??
/.'s infiltrated, the enemy agents are in.
Watch out,
I live in rural Norway and have looked at the possibility for satellite and found TiscaliSat (should be avaiable in most countries), but the prices are high. Setting up the sat costs $2000+ and the monthly fee is $200+. I don't forsee satellite as a viable artenative for private consumers, maybe for small corporations (with need for fast connection in rural areas?)
Because there is somethings called rural areas where cable and DSL providers don't find it profitable to upgrade their equipment for fast internet access (phone and cable centrals need to be improved.)
".., the web server that served this web page to you is running on an old, retired PC that has been recycled after its lifetime as a Windows desktop has passed.
/. effect.
If you consider a dual MP with 2GB ram outdate I guess this could be true. That's about what it takes to withstand the
Jokes a side. The article fails to mention the anti OSS advocats main argument, TCO. I am a strong support of OSS, but I don't think anyone can claim that OSS has a $0 TCO. The article should have mentioned that keeping a healthy system for someone without a Linux guru or extensive IT dep. requiers outside consultans, and support is always useful. In addition training of personell requires relatively heavy investment. OSS stands out and is by many conceived as harder to learn than software that follow the MS standards that tey're used to. The $27,000 is therefor IMHO a bit to high.
On the other hand I believe this is outweighted by the (almost) $0 upgrade costs - user interfaces and basis funcitonallity rarely change - the more-for-the-money argument and the no-bloated-window-managing-for-servers argument.
A sound discussion on economical benefits of OSS should always include counter arguments. One angled articles are hard to take serious.
This is sort of besides your point, but why on earth couldn't he get the iDVD (legally (I don't support piracy)) for his excisting mac and buy a DVD burner? MS is a convicted monopolistic force, but I think we ought to be glad Apple is small compared to MS. They controll - as proved by this post - the users choise of hardware and software and dictate unfair (though legal) policies on consumers.
/.ed), but it's probably not because it's 'the right thing to do.' They probably just find it a profitable view (or they're building market share.)
To keep this slightly on-topic, I think it's great that Apple is taking a stand (haven't read the article,
There are no nice companies. IBM might support Linux and play by the rules, but their just looking after their market share.
Who are you, really?
To reduce the numbers of box needed. Routing chews few CPU cycles so it seems irrational to have a dedicated box for it. By centralicing of applications fewer machines are needed and the purchase cost is reduced (and probably the TCO since this is purely software based centralisation.)
Err ... do you know what a fiscal year is. A fiscal year beginning April 1. may very well begin April 1. 2003.
A fiscal year is a twelve month periode, but not bound to the gregorian year. The term is usually used in economics.
Thus, an attacker can easily trojan your machine with man-in-the-middle or DNS attacks, sending you to an update site with a trojanned package signed with his own public key.
(...)
The key needs to be stored with a trusted entity like Verisign, which is how Windows Update and other commercial-grade updating systems ensure the integrity of their packages.
I find this a weak argument. A man in the middle attack would only get slightly harder if they put keys and packages on different (trusted) servers. Their just harder to fake than one server systems, but by monitoring regular patterns between all servers and a client you'd be able to assemble the right phony proxy (or whatever the cracker's using.)