Really, a Windows licence isn't the major part of the cost of a new PC
Really? In an industry where saving 2% can mean the difference between life and death? I think the MS tax is going to be a minimum 5% (and an obscene maximum if you fail to negotiate a good deal)
OEMs get the best license they can negotiate - it might be good if you're Dell - and don't compete in any space MS wants to own, but I doubt google is going to get the same deal from MS are they?
...a dedicated, well-written, well-publicized effort to educate the general public about this sort of thing. We need to establish a meme among the Joe Sixpacks, Moms and Dads, and Grandma Sues of this country that they're foolish if they don't read stories on [whatever].com each week. And on that site, we need to explain, in plain English, [A] what the flaw could do to their computer, [B] what they can do to temporarily/permanently fix the flaw, and [C] what the flaw is due to (99% of the time, this will be 'due to Microsoft software').
Interesting idea - how about instead Microsoft pushes a patch out via windows update?
If its too hard to patch their (obviously hard to maintain code) - why not push out the dll unregistering work-around until they have a better fix?
Sure - its going to upset a few granny's to not be able to see thumbnails of their grandkids for a few weeks - but surely thats better then threatening the world's network infrastructure.
Microsoft obviously isn't interested in having an educated user base, or they'd make such a site themselves and advertise it extensively.
They obviously aren't. An educated user base is a user base capable of migrating from their products.
Who's with me?
Well. Obviously not me.
Apart from the fact that I don't see this idea as feasable - why on earth would I assist a huge, faceless corporation that shows nothing but disdain for its customers?
I'd much rather give my time & effor to promoting open source solutions.
And it beats the pants off of Best Buy's degrading "Geek Squad" counterpart.
Well - I don't think Apple would like their customers thinking: Apple - Well at least they're better the best buy
That said - I'm not sure I agree with you. A geek is someone single-minded in their pursuit of a (usually technical) goal, whereas a genius is someone of extraordinary intellect.
Of course - I would choose a genius over a geek to fix my computer - but I would much rather have a computer that didn't require a genius to fix it.
Anyway, the reason I said it was a horrible name was because of the implication that you have to be a genius to fix a PC (used in the personal computer sense of the abbreviation). I think Apple is doing a disservice to their customers - and insinuating they are a little stupid.
the iPod Express purchase counters were marginally implemented, while the portable check-out devices rated even lower on a useability scale.
Sounds like these are about as user-friendly as quicktime is (if you want to use other media players as well)
As plenty of others in this thread have pointed out, the genius bars (god what a horrible name) are no longer as fast or friendly as your rose-tinted memories.
you'd be surprised what a walkaround by the CTO can accomplish.
You're right that this will stop a lot of problems - maybe even up to a third (and I generally agree that this is something a CTO should consider doing)
However, it does nothing for:
1) Malicious users (OK they're pretty hard to stop no matter what) and 2) Stupid users who are using IM for legitimate company purposes, and get a message from their workamte / business partner saying "lol no this is not a virus."
I certainly think companies should think about these applications in their security planning.
This mis-use of podcast is what causes similarly clueless people to say things like, "Why did they need to create this word, podcast, when all it means is an http link to an mp3 file?"
hahahaha - cute.
I'm afraid this is going to be like the hacker vs cracker definition battle - and its a battle that you have already lost.
The American Heritage Dictionary defines the term (their word of the year) as "a digital recording of a radio broadcast or similar program, made available on the Internet for downloading to a personal audio player"
So by this dictionary's definition, the museum is perfectly correct - who do you think the general public is going to follow?
Oh - and for the record, I find the term "podcast" extremely irritating, whatever the definition. General purpose words should not be tied to a particular product.
Wow! You just didn't read the article at all did you rsidd?
The grandparent had a list of attributes from the article which he said could apply equally to QT or GTK. The parent then pointed out that one of the listed attributes:
It's free software with a liberal open source license.
Applys only to GTK - not to QT.
The parent was correct. From the article:
Liberal open source license means that these conditions are not terribly restrictive, and the degree of freedom you get is significant. Most importantly, GTK+ has adopted the Lesser General Public License (LGPL) license, which is a less-restrictive license in the family of GNU licenses. LGPL allows you to freely get, modify, and distribute any software it covers, as long as you make your modifications free, as well. LGPL also allows anyone to use functions provided by the library without requiring the user to open the application code.
rsidd:I just hate the GNU zealots.
Thats all you really wanted to say wasn't it?
rsidd:Anyway... let people choose the toolkits based on their merits. Plenty of people seem to be choosing both. (Mozilla=GTK+, Opera=Qt. Acrobat Reader=GTK+, Scribus=Qt. Etc.) But I dislike disingenuous articles like the present developerworks article which pretends that GTK+ is the only toolkit that exists. Everyone knows Qt exists too -- if you believe GTK+ is better, explain why, but don't sweep the discussion under the carpet.
This is correct - but you've only included something reasonable to make sure your troll gets modded up - classic trolling 101.
Or it may just be that it's the most widely-used browser and absolutely 100% guaranteed to be available (if not used) on a (half-way modern)
and then:
I'm not convinced that the embedding is necessarily a bad thing,
So. Hackers can rely on IE being present (as it's embedded), and you don't see why embedding is a bad thing?
KHTML is as embedded in KDE as MSHTML is in the Windows shell; it remains to be seen how that pans out if and when the use of KDE-based distros becomes widespread.
There are a number of significant vulnerabilities in technologies relating to the IE domain/zone security model, local file system (Local Machine Zone) trust, the Dynamic HTML (DHTML) document object model (in particular, proprietary DHTML features), the HTML Help system, MIME type determination, the graphical user interface (GUI), and ActiveX. These technologies are implemented in operating system libraries that are used by IE and many other programs to provide web browser functionality. IE is integrated into Windows to such an extent that vulnerabilities in IE frequently provide an attacker significant access to the operating system.
It is possible to reduce exposure to these vulnerabilities by using a different web browser, especially when viewing untrusted HTML documents (e.g., web sites, HTML email messages). Such a decision may, however, reduce the functionality of sites that require IE-specific features such as proprietary DHTML, VBScript, and ActiveX. Note that using a different web browser will not remove IE from a Windows system, and other programs may invoke IE, the WebBrowser ActiveX control (WebOC), or the HTML rendering engine (MSHTML).
Notice the number of technologies integrated? Much more then just the render engine.
Ok, so you're right. There, that's not something you see on a slashdot post very often, is it?
Nope:-) You're obviously a gentleman!
I guess our argument comes down to whether an architecture really is safe. Maybe IE's architecture is just unsafe because the current lines of attack are developed to target its architecture?
No, I think IE's architecture is unsafe therefore lines of attack were developed to target it...
Embedded into the O/S and activeX are a good starting point for things for MS to fix.
As a programmer, I'm fairly bias when I say this but hackers are very resourceful. I do not doubt their abilities to target different applications when it suits them.
True - and I'm sure that Firefox will recieve more hacker attention as it grows more popular (it allready has) - I just don't think that will translate into more exploitable vulnerabilities.
And with this change, every mac on the internet will become even more secure than their Windows based counterparts.
Not if they keep using old unsupported software.. Nothing will force them to change from IE. Arguably this makes them even less secure.
Hmmmmn, somehow, I doubt that someone using a version of IE on a Mac past the end of 2006 is the sort of person who'd be applying security updates in any case.
I agree with the general gist of your post however - that it's better for software to continue to recieve patches indefinitely then not.
However, outside the Free / Open Source Software world, this is never going to happen.
If Firefox becomes the dominant browser, it might even be safer to have IE installed on your computer to avoid the latest virus.
Utter nonsense.
In the context of the article this is doubly nonsense because IE for Mac is discontinued and vulnerabilities for it will never be fixed.
In a wider context, its still nonsense. If you're concerned about security, you use the browser with the more secure architecture - not the one with the least users.
Wouldn't sifting through data from potentially hundreds of thousands of machines (for popular viruses/worms) be difficult-to-impossible? Or maybe there's a way to determine which account are, e.g. admins on large IRC servers or otherwise useful.
I think it would be trivial to write a script to go through the data looking for email addresses & credit card / bank account details.
"Microsoft has a long and well-documented history of acquiring the technology of others, branding it as their own, and entering new markets," said Mr. Bogosian. "In some cases, they buy that technology from its creator. In other cases, they wrongfully misappropriate the intellectual property that belongs to others, which has forced them to acknowledge and settle large IP cases with companies like Sun, AT&T and Burst.com. For their foray into mobile email and data access, Microsoft simply decided to misappropriate Visto's well known and documented patented technology."
Frankly, my take on it is that the more large comapnies that are sued over patents (especially submarine patents - although that doesn't seem to be the case here) the better.
Nothing like a little pressure from industry giants to speed up much needed reform of the patent system.
Remember, the CEOs of tech companies failed to constrain costs in the late 1990s, and we know what happened to them. Be very careful in spending. Consider whether this port is absolutly necesssary.
Two points:
1) They have a practical source of income - with the first two million allready accounted for
2) "Tech companies" did not fail to constrain costs in the late 1990s, internet startups failed to have viable business plans. There is a big difference.
Slashdot Mirror
Really, a Windows licence isn't the major part of the cost of a new PC
Really? In an industry where saving 2% can mean the difference between life and death? I think the MS tax is going to be a minimum 5% (and an obscene maximum if you fail to negotiate a good deal)
OEMs get the best license they can negotiate - it might be good if you're Dell - and don't compete in any space MS wants to own, but I doubt google is going to get the same deal from MS are they?
...a dedicated, well-written, well-publicized effort to educate the general public about this sort of thing. We need to establish a meme among the Joe Sixpacks, Moms and Dads, and Grandma Sues of this country that they're foolish if they don't read stories on [whatever].com each week. And on that site, we need to explain, in plain English, [A] what the flaw could do to their computer, [B] what they can do to temporarily/permanently fix the flaw, and [C] what the flaw is due to (99% of the time, this will be 'due to Microsoft software').
Interesting idea - how about instead Microsoft pushes a patch out via windows update?
If its too hard to patch their (obviously hard to maintain code) - why not push out the dll unregistering work-around until they have a better fix?
Sure - its going to upset a few granny's to not be able to see thumbnails of their grandkids for a few weeks - but surely thats better then threatening the world's network infrastructure.
Microsoft obviously isn't interested in having an educated user base, or they'd make such a site themselves and advertise it extensively.
They obviously aren't. An educated user base is a user base capable of migrating from their products.
Who's with me?
Well. Obviously not me.
Apart from the fact that I don't see this idea as feasable - why on earth would I assist a huge, faceless corporation that shows nothing but disdain for its customers?
I'd much rather give my time & effor to promoting open source solutions.
And it beats the pants off of Best Buy's degrading "Geek Squad" counterpart.
Well - I don't think Apple would like their customers thinking: Apple - Well at least they're better the best buy
That said - I'm not sure I agree with you. A geek is someone single-minded in their pursuit of a (usually technical) goal, whereas a genius is someone of extraordinary intellect.
Of course - I would choose a genius over a geek to fix my computer - but I would much rather have a computer that didn't require a genius to fix it.
Anyway, the reason I said it was a horrible name was because of the implication that you have to be a genius to fix a PC (used in the personal computer sense of the abbreviation). I think Apple is doing a disservice to their customers - and insinuating they are a little stupid.
Hmmmn,
I think maybe that the Ipod Express tables did not work out quite as well as expected Sounds like these are about as user-friendly as quicktime is (if you want to use other media players as well)
As plenty of others in this thread have pointed out, the genius bars (god what a horrible name) are no longer as fast or friendly as your rose-tinted memories.
you'd be surprised what a walkaround by the CTO can accomplish.
You're right that this will stop a lot of problems - maybe even up to a third (and I generally agree that this is something a CTO should consider doing)
However, it does nothing for:
1) Malicious users (OK they're pretty hard to stop no matter what)
and
2) Stupid users who are using IM for legitimate company purposes, and get a message from their workamte / business partner saying "lol no this is not a virus."
I certainly think companies should think about these applications in their security planning.
This mis-use of podcast is what causes similarly clueless people to say things like, "Why did they need to create this word, podcast, when all it means is an http link to an mp3 file?"
hahahaha - cute.
I'm afraid this is going to be like the hacker vs cracker definition battle - and its a battle that you have already lost.
The American Heritage Dictionary defines the term (their word of the year) as "a digital recording of a radio broadcast or similar program, made available on the Internet for downloading to a personal audio player"
So by this dictionary's definition, the museum is perfectly correct - who do you think the general public is going to follow?
Oh - and for the record, I find the term "podcast" extremely irritating, whatever the definition. General purpose words should not be tied to a particular product.
it's interesting to see the overall picture we've reported on for the past year condensed down into one page.
Reported? This is slashdot! We want baseless speculation, rumour mongering and idle gossip (and possibly links to others reporting)
The grandparent had a list of attributes from the article which he said could apply equally to QT or GTK. The parent then pointed out that one of the listed attributes: Applys only to GTK - not to QT.
The parent was correct. From the article: rsidd: I just hate the GNU zealots.
Thats all you really wanted to say wasn't it?
rsidd: Anyway... let people choose the toolkits based on their merits. Plenty of people seem to be choosing both. (Mozilla=GTK+, Opera=Qt. Acrobat Reader=GTK+, Scribus=Qt. Etc.) But I dislike disingenuous articles like the present developerworks article which pretends that GTK+ is the only toolkit that exists. Everyone knows Qt exists too -- if you believe GTK+ is better, explain why, but don't sweep the discussion under the carpet.
This is correct - but you've only included something reasonable to make sure your troll gets modded up - classic trolling 101.
You mean he's leeching bandwidth off bbspot too? Cool guy.
Hell - I didn't notice that as I posted - thanks AC.
It appears this 'patent holder' is linking to the BBSPOT image from the classic Microsoft Purchases Evil From Satan article.
Without attribution too. Nice to see that he respects others intellectual property
BBSpot - if you're reading this, please change the image something nasty. I don't care what - but I would like to see a (well used) futon in there...
Oh - and this photo is mildly amusing too...
I disagree.
From Cert Notice the number of technologies integrated? Much more then just the render engine.
Ok, so you're right. There, that's not something you see on a slashdot post very often, is it?
Nope
I guess our argument comes down to whether an architecture really is safe. Maybe IE's architecture is just unsafe because the current lines of attack are developed to target its architecture?
No, I think IE's architecture is unsafe therefore lines of attack were developed to target it...
Embedded into the O/S and activeX are a good starting point for things for MS to fix.
As a programmer, I'm fairly bias when I say this but hackers are very resourceful. I do not doubt their abilities to target different applications when it suits them.
True - and I'm sure that Firefox will recieve more hacker attention as it grows more popular (it allready has) - I just don't think that will translate into more exploitable vulnerabilities.
I agree with the general gist of your post however - that it's better for software to continue to recieve patches indefinitely then not.
However, outside the Free / Open Source Software world, this is never going to happen.
If Firefox becomes the dominant browser, it might even be safer to have IE installed on your computer to avoid the latest virus.
Utter nonsense.
In the context of the article this is doubly nonsense because IE for Mac is discontinued and vulnerabilities for it will never be fixed.
In a wider context, its still nonsense. If you're concerned about security, you use the browser with the more secure architecture - not the one with the least users.
I'm sorry Mr Monkey, you have just posted a duplicate comment.
And not just any dupe!
1) AC beates TMM
2) Broeken beates TMM
3) Weenis beates TMM
4) Junky191 beates TMM
So what do we call your post? A quintadupe? I hope you're asking for a new subscription for christmas!
Seriously - so what if Slashdot posts the odd dupe - its not like they can post what 20 odd links a day without occasionally covering the same ground.
And I for one like to see the odd story revisited...
I predict a sudden upsurge in the sales of old video hardware on ebay.
Well I predict a sudden boom in Indian / Chinese video hardware manufacturing.
Not everyone follows insane US laws (thank god)
Wouldn't sifting through data from potentially hundreds of thousands of machines (for popular viruses/worms) be difficult-to-impossible? Or maybe there's a way to determine which account are, e.g. admins on large IRC servers or otherwise useful.
I think it would be trivial to write a script to go through the data looking for email addresses & credit card / bank account details.
I'm sure thats what the author is after....
Pretty funny that you're arguing about which binary-only-piece-of-shit is better.
Ever tried using 3d acceleration, framebuffer and mpeg acceleration (on 64 bit linux) using either companies products?
Why does this make slashdot when in the last two days we've had bush resisting torture legislation and his complicity in kidnapping citizens of allies
Nothing like a little pressure from industry giants to speed up much needed reform of the patent system.
The Register called. They want their joke back.
Is a war already starting in the virtual realm?
No, its the same sort of low-level who's-got-the-biggest-dick thats been going on between China and the USA for years.
China and the USA's economies are far too intwined for either party to seriously start something.
Oh - and rest assured that the US is doing similar things to China. This isjust what superpowers feel that they have to do.
In fact, she exists only from the neck up
Pics of many of the finalists (including neck down) here
Remember, the CEOs of tech companies failed to constrain costs in the late 1990s, and we know what happened to them. Be very careful in spending. Consider whether this port is absolutly necesssary.
Two points:
1) They have a practical source of income - with the first two million allready accounted for
2) "Tech companies" did not fail to constrain costs in the late 1990s, internet startups failed to have viable business plans. There is a big difference.
Is it only me, or does anyone else think a space port is better built...in space?
Yes,
It is only you.
At present the only viable way to get into space is using rockets. Therefor we're going to need somewhere for the rockets to take off and land.