Well except that the exploit worked for Mac HW too. The email sent by Apple with notice to be placed on the web site didn't say, "Note: we said it was a third party driver", which would have been true, they did. Rather it was to force them to say, "...is reliant the use of a third party driver. In short, the answer is yes. The MacBook is not inherently vulnerable to the attack, and I never said that it was." Which is *not* true, and indeed is a lie. That is the core of the problem. Apple wanted them to lie, and when they wouldn't tell the lie, they were called liars.
"However, was it really CLEAR that the exploit only existed for the 3rd party driver?"
But it should not have been *clear*, since the exploit did exist for Apple drivers as well as the 3rd party. It was only because Apple leaned on them to show the exploit with 3rd party drivers that it was done that way. So they cooperated with Apple, and got hosed for it.
However, that fiduciary responsibility can be mitigated by a statement of principle made at the time of going public. "We exist to earn our shareholder's profit, but also to earn for our shareholder's the following non-monetary values." Things like a bank who won't invest in weapons manufacturing, or banks that do invest in ecologically correct business.
Apparently (according to postings in the article) sometimes it quarantines and sometimes it irrecoverably deletes (beyond what recovery tools can recover.)
In these cases, if they actually occurred as described, it is more like you have a fire in the tool shed in your back yard and the fireman level your house and garage as well as the tool shed.
So I totally agree with what you said, but that doesn't matter since the real problem is worse than what you described.
The idea is that if a central core became a defacto standard (as well as the de jure), then 800 lb gorillas might not be able to flaunt their power and disregard the standard. The real question should be, "Is XHTML/CSS sufficent for a given domain." If the answer is no, the topic is moot. If the answer is yes, then it would make sense to do it that way...
It is a spreadsheet, yes, it is. Why would you, as a user, be concerned about whether it was written in C++ or Java or whatever? You just want to use it. Users don't code an implementation. Developers do the coding.
What Opera's CTO was saying was that Excel, for instance, could look exactly the same, and work exactly the same, but the file format would be (a superset of) XHTML/CSS. As a user, you wouldn't know. Or care. As a developer, I'd write to a different spec., is all. The suggestion is that a current spec is sufficent to cover these other needs, so why not *use* it rather than come up with new spec.s?
While Javascript was the example language used, there is no reason not to implement in Java, or C++, or Lisp for that matter. Separate display from computation. You could use whatever backend you use now, and just write to a different display interface.
Agreed. But such a move to use HTML/CSS might just give weight to HTML/CSS standards, too. Not that I think this is an optimum path, but such an extension could solidify support around the core. This would be especially true if it forced control to standards bodies...
Naive users should try Lyx. Moving away from format considerations and towards content would be especially useful in academic environments, and anywhere else where there is a focus on what is said rather than how it looks. The process does shake one up a bit, though I would suggest that this is a very good thing:-)
They develop a plugin. Then, they Open Source the plugin. Then they give control of the development of the plugin to a standards body, whose changes must be reflected in MS's own implentation. Much more than writing a plugin.
Well competition and cooperation are both important. Which way the pendulum needs to swing has a lot to do with where you stand, and if said swinging mass is about to crash into your house of cards. I disagree that Open Source eliminates competition, and would instead suggest that it fosters organic evolution whereby many, many paths are explored in parallel. At the opposite extreme we have patents, which result in poorly implemented POS applications languishing in a protected cove, oblivious to external factors because it is "our way or the highway". Now what does seem real is that business models have to evolve to work with Open Source. Thus, the state of the art of both software design, and business methods to monetize same, are forced to evolve at a faster rate. I don't think the problem is that Open Source eliminates competition so much as it pushes it up qualitatively to another notch. It isn't enough to get there first, but rather, one must continue innovating. Winning is based on a time derivative of innovation. This is perhaps scary.
We are currently in flux and what I see are VB6 teams who are still choosing not to migrate to.net, and now Vista & Office 2007 presents enough retraining costs that the PTB dare to question "staying the course" vs alternatives. Companies have systems that work, sure, but they are being asked to endure a forced migration. This is an opportunity unlike anything that occurred over the past decade, because the course of the migration doesn't appear to be fixed in stone. The "fix" isn't in (or at least not so deeply).
Whether this potential will be actualized in a manner consistent with my preferences, I have no clue. It doesn't appear to be business as usual, though. That in itself is interesting.
And yet "legacy" is why we are stuck with QWERTY keyboards. Is this really an argument *for* MS? Not really. Likewise in terms of compatibility: if by compatible you mean the use of open standards that can then, by design, interoperate, then MS loses again.
Now what does matter, and matters more than the technical excellence (or even adequacy) of a given product, is marketing (well, and collusion, and illegal restraint of trade, but thats part of marketing, right?) Whats the point of asking how things would have gone different with a fair and even playing field? Just please don't let the advantages of a history of abuse of one's monopoly position be confused with the operation of a free market or its efficiencies.
His point was that if you take that player outside and have a block party, you've just used said device to violate copyright. Can't even have a movie day at the Library with materials in the library (although you can still read to children there...)
Well then what about the Visual Studio team? Visual Studio is pretty damn useful, it would enable people to violate the rights of content creators. On a serious note, for the "program to require a license", there would need to be copyright infringement (which there isn't if it is a clean reimplementation based on published spec.s), or a patent involved.
They are alleging "downloading", which they admit they can't prove. They are alleging "distribution", which they admit they can't prove. They can prove "making available", which the judge pointed out isn't against anything in the copyright law. Seems like this does mean something...
"With Windows there's only one current version of Windows. Right now its Vista. Before it was XP."
We live in different worlds. Right now I see laptops running WinXP and Win2k. Vista might as well not exist. We are members of the Microsoft Developer's Network Academic Alliance, so we can download free-as-in-beer copies of WinXP and Vista. I've only ever seen one copy of Vista running on campus.
Attitude and ego. "Here's a damn big clue: the reason I find GNOME limiting is BECAUSE IT IS." Why? "Because I said so, and I'm the mom, so just shut up and eat your patches, because they are good for you, because I said so, and I guarantee it."
GUI design issues are like fashion. Some people hate plaid. Oh well. Get over it. Emacs/vi, KDE/Gnome, Linux/BSD/Solaris (if Sun really GPLs). Lots of choice, and thats a good thing. I've never understood why Linus had relevance. Has he ever done anything besides the kernel? And this means his preferences for background images should matter to me why?
Yeah well but...sometimes you have to have Flash or JavaScript around. At least my job has required it. Java, too, for that matter. Being able to disable all but a this white list is sweet.
Lynx is fun. When I want to actually read about something rather than look at a website, lynx works very well.
(It is hard to give up the tab model, though. And I've always aprreciated an MDI approach. I even liked the original StarOffice (before they broke it apart). )
Slashdot Mirror
Well except that the exploit worked for Mac HW too. The email sent by Apple with notice to be placed on the web site didn't say, "Note: we said it was a third party driver", which would have been true, they did. Rather it was to force them to say, "...is reliant the use of a third party driver. In short, the answer is yes. The MacBook is not inherently vulnerable to the attack, and I never said that it was." Which is *not* true, and indeed is a lie. That is the core of the problem. Apple wanted them to lie, and when they wouldn't tell the lie, they were called liars.
"However, was it really CLEAR that the exploit only existed for the 3rd party driver?"
But it should not have been *clear*, since the exploit did exist for Apple drivers as well as the 3rd party. It was only because Apple leaned on them to show the exploit with 3rd party drivers that it was done that way. So they cooperated with Apple, and got hosed for it.
However, that fiduciary responsibility can be mitigated by a statement of principle made at the time of going public. "We exist to earn our shareholder's profit, but also to earn for our shareholder's the following non-monetary values." Things like a bank who won't invest in weapons manufacturing, or banks that do invest in ecologically correct business.
Why wouldn't OneCare nuke Thunderbird just as easily as it did Outlook?
Apparently (according to postings in the article) sometimes it quarantines and sometimes it irrecoverably deletes (beyond what recovery tools can recover.) In these cases, if they actually occurred as described, it is more like you have a fire in the tool shed in your back yard and the fireman level your house and garage as well as the tool shed.
So I totally agree with what you said, but that doesn't matter since the real problem is worse than what you described.
The idea is that if a central core became a defacto standard (as well as the de jure), then 800 lb gorillas might not be able to flaunt their power and disregard the standard. The real question should be, "Is XHTML/CSS sufficent for a given domain." If the answer is no, the topic is moot. If the answer is yes, then it would make sense to do it that way...
"whooosh" is the operative word here...
It is a spreadsheet, yes, it is. Why would you, as a user, be concerned about whether it was written in C++ or Java or whatever? You just want to use it. Users don't code an implementation. Developers do the coding.
What Opera's CTO was saying was that Excel, for instance, could look exactly the same, and work exactly the same, but the file format would be (a superset of) XHTML/CSS. As a user, you wouldn't know. Or care. As a developer, I'd write to a different spec., is all. The suggestion is that a current spec is sufficent to cover these other needs, so why not *use* it rather than come up with new spec.s?
While Javascript was the example language used, there is no reason not to implement in Java, or C++, or Lisp for that matter. Separate display from computation. You could use whatever backend you use now, and just write to a different display interface.
Agreed. But such a move to use HTML/CSS might just give weight to HTML/CSS standards, too. Not that I think this is an optimum path, but such an extension could solidify support around the core. This would be especially true if it forced control to standards bodies...
Naive users should try Lyx. Moving away from format considerations and towards content would be especially useful in academic environments, and anywhere else where there is a focus on what is said rather than how it looks. The process does shake one up a bit, though I would suggest that this is a very good thing :-)
They develop a plugin. Then, they Open Source the plugin. Then they give control of the development of the plugin to a standards body, whose changes must be reflected in MS's own implentation. Much more than writing a plugin.
Well competition and cooperation are both important. Which way the pendulum needs to swing has a lot to do with where you stand, and if said swinging mass is about to crash into your house of cards. I disagree that Open Source eliminates competition, and would instead suggest that it fosters organic evolution whereby many, many paths are explored in parallel. At the opposite extreme we have patents, which result in poorly implemented POS applications languishing in a protected cove, oblivious to external factors because it is "our way or the highway". Now what does seem real is that business models have to evolve to work with Open Source. Thus, the state of the art of both software design, and business methods to monetize same, are forced to evolve at a faster rate. I don't think the problem is that Open Source eliminates competition so much as it pushes it up qualitatively to another notch. It isn't enough to get there first, but rather, one must continue innovating. Winning is based on a time derivative of innovation. This is perhaps scary.
In the other cases, the negative was on the right: War is to Peace as Closed is to Open, not as Open is to Closed.
Change is the only constant. :-)
.net, and now Vista & Office 2007 presents enough retraining costs that the PTB dare to question "staying the course" vs alternatives. Companies have systems that work, sure, but they are being asked to endure a forced migration. This is an opportunity unlike anything that occurred over the past decade, because the course of the migration doesn't appear to be fixed in stone. The "fix" isn't in (or at least not so deeply).
We are currently in flux and what I see are VB6 teams who are still choosing not to migrate to
Whether this potential will be actualized in a manner consistent with my preferences, I have no clue. It doesn't appear to be business as usual, though. That in itself is interesting.
And yet "legacy" is why we are stuck with QWERTY keyboards. Is this really an argument *for* MS? Not really. Likewise in terms of compatibility: if by compatible you mean the use of open standards that can then, by design, interoperate, then MS loses again.
Now what does matter, and matters more than the technical excellence (or even adequacy) of a given product, is marketing (well, and collusion, and illegal restraint of trade, but thats part of marketing, right?) Whats the point of asking how things would have gone different with a fair and even playing field? Just please don't let the advantages of a history of abuse of one's monopoly position be confused with the operation of a free market or its efficiencies.
His point was that if you take that player outside and have a block party, you've just used said device to violate copyright. Can't even have a movie day at the Library with materials in the library (although you can still read to children there...)
Well then what about the Visual Studio team? Visual Studio is pretty damn useful, it would enable people to violate the rights of content creators. On a serious note, for the "program to require a license", there would need to be copyright infringement (which there isn't if it is a clean reimplementation based on published spec.s), or a patent involved.
"Fire the Lawyer Cannons!"
"But sir, what they are doing isn't illegal under our current system of law!"
"In that case, fire the Lawyer's canons!"
Seeing as how "Intellectual Property" isn't a legal term, it has about that the same about of meaning...
They are alleging "downloading", which they admit they can't prove. They are alleging "distribution", which they admit they can't prove. They can prove "making available", which the judge pointed out isn't against anything in the copyright law. Seems like this does mean something...
"With Windows there's only one current version of Windows. Right now its Vista. Before it was XP."
We live in different worlds. Right now I see laptops running WinXP and Win2k. Vista might as well not exist. We are members of the Microsoft Developer's Network Academic Alliance, so we can download free-as-in-beer copies of WinXP and Vista. I've only ever seen one copy of Vista running on campus.
Attitude and ego. "Here's a damn big clue: the reason I find GNOME limiting is BECAUSE IT IS." Why? "Because I said so, and I'm the mom, so just shut up and eat your patches, because they are good for you, because I said so, and I guarantee it."
GUI design issues are like fashion. Some people hate plaid. Oh well. Get over it. Emacs/vi, KDE/Gnome, Linux/BSD/Solaris (if Sun really GPLs). Lots of choice, and thats a good thing. I've never understood why Linus had relevance. Has he ever done anything besides the kernel? And this means his preferences for background images should matter to me why?
Yeah well but...sometimes you have to have Flash or JavaScript around. At least my job has required it. Java, too, for that matter. Being able to disable all but a this white list is sweet.
Netscape invented JavaScript. It was good by version 3.
Lynx is fun. When I want to actually read about something rather than look at a website, lynx works very well.
(It is hard to give up the tab model, though. And I've always aprreciated an MDI approach. I even liked the original StarOffice (before they broke it apart). )