the Download.Ject vulnerability that hit IE late last month. The press statement says that it'll hit Windows Update later today..."
So, the vulnerability will hit Windows Update later today? How do they know? (Other than the fact that Microsoft is running security at the Windows Update site, of course.)
Counting them out before they even get started is a little unfair, don't you think?
I think what the poster you're replying to was saying is: Counting them in before they even get started is a little unfair. "Going to release source code" doesn't necessarily mean they're going to flake out in some way, as you pointed out, but it also doesn't mean they're going to deliver.
if this was a Microsoft problem the amount of bitching and conspiracy theories would never end.
Which is not to say that if the bitching and conspiracy theories never end about this, there's a double standard being applied. When Microsoft does it, we know that there's motives that Microsoft is known to have and certain types of actions that they've been known to take based on those motives. With Red Hat (and, by extension, Fedora) they haven't been shown to take those types of actions, and we know that if they did, they'd be self-defeating.
So, if you mean to imply the existence of a possible double-standard, I think you're wrong.
Me too! But I didn't even install Grub! I told it not to install a bootloader, since I already have one, and it still f*ked it up. I'm now trying to figure out how to be able to boot into anything. I'd even take a boot into Windows if I could.
Like any technology, the research dollars will probably go towards those projects with the highest expected returns. I might be a cynic, but rather than curing a disease, I'll bet we'll find a new flood of cosmetic upgrades.
Maybe because people expect to pay for cosmetic upgrades and don't expect to pay for their disease being cured?
Re:Waiting for the resource file.
on
Freecache
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Packaging up entire websites is a problem the Freenet people are working on. When latency shoots through the roof, website "jar" files start sounding good.
> Yet more proof that the BBC license fee is an unmitigated Good Thing(TM).
WHY OH WHY are the only fuckers who realise this not resident in the UK?
Oops! You got your words wrong. Instead of "realise", I think you meant to say, "think". Realise implies that there's something truthful about it. It's never ever an "unmitigated Good Thing" for you to take MY money. I don't care how good the BBC is, I'll choose whether to support it with my money, not you. You keep your grubby mitts on your own damned wallet.
The legal system is explicitly designed with the assumption that a person can own products of the intellect. Is it so surprising that someone like Jack Valenti can't understand this "fair use" business? Property is naturally something that one person owns and everybody else doesn't. If Jack Valenti (or the people he represents) owns a movie, why should he expect others to be able to do with it as they please? It's his property!
The fault here lies with the legal system that creates the fiction that a person can "own" intellect. In a proper legal system, there'd be no such fiction.
The open source world's only "problem" is with people who think they know what open source's problem is.
So documentation is hard to understand. So you can't pointy-clicky your way through everything. Who cares? Your ease of use is not my problem. Open Source is exactly what it is because of the people who use it and make it work. Like "Jaywalk" said, "She points out that open-source is 'programmers writing for programmers.' Well, duh. Who else cares?"
In the proprietary world, if people don't buy the software you use, the software-maker goes out of business and the software goes away. But this isn't the proprietary world, and that's not how things operate here. If some backwater idiot doesn't like Linux because it doesn't come with a complimentary AOL icon on the desktop, it doesn't matter to me and the many others who *do* like Linux. Our operating system won't go out of business. Open source doesn't have a "problem".
And another thing, damnit, I wish people would get it out of their heads that GUIs are automatically more intuitive.
Competition is what capitalism is supposed to be about, right?
No. Capitalism is about the freedom to compete, whether there exists competition or not. In this case, the EU is deciding that Microsoft is not free to compete, and that others are not allowed to choose what Microsoft has to offer. The EU is deciding for everyone.
We all know that free software is going to win in the end, but it may be only because this or that government clubbed Microsoft enough times that they couldn't get back up. That would be sad, because open source and free software can win on pure technical superiority alone.
"We have X's in our name, too! In fact, in our new and improved version there's twice as many X's! Just wait until our next operating system, codenamed Windex, comes out. Those Linus people ain't got nothin' on us."
This is what I see happening as more and more people start opting in to shorter copyright terms on their intellectual "property". When the Homey Bobbo Copyright Extension Act of 2005 comes up for the vote, Disney and ilk will argue that there's no problem with the extension because it's not so much a mandate as an option. "Look! Other people are voluntarily limiting themselves! Let those who oppose the extension do the same!"
And copyright law becomes an issue of choice, in the same way that you still have the choice to close-source your software. You think copyright terms should be shorter? Vote with your work. You think it should be 130 years? You have that option.
This is just what I'd expect from a publisher who espouses the value of choice, including the choice to not share. This could be good.
Just what is a "telecommunications service" and in what way can it have a "destination". I think the answer would show just what kind of reality the makers of this law imagine exists.
I'm a dead-tree book fan, as many others are. Even technical books, I like to have the freshly cracked spine tucked into my lap.
But I disagree that physical books are necessarily better than the Safari concept. That misses the point. The best way to think of Safari is as a reference. You know all those times when a question crosses your mind and you run to the computer, head for Google, and type in your search terms? That's exactly when Safari comes in handy. You'll still need to Google to know what year Edison invented the lightbulb (he didn't, Woodward and Evans did), but if you want to know how dynamically allocated ports work, it's right there in TCP/IP Network Administration.
It's kind of like man pages. They're just there, waiting for your inquiry. They're a reference tool.
Slashdot, Not Medidot.
on
Complications
·
· Score: 1
One wonders what the fuck this has to do with slashdot.
Slashdot Mirror
So, the vulnerability will hit Windows Update later today? How do they know? (Other than the fact that Microsoft is running security at the Windows Update site, of course.)
"We know where the weapons are . . ."
Really? Why haven't they found them after more than a YEAR of being there.
Where do you get your news? Probably not from here.
I think what the poster you're replying to was saying is: Counting them in before they even get started is a little unfair. "Going to release source code" doesn't necessarily mean they're going to flake out in some way, as you pointed out, but it also doesn't mean they're going to deliver.
Which is not to say that if the bitching and conspiracy theories never end about this, there's a double standard being applied. When Microsoft does it, we know that there's motives that Microsoft is known to have and certain types of actions that they've been known to take based on those motives. With Red Hat (and, by extension, Fedora) they haven't been shown to take those types of actions, and we know that if they did, they'd be self-defeating.
So, if you mean to imply the existence of a possible double-standard, I think you're wrong.
grub> setup (hd0)
grub> reboot
I've done that, and it still won't boot. I can get Grub now, but it won't boot into Windows. It says "chainloader +1" and so on, but just hangs there.
Me too. Last night.
Grub error. can't boot anything. can't boot Windows, can't boot linux.
Me too! But I didn't even install Grub! I told it not to install a bootloader, since I already have one, and it still f*ked it up. I'm now trying to figure out how to be able to boot into anything. I'd even take a boot into Windows if I could.
Penis! Funny! Penis funny! Penis Penis! Twice as funny!! Penis Penis Penis...
Maybe because people expect to pay for cosmetic upgrades and don't expect to pay for their disease being cured?
Packaging up entire websites is a problem the Freenet people are working on. When latency shoots through the roof, website "jar" files start sounding good.
Dear Closed-Source company,
Your lack of successful business plan is not my problem.
--
WHY OH WHY are the only fuckers who realise this not resident in the UK?
Oops! You got your words wrong. Instead of "realise", I think you meant to say, "think". Realise implies that there's something truthful about it. It's never ever an "unmitigated Good Thing" for you to take MY money. I don't care how good the BBC is, I'll choose whether to support it with my money, not you. You keep your grubby mitts on your own damned wallet.
Your answer is here: http://www.leftist.org/haightspeech/archives/00018 5.html
The fault here lies with the legal system that creates the fiction that a person can "own" intellect. In a proper legal system, there'd be no such fiction.
In other news, major Internet portal Slashdot.org is pioneering innovative new forms of advertising by disguising the product as "news".
How about spyware installed not at your computer, but on your Internet connection? At your ISP for example. Say... Carnivore?
And what if the thing enabling the spying is not reporting back to somewhere, but is just a way to get in?
Is intentionally weak crypto spyware? The NSA limited publicly available key length to 56 bits, explicitly because it's easy to crack, up until 1999.
The open source world's only "problem" is with people who think they know what open source's problem is.
So documentation is hard to understand. So you can't pointy-clicky your way through everything. Who cares? Your ease of use is not my problem. Open Source is exactly what it is because of the people who use it and make it work. Like "Jaywalk" said, "She points out that open-source is 'programmers writing for programmers.' Well, duh. Who else cares?"
In the proprietary world, if people don't buy the software you use, the software-maker goes out of business and the software goes away. But this isn't the proprietary world, and that's not how things operate here. If some backwater idiot doesn't like Linux because it doesn't come with a complimentary AOL icon on the desktop, it doesn't matter to me and the many others who *do* like Linux. Our operating system won't go out of business. Open source doesn't have a "problem".
And another thing, damnit, I wish people would get it out of their heads that GUIs are automatically more intuitive.
No. Capitalism is about the freedom to compete, whether there exists competition or not. In this case, the EU is deciding that Microsoft is not free to compete, and that others are not allowed to choose what Microsoft has to offer. The EU is deciding for everyone.
We all know that free software is going to win in the end, but it may be only because this or that government clubbed Microsoft enough times that they couldn't get back up. That would be sad, because open source and free software can win on pure technical superiority alone.
"We have X's in our name, too! In fact, in our new and improved version there's twice as many X's! Just wait until our next operating system, codenamed Windex, comes out. Those Linus people ain't got nothin' on us."
Hell yeah. If you can't win in the marketplace, get the government to help you.
Disgusting.
And copyright law becomes an issue of choice, in the same way that you still have the choice to close-source your software. You think copyright terms should be shorter? Vote with your work. You think it should be 130 years? You have that option.
This is just what I'd expect from a publisher who espouses the value of choice, including the choice to not share. This could be good.
Just what is a "telecommunications service" and in what way can it have a "destination". I think the answer would show just what kind of reality the makers of this law imagine exists.
Subscribers are probably the ones to load /. the most, right?
I doubt it. I'd bet there are a thousand Slashdot readers for every Slashdot subscriber.
-lousyd
But I disagree that physical books are necessarily better than the Safari concept. That misses the point. The best way to think of Safari is as a reference. You know all those times when a question crosses your mind and you run to the computer, head for Google, and type in your search terms? That's exactly when Safari comes in handy. You'll still need to Google to know what year Edison invented the lightbulb (he didn't, Woodward and Evans did), but if you want to know how dynamically allocated ports work, it's right there in TCP/IP Network Administration.
It's kind of like man pages. They're just there, waiting for your inquiry. They're a reference tool.
One wonders what the fuck this has to do with slashdot.
what the colleges and Microsoft are doing may not actually be illegal (or could be argued not to be, anyway)
Hey, arguing the point is all the law is about, right? I mean, what's "objective"?
-lousyd