Is it just me, or were the games back in the 80's so much cooler? Early NES and PC were the best. I remember playing Kings Quest, LSL, Shadowgate, etc. for hours upon hours. _Tons_ of great (sometimes cheesy.. which made them even better) games. Just seems things were way more exciting. Games like Half-life (with the interaction) would have been considered the norm. IMO, I liked Half-life, but the interaction is only slightly better than the adventure games of days past (and the story was definately nothing new). Maybe I'm just getting too old to appreciate games today (I believe Duke3D was the last game I truely enjoyed).
You must realize the majority of start-up businesses fail. Statistics were against them, and it sure doesn't help that they are entering a market which no one is in. If you take into account that even game producers _barely_ make money (something like 1 in a number of thousand games actually sell? not to mention competition from console gaming) and Loki was choosing games which were not "hits" (very few people knew about their latest game.. Kohan or whatever) it would easily equate to bankruptcy. And on top of that many of the games were easily playable by getting the cheaper Windows CD and downloading a free Linux binary.
I do believe they had a better business plan than Eazel.. I don't have the slightest clue what those fools were thinking (and Ximian.. if they didn't have funding they would be in the toilet too, IMO.. but I don't know their business plan so only time will tell).
Can you point to a single thing I said that shows that I "forgot" this one important detail??
By assuming that source code makes everything better. It is simply not a matter of having source code available that makes it secure. Grandma sitting at home does not know how to patch source code and recompile. Unless she has something like Window's Update it ain't gonna happen (though I believe Ximian has something akin to this; either way it's irrelevant to the issue).
You still have not commented on sendmail (I noticed you used the less exploited qmail). Sendmail has been exploited numerous times. I believe it proves source code available does not make for inherently secure software. The issue is really this: bugs are in every program. They are in source code that has been released. If a cracker wanted to they surely could find an exploit in some open source server software. There is no way to prove software is secure. I'm not debating whether proprietary makes securer software. I'm saying open source does not inherently make software more secure. Both ways of producing software can produce secure software. IIS is now a secure product up until the next cracker figures a way to break it. This is the same way it has been for Linux, though not a big deal because Linux has always been used in smaller proportion to Windows.
My reason for posting what I did was not to convince you, it was to counter the propaganda you posted, so others may realize there are other views, may consider the various sources for those views, and do the research, or at least the thinking, for themselves.
To meet that goal, I need not back up everything I say, any more than you did in your claims about the security of proprietary software as a model, or in any of its specific forms.
It may be propaganda, but as far as I'm concerned it is the truth. You do have to back up your claim because the original poster implied (if not outright claimed) that open source produced software that was more secure than proprietary. There needs to be hard evidence to back that up, because my view is 100% neutral. Proprietary software could very well be insecure garbage in every possible case compared to open source software that has the same functionality. But I do need to see sources for that kind of implication.
If they're "ignorant end-users", why is Microsoft letting them run a web server on a hostile network, allowing their systems to become launching-pads for further hostile actions against other systems?
My point is that Microsoft exerts vastly more control over the computing environment of Microsoft users (and willfully so) than any combination of GNU/Linux/*BSD/CPAN authors do over the computing environment of their users
For the same reason Ford "lets" people drive drunk? It's the government's job to protect people from each other--not Microsoft's. Microsoft was not expecting a bug in their IIS server anyways. It was not a wrongdoing on their part. The only reason Microsoft has "control" of users is because of ignorance of what they are doing. I'm sure they can disable or choose not to install IIS (or generally configure their system correctly). IIRC IIS was originally the Microsoft Personal Web Server, which was just a small web server intended for private (i.e. homepage) use. It is ignorance on the users' part to not check for fixes to their software and properly maintain their computer. Using the automobile analogy again, if people who drive Ford Explorers never took their vehicle in for the tire recall then they have no way to claim Firestone did them wrong if an accident occurs (and most likely any court would side with Ford/Firestone if this were the case).
In other words, when the software you paid for the privilege of using , but not studying or improving, fails, you have to not only buy some next-generation form of that software, but newer computers to run it?
Why not? If something breaks in your computer there are times you will have to upgrade a number of components. It could be worse. I'm sure you have heard the stories of programs back in the good ole days even causing fires in the hardware (back when all source was "open").
The answer is: of course that's true, for proprietary software. That's why, of the reasonably high number of 486 CPUs out there running in production mode as mail and web servers, a vanishing percentage, I suspect, run proprietary software for those apps -- instead, they probably run a Linux or *BSD kernel, Apache, qmail, etc.
So you are saying lets not innovate? Lets keep backwards compatibility? Lets stick with 30-year-old designs?
That is, they punished the company that produced a largely-Y2K-compliant system and rewarded the one that boxed them into a corner by creating Y2K-buggy software for years. That's exactly the kind of perverse result one would expect from depending on obscurity rather than openness.
I know the feeling. Right now Linux is making me use antiquated software when I could be using WindowsNT, but I digress (*joke*.. I do like free software (GNU-sense) and Linux, but the truth is it is a very old design. That can not be argued as FUD).
I claim your posts contained much more, and largely uninformed or gratuitous, genuine bashing of free software than mine did of Microsoft.
I'm not bashing free software. I'm sick of Slashdot readers with their holier-than-thou attitude spreading FUD about proprietary software. It can go both ways.
Your arrogance is really over the top. I, of course, have worked for many proprietary-software developers, none of them Microsoft, but can't help noticing which one has survived and flourished as what most people think of as the source of software enabling them to access the Internet.
Okay, I'll give you that one. I'm not trying to sound harsh or have an attitude. I think many people who use Microsoft day-to-day (as a tool, not for enjoyment of computing) would say "Microsoft makes some great products." I believe they do (but I sure don't use anything other than Win98.. and it is a total POS for me). I've heard a few people claim Win2k is greatest thing that ever happened to their computer (or something to the extent). Hey, if it works for them I can't complain (though Code Red did piss me off a little, I would definately not blame Microsoft. It could easily happen with open source in the future as I have seen a great deal of ignorant Linux/BSD users.. especially on Slashdot).
And while I agree that free software isn't, at the level of instantiation (that is, instances of free software), inherently more secure than proprietary, I do claim that it's inherently more secure as a model for software development and deployment.
Further, my impression (definitely devoid of necessary research to support it) is that, in the free-software community, well-designed, secure software is a much better predictor of deployment, especially over the long term. Look at how "poorly" qmail is "marketed", yet its installed base is pretty amazing.
I believe people creating open source care more about the quality at times than proprietary vendors. People writing free software do so in their own time, and mostly as a hobby. That is a far cry from denouncing all proprietary software as insecure based on just one vendor (MS).
Name one. Name one that you can show is secure, in a public forum, by reviewing the most important material that should come into evidence: the source code!
That, in itself, is the problem. You can not prove beyond a shadow of doubt that the source code you have in your hand (drive, whatever) is 100% secure. I don't recall the early web browsers having huge security issues (or early BBS software for that matter). I am positive they had bugs that the programmers never knew existed. If you accept the fact that any piece of software has at least one bug at any given time then it is clear that, open source or not, no software is secure. I think the matter is trust. You seem to not trust proprietary vendors, and I do think this has much to do with Microsoft's behavior (and their negative image). I have learned to trust Microsoft enough to get things right a good amount of time, but not enough that I personally would use their software (if I tried Win2k I may even be back to MS, if it really is as good as some claim). I seriously hope you do not go around looking at the source code for the Linux system to find flaws. You must surely trust the coders to do a good job, right? It would take many man-years (decades?) to examine and audit the free software on your typical Linux/BSD/etc. box. There may be a large number of open source coders, but keep in mind they do code on usually one or two programs at a max. If you take into consideration the large number of Linux programs then the "eye-count" becomes diminished quickly.
Ultimately, you believe that security through obscurity, in the form of not only obscuring algorithms, but obscuring the fact that proprietary-software developers have a form of relationship with their customer base that cannot , even under the best of circumstances, be described as "demonstrably committed to mutual security", is the best solution. [snip] Proprietary-software developers do exist that provide some degree of commitment to the security of their customers' installations, but that commitment is, in my experience, "earned" via distinct payments and other consideration, compared to the software they sell. That is, the mere act of acquiring and deploying proprietary software rarely earns a customer any useful commitment from the vendor regarding security. The same goes for free software, in spades, of course, but with free software the customer has not only the original vendor to go to to purchase additional security commitments, but pretty much anyone else in the world, since he has access to the source code, to open forums for discussing its security, and to source-level patches to improve and/or test that security.)
I agree with that point. I believe what will eventually (and already to an extent) happen is proprietary software will move to a strategy as Troll Tech attempted. If the company shall go under (or product is removed from their maintenance, catalog, whatever) it would be released freely (under GPL or somesuch). And there would be a guarantee (in the EULA or what have you) that this would happen. It would benefit proprietary vendors by giving them something they can actually make a profit on, while giving trust to the users incase they should go under (I know, I know.. free software can make money by selling support, but this is capitalism. Make as much money as you can, right? Which leads to more ignorance; users aren't aware that cheaper alternatives exist. In many cases, users really do not care whether they pay extra or not. They just want the computer to "do as I say").
After all, it isn't the free-software development community that pushes for things like the DMCA, is it?
I don't know enough about DMCA, honestly. It may very well be a good idea gone wrong. Then again, it could be about greedy software vendors wanting their way. I'd hope not, but it could be the case.
What exactly does your (and other poster's) argument, or need, for a different vendor of the same product have to do with security? This is complete oranges and apples. You say "I could guarantee you a different car with the same chassy/engine combination under a different brand name." I can also guarantee you a Linux system with FAT32 support. That does not make Linux a Windows machine, now does it? There are certain distributions (tinyslack or whatever it is called) which use FAT (UMSDOS) for their primary partition. It is akin to using the same engine or chassie.
Where can you get the Linux kernel in FreeBSD? BeOS? NT? The kernel is not an interchangable part like an engine can be. Nor is the kernel always an open design.
No, getting an Accord from Acura does not make an Accord an Acura Accord. It is still a Honda. You can pick Accords up at any trade-in garage. I fail to see how this relates in anyway to security.
The reason to need an NT kernel from a different vendor is, well, none. I'm assuming you want an NT kernel for free (as in it costs you nothing). That is the only reason to bring this "argument" up. If the NT kernel was available from another vendor (proprietary), but cost the same as Microsoft you would both still be bitching. Freedom (GNU) is not about greed.
How is using open source automation? People must _still_ support and develop the software you are getting a free lunch with. What happens when the people doing the actual work get burned out and leave it altogether? You will then have to _pay_ someone to develop and maintain the software.
I think much of the quality open source software out today has been very close to becoming (or has been) proprietary. Mozilla was proprietary. Qt was "locked" source code. Ghostscript is relicensed as GPL after a given time period. Quake/Doom/Abuse/etc. source code has been proprietary and released because the technology is very much obsolete. We all know how hardware manufacturers are very secretive of their technology. One can imagine the hoops XF86 had to jump through to get drivers for even the most common graphics cards.
Proprietary software will still be around in 10 years (most likely longer). My guess is it will probably move to subscription based software, and eventually to "throw-away," or run-once software (where software is more about the current state and will not have any significance later simply because software will change so much in short amount of time, therefore source code will be irrelevant). It will not remain "run program.exe" or "/usr/bin/program." Microsoft and Sun both realize this.
That reminds me. I remember reading something once that secretaries have actually had to use TeX. I am a programmer that does not know TeX. Of course I have not spent much time to learn it, but it is definately not intuitive. Just goes to show you that anyone can learn archaic computer interfaces--even if they do not understand all the bit moving going on "below" them. I've never really bought into the idea that some programs were more intuitive than others, but for programs with like-interfaces and a system that is coherent as a whole (which *ix will never be) it does start to make sense. I'm skeptical that Linux will ever be easy enough to use for people who just want to use a computer as a tool. Sure, we can have people use Linux in an adminstered workplace. I seriously doubt these same people would install Linux on their home machines to do basic finance and word processing.
Alrighty then! Lets blame Microsoft for the ignorant users of IIS. While we are at it why not blame Ford for the idiots who drive drunk? Sounds like an idear to me..
Re:Linux game development, or lack thereof..
on
Kohan for Linux
·
· Score: 1
It may also work for the better. Gameplay would be emphasized rather than gee-whiz graphics.
So what you are saying is there is an alternative to Microsoft? One minute the hordes of Slashdot are ready to knock over Bill Gates' monopolistic empire, the next they are tearing it down with alternatives. Let us all rejoice in the coherence and nonhypocritcal nature of Slashdot readers.
Why blame _anyone_? Just jump ship man. Not like you are forced by gun to use their trashy software. You can only blame when it is a monopoly. Clearly you have alternatives.
These are not facts. Where is your evidence? Sources? Where?
Sure everyone has access to the source code. But you forgot one important detail: not everyone is a programmer. It does not matter a single iota whether grandma has access to the source code or not. It does matter that she has secure software.
Fact: that "people with infected IIS are not admins" is irrelevant.
No it's not. I was pointing out that people with the virus are ignorant end-users. Not the technical elite who know what source code is and what to do with it. Your quote about Microsoft's market position is what's irrelevant.
You seem to have missed the issue totally. I am not arguing Microsoft has secure software. I am arguing proprietary software does not equal insecure, and open source does not equal secure. That is all. I am not defending Microsoft in the least. What I am defending is the numerous secure proprietary software out in the world. From small software shops to large corporations. From decades past to decades in the future.
Fact: While it is indeed not always true that people are paid to fix free software, the exact same thing is the case for proprietary software.
If the software shop refuses to fix a security problem then you look like a complete dumbass to continue to use their software. Do yourself a favor and get a vendor who cares. I'm assuming you live in America and buy into the idea of free market. If you do not agree that the market is regulated by consumer demand, then you are complaining in the wrong forum.
Whereas, if Microsoft decides, as it surely will down the road, to stop paying its programmers to fix IIS, or Windows 2000, or DOS 5.whatever, you'll be out of options if you have failed to follow the M$-recommended upgrade path.
I'm sorry to hear that. Buy a new computer, perhaps? One that can run the newer software. Again, you are bashing Microsoft with "M$." Lets not throw jealousy into the argument. Everyone knows Microsoft has money, why keep repeating it.
Fact: Red Hat does not, and has never, represented the security-conscious administrator's #1 choice for a default system installation of GNU/Linux.
And what, the original poster gets away with implying Microsoft is representative of the security-conscious? Come on now, no double standards. I also never said Red Hat was the #1 choice for the security-conscious. I could just as well argue against Slackware, which is updated very rarely (which the original poster understood as a sign of security).
Challenge: name three vendors from which you can obtain the Microsoft Windows 2000 or Windows NT kernel in a distribution as fundamentally different from Microsoft's as Debian's, or SuSE's, is from Red Hat's.
Challenge: name one vendor who will sell me a Honda Accord 2001 other than Honda. No. That is a Ford Taurus, and my what a piece of shit it is.
Okay, this is just too irrelevant in the discussion of security. I'm not arguing for bloat or any of that intellectual property nonsense. This issue at hand is security. I say the open source system does not produce software that is more secure than proprietary. Likewise, proprietary can be very insecure compared to certain, specific, open source software packages. Your lesson for today: learn there are other proprietary software vendors than Microsoft. I was only using MS because this thread is about their product specifically. The original poster implied that OS was inherently more secure than proprietary, and I still refuse to accept his or your reasoning.
Closed source can be perfectly good at closing holes, if the company is as big as Microsoft. But Open Source is much better at closing those holes before they are shipped: many eyeballs make all bugs shallow. Open Source doesn't catch every bug, of course; but enough are found that when the odd hole is announced, it is a big enough deal that the patches are more likely to be installed.
I disagree. And I also assume you haven't heard of a little something called "sendmail." It is truely the cracker's (script kiddies) dream exploit. It could be called the "cracker's favorite root tool--already installed."
Open source producing more secure software than the proprietary world is a _myth_. Where is the concrete evidence to back up this claim? And because it is open do not think that more eyes see it (and much less _analyze_ it). Then there are the eyes out there looking for an exploit.
Exploits for open source are a "big enough deal" only because most users of open source are technically adept. The people with infected IIS are not admins and most are probably not very technical (end-users).
Keep in mind people are _paid_ to fix proprietary (commercial) software. This is not always true for open source (and much less true for those numerous "applications" on sourceforge.net and freshmeat.net).
Closed Source hurts Microsoft security in more ways than one. Not only are all default installations compromised, but since so many new patches come out every week most admins don't keep up with them. While this is partially the admin's fault, it is also the fault of the software model that prevents these problems from being found quickly.
Default installations compromised? Are we talking about Red Hat or Microsoft here? Can't be our beloved Red Hat. I don't see what makes people believe that all these Linux newbies keep up with patching their system. A good number of Linux users do not even know how to upgrade (much less use diff/patch) their kernel. Many do not know even know man(ual) pages. Proprietary software does not help crackers either. It is equally hard to exploit closed source software as it is to find exploits in closed source software. Make sense? If you claim it is hard to find problems in closed source, what makes you think crackers had an easy time too? They don't, trust me.
It goes a little something like this: Cracker Joe finds an exploit doing heavy reverse engineering (sometimes--not always of course). He shows the world his exploit to become famous (most crackers attach some sort of handle to show their "inside" friends on IRC and what not--bragging rights). This exploit travels by ignorance. Not because it cannot technically be stopped. _Any_ exploit is technically stoppable.
Re:Well...at least RR is trying to help...
on
Code Red III
·
· Score: 1
I sure hope so. I got 625 attempts yesterday and 358 today so far (5pm). That (625) is DOUBLE what I was getting around Aug 3-7th.
But my cable provider (Road Runner) has been having problems today and yesterday (connection seems to just go "poof"). Might not be this virus though. I've had 1676 attempts on my cable connection. Finally I shut down Apache (getting tired of it loading from inetd).
From looking at/var/log/messages it seems there have been numerous attempts today, most of which are from RR.
July (19-20ish): 22 hits
August 1st : 22 hits
August 2nd : 26 hits
August 3rd : 30 hits
August 4th : 205 hits
August 5th : 318 hits
August 6th : 352 hits (!)
August 7th : 253 hits
August 8th : 210 hits
August 9th : ~193 hits as of 11:18am
I don't believe there is a "Linux community." The term "Linux" has been co-opted and coerced so much that it looks like any old bandwagon ("Hop on everyone! We will give you a ride to greatness!"). From IBM to Sun, and even the "friends" of Linux such as Red Hat and Caldera. Free software ideology itself was co-opted by "Open Source(TM)" and ESR (free software being more "pure" and idealistic, while "Open Source" being oriented towards corporate America. A distinction many still do not grasp today). Even you toss "Linux community" into "Open Source," which "Open Source" can be considered even FreeBSD. Note that it is not "O'Reilly Free Software [or Linux] Convention." The word "open" does not have the connotation of "freedom," which is the whole purpose of GNU and FSF.
Any "Linux community" will most likely include FreeBSD users, Mozilla (MPL license) users, etc. And it most likely will include people who do not use Linux, but like the GPL. Then there is probably a few who actually do not like Linux or the GPL.
At least they still have enough integrity to own-up to the responsibility they have to their readers.
That is bullshit. This "integrity" is after the fact. If the story was never posted on/. or brought to light, then it would still be going on. It was going on from 1999 to May of this year IIRC. If you can't find your head from your ass in 3 years you deserve to lose 100% of your readers. Bad judgement is a one time "ut oh." What we have here is a long-term fuckup still (would be) in progress. And probably is. Who knows what underhanded things will be going on behind reader's backs.
and you really trust their stories now? They have no integrity left. Infact, I don't think this so-called "Linux community" does. This "community" looks more to me (and probably outsiders) as a continuation of the dot-com gold rush. Which it is, in many cases.
Seriously, how much bandwidth do we lose to simple ACKs, NACKs, and packet headers? How often do networks really drop packets that we couldn't use UDP for web applications?
UDP drops packets enough, that is for sure. The purpose of TCP is to be a _stable_ transport. UDP simply throws messages towards their destination and hopes they hit their target. Say an HTML document is sent via UDP. Say you get 1 packet, miss the 2nd and get the 3rd instead. How does your browser know packet 3 is _not_ packet 2. This also says nothing about the order of packets sent (with UDP packet 3 could arrive before 2 or 1). So then you begin to hack on a protocol that detects the correct order. Then you hack on another protocol that makes sure packets even arrive. Then you will have TCP all over again.:-)
As for HTML and XML, we could cut ascii data by 20% if we just got rid of useless carriage returns, non-paragraph whitespace, tag quotation marks, HTML comments... just compare the source HTML for Yahoo with CNN.com... BIG difference.
Ahh. We finally see that just learning HTML (or in general, web-oriented languages such as VB script and Javascript) does not make a good programmer. If you have never seen a VB program's source code.. well, don't. I don't mean to bash VB (or web) programmers though. The problem with HTML/XML is it is not compiled (like Java machine-independent). I believe this is more to do with the web outgrowing its purpose. It was never designed for graphics, let alone plug-ins, Javascript/Java, frames (should I really continue?:P ).
no no no!! PDFs _are_ web documents. You must get the plug-in! Then PDF becomes one with the web (and acrobat has sex with your Internet Explorer at the same time).
(Incase you didn't follow, I was joking about their use of plug-in requirements..)
They have not even attempted merging my kitchen sink into their elaborate plan. Tsk. Tsk. Why would any self-respecting XML-evangelizing mission-critical component integrator consider using this?
Please. Come back when you have a real solution. (And please do remember to tell me the question.)
Re:Desktop Environment Vs. Window Manager
on
KDE 2.2 Tagged
·
· Score: 1
The real promise of KDE/GNOME/GNUstep was to integrate applications. Think Windows COM/OLE type stuff and all apps looking the same. The truth, as of today, is there is very little reason to switch. If you did not know, you can run KDE/GNOME/etc. applications under fvwm or whatever you like (even twm!). Though you will still have to download the large libraries and install those.
All in all, there is very little benefit gained from "desktops." The unification of X apps will fail, IMO. In the long run I believe you will be needing both KDE and GNOME libraries, unfortunately (as cooperation between both parties is nonexistent). Only time and corporate dollars (if any) will decide the fate of which desktop (if any) to choose.
I know this isn't much help. X really is still the same X:-(
I do like WindowMaker though. If you are looking for a change.
Obviously some people (i.e. you) didn't see my joke.
Re-read the article (part timothy wrote):
With Open Source software projects, understanding why certain features are developed while others aren't, or even why entire projects split apart into contending factions, is often as simple as reading mailing list archives and web sites where the involved parties hash out (or at least air) their differences.
Seems like someone got pissed and modded me offtopic because they interpretted me as bashing open source. Way to go moderators.
I don't know about being able to understand open source. I look at sourceforge.net and sometimes wonder why the hell certain programs are even there. Then I look for their source code and wonder where their source code is. Then I look at freshmeat.net and wonder why there is the 100000th mp3 web-frontend written in perl. Maybe it's just me.
It's unfortunate but most of the people rabbiting on about AI simply do not understand just how hard it is.
Please tell us, just how hard IS AI to produce since you seem to know?
"Intelligence" is a different concept to just about any person you talk to.
Lets see what Mr. Dictionary says..
1. The act or state of knowing; the exercise of the understanding.
I'll tell you what I believe. I do not believe there is anything to "know." Everything you "know" is there because is relates to everything else you "know." Finally, it breaks down into physical sensation (feedback).
If we apply this to the computer we see everything is related to everything else already. A file on your computer is there because the computer's OS placed it there. The bits in the file are there because the program on your computer talked to the OS which talked to your hard drive and finally placed those bits there. Under the first definition of "intelligence," computers could be seen as intelligent already. They "act" under their knowing. When they do not "know" then it is what could be considered a "bug." Simply, not understanding. Humans take the view as "programmers" for unintelligent (human intelligence) machines. I do not think many take the view as "teachers" or "trainers" for computers. I believe they are the same. "Teaching" for computers is rougher because (a) computers are a much different level (NOT lower or higher.. DIFFERENT) of interaction. They have no physical sensation.. they can not react to things like humans do. They DO react to keypresses, mouse movement, etc. My belief: computers already learn, just not at a level that (most) humans believe as learning. In short, computers aren't jumping up and down talking to us while singing. But they ARE checking out whether you have email, if your hard drive needs defragmented or fsck'd, whether your printer is out of paper, or if that person you just fraged in Quake3 got mad and quit the game. At any given moment they are checking, moving, calculating, and above all _determining_ more things than anyone can imagine. I do not believe the ideas of intelligence have caught up to what "intelligence" really is. In other words: technology is beating ideas about the world we live in. We just need to reexamine what it means to be "intelligent."
Let's examine another definition:
6. An intelligent being or spirit; -- generally applied to pure spirits; as, a created intelligence. --Milton.
This definition depends on some sort of religion (key word being "spirit"). Many people do not believe in spirits or a "soul." The word "intelligence" is tied to too many undefinable or unbelievable things to create a concrete machine which does "intelligent" things. If humans could put a concrete definition on what intelligence is, we would already have a machine that does it. My believe is we already do, just do not know it.
You cannot claim that we are not any closer to intelligent machines. However, you can claim we do not have a machine that _relates to humans_ in a way that _humans relate to humans_.
Slashdot Mirror
Indeed.
Is it just me, or were the games back in the 80's so much cooler? Early NES and PC were the best. I remember playing Kings Quest, LSL, Shadowgate, etc. for hours upon hours. _Tons_ of great (sometimes cheesy.. which made them even better) games. Just seems things were way more exciting. Games like Half-life (with the interaction) would have been considered the norm. IMO, I liked Half-life, but the interaction is only slightly better than the adventure games of days past (and the story was definately nothing new). Maybe I'm just getting too old to appreciate games today (I believe Duke3D was the last game I truely enjoyed).
You must realize the majority of start-up businesses fail. Statistics were against them, and it sure doesn't help that they are entering a market which no one is in. If you take into account that even game producers _barely_ make money (something like 1 in a number of thousand games actually sell? not to mention competition from console gaming) and Loki was choosing games which were not "hits" (very few people knew about their latest game.. Kohan or whatever) it would easily equate to bankruptcy. And on top of that many of the games were easily playable by getting the cheaper Windows CD and downloading a free Linux binary.
I do believe they had a better business plan than Eazel.. I don't have the slightest clue what those fools were thinking (and Ximian.. if they didn't have funding they would be in the toilet too, IMO.. but I don't know their business plan so only time will tell).
You still have not commented on sendmail (I noticed you used the less exploited qmail). Sendmail has been exploited numerous times. I believe it proves source code available does not make for inherently secure software. The issue is really this: bugs are in every program. They are in source code that has been released. If a cracker wanted to they surely could find an exploit in some open source server software. There is no way to prove software is secure. I'm not debating whether proprietary makes securer software. I'm saying open source does not inherently make software more secure. Both ways of producing software can produce secure software. IIS is now a secure product up until the next cracker figures a way to break it. This is the same way it has been for Linux, though not a big deal because Linux has always been used in smaller proportion to Windows.
It may be propaganda, but as far as I'm concerned it is the truth. You do have to back up your claim because the original poster implied (if not outright claimed) that open source produced software that was more secure than proprietary. There needs to be hard evidence to back that up, because my view is 100% neutral. Proprietary software could very well be insecure garbage in every possible case compared to open source software that has the same functionality. But I do need to see sources for that kind of implication.
For the same reason Ford "lets" people drive drunk? It's the government's job to protect people from each other--not Microsoft's. Microsoft was not expecting a bug in their IIS server anyways. It was not a wrongdoing on their part. The only reason Microsoft has "control" of users is because of ignorance of what they are doing. I'm sure they can disable or choose not to install IIS (or generally configure their system correctly). IIRC IIS was originally the Microsoft Personal Web Server, which was just a small web server intended for private (i.e. homepage) use. It is ignorance on the users' part to not check for fixes to their software and properly maintain their computer. Using the automobile analogy again, if people who drive Ford Explorers never took their vehicle in for the tire recall then they have no way to claim Firestone did them wrong if an accident occurs (and most likely any court would side with Ford/Firestone if this were the case).
Why not? If something breaks in your computer there are times you will have to upgrade a number of components. It could be worse. I'm sure you have heard the stories of programs back in the good ole days even causing fires in the hardware (back when all source was "open").
So you are saying lets not innovate? Lets keep backwards compatibility? Lets stick with 30-year-old designs?
I know the feeling. Right now Linux is making me use antiquated software when I could be using WindowsNT, but I digress (*joke*.. I do like free software (GNU-sense) and Linux, but the truth is it is a very old design. That can not be argued as FUD).
I'm not bashing free software. I'm sick of Slashdot readers with their holier-than-thou attitude spreading FUD about proprietary software. It can go both ways.
Okay, I'll give you that one. I'm not trying to sound harsh or have an attitude. I think many people who use Microsoft day-to-day (as a tool, not for enjoyment of computing) would say "Microsoft makes some great products." I believe they do (but I sure don't use anything other than Win98.. and it is a total POS for me). I've heard a few people claim Win2k is greatest thing that ever happened to their computer (or something to the extent). Hey, if it works for them I can't complain (though Code Red did piss me off a little, I would definately not blame Microsoft. It could easily happen with open source in the future as I have seen a great deal of ignorant Linux/BSD users.. especially on Slashdot).
I believe people creating open source care more about the quality at times than proprietary vendors. People writing free software do so in their own time, and mostly as a hobby. That is a far cry from denouncing all proprietary software as insecure based on just one vendor (MS).
That, in itself, is the problem. You can not prove beyond a shadow of doubt that the source code you have in your hand (drive, whatever) is 100% secure. I don't recall the early web browsers having huge security issues (or early BBS software for that matter). I am positive they had bugs that the programmers never knew existed. If you accept the fact that any piece of software has at least one bug at any given time then it is clear that, open source or not, no software is secure. I think the matter is trust. You seem to not trust proprietary vendors, and I do think this has much to do with Microsoft's behavior (and their negative image). I have learned to trust Microsoft enough to get things right a good amount of time, but not enough that I personally would use their software (if I tried Win2k I may even be back to MS, if it really is as good as some claim). I seriously hope you do not go around looking at the source code for the Linux system to find flaws. You must surely trust the coders to do a good job, right? It would take many man-years (decades?) to examine and audit the free software on your typical Linux/BSD/etc. box. There may be a large number of open source coders, but keep in mind they do code on usually one or two programs at a max. If you take into consideration the large number of Linux programs then the "eye-count" becomes diminished quickly.
I agree with that point. I believe what will eventually (and already to an extent) happen is proprietary software will move to a strategy as Troll Tech attempted. If the company shall go under (or product is removed from their maintenance, catalog, whatever) it would be released freely (under GPL or somesuch). And there would be a guarantee (in the EULA or what have you) that this would happen. It would benefit proprietary vendors by giving them something they can actually make a profit on, while giving trust to the users incase they should go under (I know, I know.. free software can make money by selling support, but this is capitalism. Make as much money as you can, right? Which leads to more ignorance; users aren't aware that cheaper alternatives exist. In many cases, users really do not care whether they pay extra or not. They just want the computer to "do as I say").
I don't know enough about DMCA, honestly. It may very well be a good idea gone wrong. Then again, it could be about greedy software vendors wanting their way. I'd hope not, but it could be the case.
What exactly does your (and other poster's) argument, or need, for a different vendor of the same product have to do with security? This is complete oranges and apples. You say "I could guarantee you a different car with the same chassy/engine combination under a different brand name." I can also guarantee you a Linux system with FAT32 support. That does not make Linux a Windows machine, now does it? There are certain distributions (tinyslack or whatever it is called) which use FAT (UMSDOS) for their primary partition. It is akin to using the same engine or chassie.
Where can you get the Linux kernel in FreeBSD? BeOS? NT? The kernel is not an interchangable part like an engine can be. Nor is the kernel always an open design.
No, getting an Accord from Acura does not make an Accord an Acura Accord. It is still a Honda. You can pick Accords up at any trade-in garage. I fail to see how this relates in anyway to security.
The reason to need an NT kernel from a different vendor is, well, none. I'm assuming you want an NT kernel for free (as in it costs you nothing). That is the only reason to bring this "argument" up. If the NT kernel was available from another vendor (proprietary), but cost the same as Microsoft you would both still be bitching. Freedom (GNU) is not about greed.
How is using open source automation? People must _still_ support and develop the software you are getting a free lunch with. What happens when the people doing the actual work get burned out and leave it altogether? You will then have to _pay_ someone to develop and maintain the software.
I think much of the quality open source software out today has been very close to becoming (or has been) proprietary. Mozilla was proprietary. Qt was "locked" source code. Ghostscript is relicensed as GPL after a given time period. Quake/Doom/Abuse/etc. source code has been proprietary and released because the technology is very much obsolete. We all know how hardware manufacturers are very secretive of their technology. One can imagine the hoops XF86 had to jump through to get drivers for even the most common graphics cards.
Proprietary software will still be around in 10 years (most likely longer). My guess is it will probably move to subscription based software, and eventually to "throw-away," or run-once software (where software is more about the current state and will not have any significance later simply because software will change so much in short amount of time, therefore source code will be irrelevant). It will not remain "run program.exe" or "/usr/bin/program." Microsoft and Sun both realize this.
That reminds me. I remember reading something once that secretaries have actually had to use TeX. I am a programmer that does not know TeX. Of course I have not spent much time to learn it, but it is definately not intuitive. Just goes to show you that anyone can learn archaic computer interfaces--even if they do not understand all the bit moving going on "below" them. I've never really bought into the idea that some programs were more intuitive than others, but for programs with like-interfaces and a system that is coherent as a whole (which *ix will never be) it does start to make sense. I'm skeptical that Linux will ever be easy enough to use for people who just want to use a computer as a tool. Sure, we can have people use Linux in an adminstered workplace. I seriously doubt these same people would install Linux on their home machines to do basic finance and word processing.
Alrighty then! Lets blame Microsoft for the ignorant users of IIS. While we are at it why not blame Ford for the idiots who drive drunk? Sounds like an idear to me..
It may also work for the better. Gameplay would be emphasized rather than gee-whiz graphics.
So what you are saying is there is an alternative to Microsoft? One minute the hordes of Slashdot are ready to knock over Bill Gates' monopolistic empire, the next they are tearing it down with alternatives. Let us all rejoice in the coherence and nonhypocritcal nature of Slashdot readers.
Why blame _anyone_? Just jump ship man. Not like you are forced by gun to use their trashy software. You can only blame when it is a monopoly. Clearly you have alternatives.
Sure everyone has access to the source code. But you forgot one important detail: not everyone is a programmer. It does not matter a single iota whether grandma has access to the source code or not. It does matter that she has secure software.
No it's not. I was pointing out that people with the virus are ignorant end-users. Not the technical elite who know what source code is and what to do with it. Your quote about Microsoft's market position is what's irrelevant.
You seem to have missed the issue totally. I am not arguing Microsoft has secure software. I am arguing proprietary software does not equal insecure, and open source does not equal secure. That is all. I am not defending Microsoft in the least. What I am defending is the numerous secure proprietary software out in the world. From small software shops to large corporations. From decades past to decades in the future.
If the software shop refuses to fix a security problem then you look like a complete dumbass to continue to use their software. Do yourself a favor and get a vendor who cares. I'm assuming you live in America and buy into the idea of free market. If you do not agree that the market is regulated by consumer demand, then you are complaining in the wrong forum.
I'm sorry to hear that. Buy a new computer, perhaps? One that can run the newer software. Again, you are bashing Microsoft with "M$." Lets not throw jealousy into the argument. Everyone knows Microsoft has money, why keep repeating it.
And what, the original poster gets away with implying Microsoft is representative of the security-conscious? Come on now, no double standards. I also never said Red Hat was the #1 choice for the security-conscious. I could just as well argue against Slackware, which is updated very rarely (which the original poster understood as a sign of security). Challenge: name one vendor who will sell me a Honda Accord 2001 other than Honda. No. That is a Ford Taurus, and my what a piece of shit it is.
Okay, this is just too irrelevant in the discussion of security. I'm not arguing for bloat or any of that intellectual property nonsense. This issue at hand is security. I say the open source system does not produce software that is more secure than proprietary. Likewise, proprietary can be very insecure compared to certain, specific, open source software packages. Your lesson for today: learn there are other proprietary software vendors than Microsoft. I was only using MS because this thread is about their product specifically. The original poster implied that OS was inherently more secure than proprietary, and I still refuse to accept his or your reasoning.
Open source producing more secure software than the proprietary world is a _myth_. Where is the concrete evidence to back up this claim? And because it is open do not think that more eyes see it (and much less _analyze_ it). Then there are the eyes out there looking for an exploit.
Exploits for open source are a "big enough deal" only because most users of open source are technically adept. The people with infected IIS are not admins and most are probably not very technical (end-users).
Keep in mind people are _paid_ to fix proprietary (commercial) software. This is not always true for open source (and much less true for those numerous "applications" on sourceforge.net and freshmeat.net).
Default installations compromised? Are we talking about Red Hat or Microsoft here? Can't be our beloved Red Hat. I don't see what makes people believe that all these Linux newbies keep up with patching their system. A good number of Linux users do not even know how to upgrade (much less use diff/patch) their kernel. Many do not know even know man(ual) pages. Proprietary software does not help crackers either. It is equally hard to exploit closed source software as it is to find exploits in closed source software. Make sense? If you claim it is hard to find problems in closed source, what makes you think crackers had an easy time too? They don't, trust me.
It goes a little something like this: Cracker Joe finds an exploit doing heavy reverse engineering (sometimes--not always of course). He shows the world his exploit to become famous (most crackers attach some sort of handle to show their "inside" friends on IRC and what not--bragging rights). This exploit travels by ignorance. Not because it cannot technically be stopped. _Any_ exploit is technically stoppable.
I sure hope so. I got 625 attempts yesterday and 358 today so far (5pm). That (625) is DOUBLE what I was getting around Aug 3-7th.
But my cable provider (Road Runner) has been having problems today and yesterday (connection seems to just go "poof"). Might not be this virus though. I've had 1676 attempts on my cable connection. Finally I shut down Apache (getting tired of it loading from inetd).
/var/log/messages it seems there have been numerous attempts today, most of which are from RR.
From looking at
July (19-20ish): 22 hits
August 1st : 22 hits
August 2nd : 26 hits
August 3rd : 30 hits
August 4th : 205 hits
August 5th : 318 hits
August 6th : 352 hits (!)
August 7th : 253 hits
August 8th : 210 hits
August 9th : ~193 hits as of 11:18am
I don't believe there is a "Linux community." The term "Linux" has been co-opted and coerced so much that it looks like any old bandwagon ("Hop on everyone! We will give you a ride to greatness!"). From IBM to Sun, and even the "friends" of Linux such as Red Hat and Caldera. Free software ideology itself was co-opted by "Open Source(TM)" and ESR (free software being more "pure" and idealistic, while "Open Source" being oriented towards corporate America. A distinction many still do not grasp today). Even you toss "Linux community" into "Open Source," which "Open Source" can be considered even FreeBSD. Note that it is not "O'Reilly Free Software [or Linux] Convention." The word "open" does not have the connotation of "freedom," which is the whole purpose of GNU and FSF.
Any "Linux community" will most likely include FreeBSD users, Mozilla (MPL license) users, etc. And it most likely will include people who do not use Linux, but like the GPL. Then there is probably a few who actually do not like Linux or the GPL.
and you really trust their stories now? They have no integrity left. Infact, I don't think this so-called "Linux community" does. This "community" looks more to me (and probably outsiders) as a continuation of the dot-com gold rush. Which it is, in many cases.
modding down? haha. I remember times when posts and even whole _threads_ were removed completely. ("technical difficulties" I believe was an excuse)
no no no!! PDFs _are_ web documents. You must get the plug-in! Then PDF becomes one with the web (and acrobat has sex with your Internet Explorer at the same time).
(Incase you didn't follow, I was joking about their use of plug-in requirements..)
haha. No man. QuickBasic actually had subroutines and was semi-fast compiled. We need GW-BASIC with line numbers and GOTOs.
They have not even attempted merging my kitchen sink into their elaborate plan. Tsk. Tsk. Why would any self-respecting XML-evangelizing mission-critical component integrator consider using this?
Please. Come back when you have a real solution. (And please do remember to tell me the question.)
The real promise of KDE/GNOME/GNUstep was to integrate applications. Think Windows COM/OLE type stuff and all apps looking the same. The truth, as of today, is there is very little reason to switch. If you did not know, you can run KDE/GNOME/etc. applications under fvwm or whatever you like (even twm!). Though you will still have to download the large libraries and install those.
:-(
All in all, there is very little benefit gained from "desktops." The unification of X apps will fail, IMO. In the long run I believe you will be needing both KDE and GNOME libraries, unfortunately (as cooperation between both parties is nonexistent). Only time and corporate dollars (if any) will decide the fate of which desktop (if any) to choose.
I know this isn't much help. X really is still the same X
I do like WindowMaker though. If you are looking for a change.
Re-read the article (part timothy wrote):
Seems like someone got pissed and modded me offtopic because they interpretted me as bashing open source. Way to go moderators.
I don't know about being able to understand open source. I look at sourceforge.net and sometimes wonder why the hell certain programs are even there. Then I look for their source code and wonder where their source code is. Then I look at freshmeat.net and wonder why there is the 100000th mp3 web-frontend written in perl. Maybe it's just me.
Lets see what Mr. Dictionary says..
I'll tell you what I believe. I do not believe there is anything to "know." Everything you "know" is there because is relates to everything else you "know." Finally, it breaks down into physical sensation (feedback). If we apply this to the computer we see everything is related to everything else already. A file on your computer is there because the computer's OS placed it there. The bits in the file are there because the program on your computer talked to the OS which talked to your hard drive and finally placed those bits there. Under the first definition of "intelligence," computers could be seen as intelligent already. They "act" under their knowing. When they do not "know" then it is what could be considered a "bug." Simply, not understanding. Humans take the view as "programmers" for unintelligent (human intelligence) machines. I do not think many take the view as "teachers" or "trainers" for computers. I believe they are the same. "Teaching" for computers is rougher because (a) computers are a much different level (NOT lower or higher.. DIFFERENT) of interaction. They have no physical sensation.. they can not react to things like humans do. They DO react to keypresses, mouse movement, etc. My belief: computers already learn, just not at a level that (most) humans believe as learning. In short, computers aren't jumping up and down talking to us while singing. But they ARE checking out whether you have email, if your hard drive needs defragmented or fsck'd, whether your printer is out of paper, or if that person you just fraged in Quake3 got mad and quit the game. At any given moment they are checking, moving, calculating, and above all _determining_ more things than anyone can imagine. I do not believe the ideas of intelligence have caught up to what "intelligence" really is. In other words: technology is beating ideas about the world we live in. We just need to reexamine what it means to be "intelligent."
Let's examine another definition:
This definition depends on some sort of religion (key word being "spirit"). Many people do not believe in spirits or a "soul." The word "intelligence" is tied to too many undefinable or unbelievable things to create a concrete machine which does "intelligent" things. If humans could put a concrete definition on what intelligence is, we would already have a machine that does it. My believe is we already do, just do not know it.
You cannot claim that we are not any closer to intelligent machines. However, you can claim we do not have a machine that _relates to humans_ in a way that _humans relate to humans_.