Yes, the firewall can handle both incoming and outgoing connections. It even nags you a lot about creating new rules when you first install it, like Zone Alarm.
A Longhorn preview is available for download from the MSDN site. You also might be able to order a CD, although its really not worth the effort at this point.
The preview build is slow, buggy, and doesn't have enough new features yet to be interesting for more than 10 minutes.
Update yeah, this is a repost. Whatever- it's a holiday. Nothing else to post
Sure there is. You could post about how the Stardust probe is about to enter a comet's tail, or perhaps India's plans for a hypersonic plane, or even the chnaging face of offshore programming...
I am a "died in the wool" OS X and 2000/XP/2003 fan. I use and own multiple OS X Macs and Windows XP/2003 PCs. I think they each have their own strengths and weaknesses. I tend to use my XP machine more these days as it is comsiderably faster (Athlon XP 2400+) than my Macs (Quicksilver 867 and TiBook 667). I also seem to like screwing with MS technologies (.NET) or Windows software, more often.
However, I would strongly agree with your opinions concerning the OS X UI. I was just stating that your post was NOT objective, as it clearly contained anti-MS sentiment. What did you do at MS if I may ask? Tech support? Software engineering/design? Other?
Or, just buy a Linux-based Linksys WRV54G for well under $200 with most, if not all the features of this project. No, I don't mean the WRT54g, I mean the WRV54G. Excellent piece of gear, VPN, firewalling, dmz, wireless (wep/wpa), snmp, yadda yadda.
Uhm, no you're not. You just threw out the blanket opinion that "MacOSX + mac hardware" is "far superior" to "windows on a PC". Laughably, you go on to intimate that OS X may be a bit slow.
Then, you state an opinion concerning Microsoft. Then, you make another blanket statement that Mac hardware is much more reliable. I could name a dozen PC configurations off the top of my head that are quite a bit more reliable and of higher quality than Mac hardware. And yes, I'm qualified to make that statement as I own both a PMG4 and a TiBook.
The hardware doesnt get faster with each new release of MacOS, the OS does.
Seems you don't have the slightest idea what objective means, as there were perhaps only one or two sentences that were objective in your post. That's the problem with slashdotters.
I'll probably be marked as a troll for this, but Roblimo is just wrong wrong wrong.
Roblimo has a good suggestion on avoiding the first-day-of-Windows altogether.[link to article]
Right, until his daughter/granny buys a webcam from the store and wants to hook it up and use it, etc. Or she wants to use x program that only runs on Windows. Grannies and relatives buy lots of this stuff off shelves at the store. The Sims, nearly another other quality game on the planet? Probably isn't going to run on Linux, is it?
She does websites for pay... what happens when she decides she needs something like Dreamweaver, or Frontpage (gag, but a lot of people still use it) or Photoshop, in those rare cases when the (superior, IMHO) The Gimp won't fulfill her needs?
Sure, you could use VMWare or some other such deal, but then you'll require a copy of Windows and you'll have spent more time and money than if you had just put Windows on the machine in the first place.
What a load of narrow-minded horseshit, Roblimo. Your job as a self-appointed Linux advocate should be telling it to the people straight, and you aren't. They'll listen to you and get burned, and won't trust you or any other Linux person, next time.
I have an Antec Sonata and fucking love it. I don't ever hear it running, I don't hear the fans, etc. Also the fans and hard drive cages use rubber grommets to reduce vibration. Great case.
I was very excited to read this. I remember learning programming and wanting to download a C/C++ compiler and I couldn't find a free one for Windows that was free and well documented. This was back in 1996 and I was a poor college student.
As I said, the.NET Framework is free and contains a compiler for managed code. Microsoft is moving out of the stone age for application development and adopting managed-code development. Nonetheless, I believe there is a basic C/C++ compiler available froms omewhere on MS. If not, there are tons of alternative compilers that can be had for free or low cost (or high cost, if you prefer).
I would have had to pay $139 for Visual C++ if I wanted to do windows development. Even that was too much. I could barely afford a computer! The reason I learned GNU and OSS software was because I was poor. I stuck with it because I'm a cheapskate.
Visual C++ is an excellent full-featured IDE, what do you expect? It's so much more than a compiler. This is like asking for a car and then complaining because it doesn't fly. $139 is a pretty damned good price for an IDE of the quality that the Visual Studio suite. Nothing open source matches it in terms of quality and features. I know. I've looked.
That said, I still use vim for most of my development on Windows.
So now I hear that MS gives away this stuff! That's great! Where do I download my copy of Visual C++ for free? Where do I download my free windows SDK so I can write windows software?
Again, Visual C++ is an IDE, not just a compiler. I said the.NET Framework is free, which includes a compiler for any language that hooks into.NET.
As far as SDKs, what do you want to do? There are tons of SDKs (As well as DDKs for driver development) available for free off of MSDN.
Now if Microsoft had been giving away this stuff from the beginning (like I said) then they would have prevented droves of lazy programmers from getting lazy and learning Linux and then being lazy and staying with Linux. Today, for many Linux programmers, the path of Laziness is to "just stay with Linux" or unix or whatever.
I believe MS gained its dominance with developers by practically giving away the dev tools away for free, initially. However, I could be wrong as I have been a UNIX user for a long time, and didn't "switch" to Windows until a year ago.
I cannot comment on the rest of this snippit as I am not lazy, and I abhor the lazy. In fact, most decent open source coders (myself included) aren't lazy. We, well, they write good tools for no compensation.
So, I believe that you are incorrect in this respect. Tinkerers are lazy, and they lack enough motivation to really put anything of use out, so its of no harm to Microsoft OR the open source community. Those who truly want to hack, will hack, regardless.
Do you know what CPAN is?
Yes. I've been using Perl and Linux much longer than you have, so I'd better!
A microsoft CPAN would have tons of objects and C/C++ code that you could download for free. These objects would do things like SMTP, LDAP, PostScript, or TK for you. Microsoft has the MFC but last I checked I couldn't submit anything to the MFC. I couldn't modify my own version of DirectX and submit it to Microsoft for approval.
Microsoft has a "CPAN", it's called MSDN, and it's full of code snippets and examples and miscellaneous cruft. Objects and C/C++ code included.
MFC isn't a repository, MFC is a base library for high-level C++ code development, which is significantly different than CPAN, which is a repository.
You're right, though. You couldn't modify DirectX and submit the changes to Microsoft. I find this argument silly and stupid, in most cases.
The first reason being that most people aren't going to modify DirectX, or they don't have a need to. I'd bet that you've never modified the source for an open source
Microsoft could have crushed the Open Source movement if it had given away one of it's development platforms for free.
They give away the.NET Framework (which includes everything you need to develop applications), their scripting languages, and vast amounts of documentations, case studies, examples, advice, and support (via newsgroups and community sites). All for free.
If they had fostered a Java-esque or CPAN-esque software repository
This doesn't make sense? Java-esque? CPAN-esque?
if they had given free SDK's for windows out
Sigh. They do. http://msdn.microsoft.com
if they supported or encouraged the development of free servers, browsers, desktop systems, and support utilities...
They do. I've received tons of help and support from Microsoft employees via their Development-related newsgroups. They have staff that proactively help developers, even us evil developers who like to write free, open source software (Gasp! Open source Windows developers?!?). They have bee extremely helpful, as is their vast MSDN site(s).
THEN Microsoft could have crushed the Open Source movement when it was just beginning.
They kind of have, that's why they're an illegal monopoly and "normal" companies don't have Linux all over their desktops.
If anything, the open source community is starting to force Microsoft to stop being lazy once again and be innovative. Microsoft has a nasty habit of getting lazy when it has no competition, and fierce when it does have competition.
But, then... it wouldn't be "Microsoft" would it? If Microsoft does these things... will Microsoft keep "Microsoft-like" control over the software market?
See above. If you're old enough to remember, you might remember the days when IBM was the big evil, and Microsoft was the respectable underdog that everyone cheered for.
If you could do everything you do now on Linux without having to learn Linux... would you? Many people say yes, many people say no.
I don't use Linux much anymore, except for occasional tinkering. This is due to many reasons: Microsoft now makes top-notch server products. NT 4 was complete shit. Just complete fucking shit. Windows 2000 was really good. Active Directory was great. Servers didn't crash all the time. Workstations could finally be TRULY managed centrally (via GPOs).
Windows isn't just an OS that people who "can't figure out" Linux use. Some of us prefer Windows, because it does more of what we need, and is well-integrated. I could elaborate here if you wanted me to.
Are enough people that are lazy enough to "just stay with Microsoft" developers? Are they a large enough group that they'd cripple the OSS movement?
Your first sentence is a huge myth. While development tools and languages and libraries in the open source world stay fairly stagnant and sane, it seems Microsoft is CONSTANTLY changing shit around and adopting new technologies. To be a competent MS programmer (or system engineer) for long, you really need to keep up with the industry and what Microsoft is doing.
This is both good and bad. Good because things are always getting better and you're getting new capabilities. Bad because you've always, always got to keep up with the game. Sometimes it gets ridiculous: you'll have something like.NET, which is still very new and already Microsoft is changing the game with the upcoming WinFX for Longhorn, which promises to change application development yet again. Sometimes, they'll just shitcan a technology alltogether because it didn't take off well with customers.
This same phenomenom doesn't happen in the open source world (As much) because developers are not profit-motivated, they are passion-motivated, so projects stand a much better chance of surviving. See seemingly-deadend open source projects which continue to flourish against all odds, such as ReactOS and GNUstep.
Do not allow any summer intern "wannabe engineer" code-boys anywhere near the core OS kernel source code without proper supervision.
I'm sure Microsoft already follows this guideline. You can at least be sure that this situation isn't nearly as bad for Microsoft as it is with Linux.
I know. I've submitted patches to the Linux kernel long ago and I know ass about kernel programming (although I'm fairly well-schooled on kernel internals).
One patch isn't "patches, patches everywhere!". If you want to see "patches, patches everywhere" for the month of December, look at Red Hat 9.
Seems like they've released yet another patch every other day this month. I know it hasn't been quite that many, but it's been several, and much more than Microsoft.
Could we have a little more fact, and a lot less Microsoft FUD? It makes Slashdot look rubbish.
The "Linux community" could stand to ridicule less and study their enemy more. Then maybe they wouldn't be slowly slipping behind the Windows Server platform more and more in providing more of the features people need.
It probably looks nice to the Chinese. Nintendo has a good habit of developing different case designs for specific markets.
For example, the Japanese version of the NES was a rounded, shiny cherry red case. The US version was a more conservative boxy gray.
The Japanese version of the SNES was an ugly... well can't even describe it. I owned one and didn't like the shape at all. The American version was much more appealing to me (an American).
The subscription is $799 a year. I can get a copy of Windows ____ Server for cheaper than that. Granted, that price doesn't include more than a handful of CALs.
If I get a copy of the CD from someone else, who will support it? Granted, the Linux volunteer community kills Microsoft in terms of support, but legally speaking, who?
"I got this unsupported CD-R copy of RHEL from a friend, and we're going to use it to run our mission-critical server" doesn't cut it at most larger places.
No, they just charge you $400 for your copy of Windows first.
And Red Hat charges $349 for Red Hat Enterprise Linux ES, per their website. This price includes a FULL year of updates for free. Uhm, wow.
We usually buy Windows _____ Server with a server, and so we pick it up for about $400 - $500.
A little more than the $349 Red Hat charges, but when you consider you get "free" updates for however long Microsoft supports the product (they still issue NT4 patches), and the polished quality of their products, it turns out to be a far better deal.
Red Hat is not polished, sorry.
Show me something as damaging as the RPC holes on RH.
Any remote root exploit, of which there have been several.
It has to be installed by default, you cannot just turn off the service blindly without breaking things, it has to lead to root access on the machine, and it also has to somehow bypass iptables in order to get into the machine in the first place.
Uhm, ever heard of firewalls? Ever heard of IPSec policies under Windows 2000? you probably haven't, but most competent 2000 administrators have, and they use them.
School yourself in them, and then get back to me, chump.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, the firewall can handle both incoming and outgoing connections. It even nags you a lot about creating new rules when you first install it, like Zone Alarm.
A Longhorn preview is available for download from the MSDN site. You also might be able to order a CD, although its really not worth the effort at this point.
The preview build is slow, buggy, and doesn't have enough new features yet to be interesting for more than 10 minutes.
Well said.
Update yeah, this is a repost. Whatever- it's a holiday. Nothing else to post
Sure there is. You could post about how the Stardust probe is about to enter a comet's tail, or perhaps India's plans for a hypersonic plane, or even the chnaging face of offshore programming...
What sort of hardware is this CE box?
I am a "died in the wool" OS X and 2000/XP/2003 fan. I use and own multiple OS X Macs and Windows XP/2003 PCs. I think they each have their own strengths and weaknesses. I tend to use my XP machine more these days as it is comsiderably faster (Athlon XP 2400+) than my Macs (Quicksilver 867 and TiBook 667). I also seem to like screwing with MS technologies (.NET) or Windows software, more often.
However, I would strongly agree with your opinions concerning the OS X UI. I was just stating that your post was NOT objective, as it clearly contained anti-MS sentiment. What did you do at MS if I may ask? Tech support? Software engineering/design? Other?
Or, just buy a Linux-based Linksys WRV54G for well under $200 with most, if not all the features of this project. No, I don't mean the WRT54g, I mean the WRV54G. Excellent piece of gear, VPN, firewalling, dmz, wireless (wep/wpa), snmp, yadda yadda.
and i AM being 100% objective !!
Uhm, no you're not. You just threw out the blanket opinion that "MacOSX + mac hardware" is "far superior" to "windows on a PC". Laughably, you go on to intimate that OS X may be a bit slow.
Then, you state an opinion concerning Microsoft. Then, you make another blanket statement that Mac hardware is much more reliable. I could name a dozen PC configurations off the top of my head that are quite a bit more reliable and of higher quality than Mac hardware. And yes, I'm qualified to make that statement as I own both a PMG4 and a TiBook.
The hardware doesnt get faster with each new release of MacOS, the OS does.
Seems you don't have the slightest idea what objective means, as there were perhaps only one or two sentences that were objective in your post. That's the problem with slashdotters.
Great test by a Macintosh advocacy site! Now it's settled, the G5 is the fastest processor on Earth, and Mac's are cheaper than PC's....
or something.
I'll probably be marked as a troll for this, but Roblimo is just wrong wrong wrong.
Roblimo has a good suggestion on avoiding the first-day-of-Windows altogether.[link to article]
Right, until his daughter/granny buys a webcam from the store and wants to hook it up and use it, etc. Or she wants to use x program that only runs on Windows. Grannies and relatives buy lots of this stuff off shelves at the store. The Sims, nearly another other quality game on the planet? Probably isn't going to run on Linux, is it?
She does websites for pay... what happens when she decides she needs something like Dreamweaver, or Frontpage (gag, but a lot of people still use it) or Photoshop, in those rare cases when the (superior, IMHO) The Gimp won't fulfill her needs?
Sure, you could use VMWare or some other such deal, but then you'll require a copy of Windows and you'll have spent more time and money than if you had just put Windows on the machine in the first place.
What a load of narrow-minded horseshit, Roblimo. Your job as a self-appointed Linux advocate should be telling it to the people straight, and you aren't. They'll listen to you and get burned, and won't trust you or any other Linux person, next time.
I have an Antec Sonata and fucking love it. I don't ever hear it running, I don't hear the fans, etc. Also the fans and hard drive cages use rubber grommets to reduce vibration. Great case.
I read a bunch of drivel trying to make one of two utterly pointless points:
- Every email client under the Sun already does threading
RTFA, they're not talking about threading alone.
- The sarcastic "Oh look! Microsoft thinks it innovated again!"
I see no where where Microsoft states that this is some innovation. I do see where it says that this is a Microsoft Research usability study.
I also note that this paper was published by ACM, so I'm assuming they found it interesting enough.
I was very excited to read this. I remember learning programming and wanting to download a C/C++ compiler and I couldn't find a free one for Windows that was free and well documented. This was back in 1996 and I was a poor college student.
.NET Framework is free and contains a compiler for managed code. Microsoft is moving out of the stone age for application development and adopting managed-code development. Nonetheless, I believe there is a basic C/C++ compiler available froms omewhere on MS. If not, there are tons of alternative compilers that can be had for free or low cost (or high cost, if you prefer).
.NET Framework is free, which includes a compiler for any language that hooks into .NET.
As I said, the
I would have had to pay $139 for Visual C++ if I wanted to do windows development. Even that was too much. I could barely afford a computer! The reason I learned GNU and OSS software was because I was poor. I stuck with it because I'm a cheapskate.
Visual C++ is an excellent full-featured IDE, what do you expect? It's so much more than a compiler. This is like asking for a car and then complaining because it doesn't fly. $139 is a pretty damned good price for an IDE of the quality that the Visual Studio suite. Nothing open source matches it in terms of quality and features. I know. I've looked.
That said, I still use vim for most of my development on Windows.
So now I hear that MS gives away this stuff! That's great! Where do I download my copy of Visual C++ for free? Where do I download my free windows SDK so I can write windows software?
Again, Visual C++ is an IDE, not just a compiler. I said the
As far as SDKs, what do you want to do? There are tons of SDKs (As well as DDKs for driver development) available for free off of MSDN.
Now if Microsoft had been giving away this stuff from the beginning (like I said) then they would have prevented droves of lazy programmers from getting lazy and learning Linux and then being lazy and staying with Linux. Today, for many Linux programmers, the path of Laziness is to "just stay with Linux" or unix or whatever.
I believe MS gained its dominance with developers by practically giving away the dev tools away for free, initially. However, I could be wrong as I have been a UNIX user for a long time, and didn't "switch" to Windows until a year ago.
I cannot comment on the rest of this snippit as I am not lazy, and I abhor the lazy. In fact, most decent open source coders (myself included) aren't lazy. We, well, they write good tools for no compensation.
So, I believe that you are incorrect in this respect. Tinkerers are lazy, and they lack enough motivation to really put anything of use out, so its of no harm to Microsoft OR the open source community. Those who truly want to hack, will hack, regardless.
Do you know what CPAN is?
Yes. I've been using Perl and Linux much longer than you have, so I'd better!
A microsoft CPAN would have tons of objects and C/C++ code that you could download for free. These objects would do things like SMTP, LDAP, PostScript, or TK for you. Microsoft has the MFC but last I checked I couldn't submit anything to the MFC. I couldn't modify my own version of DirectX and submit it to Microsoft for approval.
Microsoft has a "CPAN", it's called MSDN, and it's full of code snippets and examples and miscellaneous cruft. Objects and C/C++ code included.
MFC isn't a repository, MFC is a base library for high-level C++ code development, which is significantly different than CPAN, which is a repository.
You're right, though. You couldn't modify DirectX and submit the changes to Microsoft. I find this argument silly and stupid, in most cases.
The first reason being that most people aren't going to modify DirectX, or they don't have a need to. I'd bet that you've never modified the source for
an open source
Microsoft could have crushed the Open Source movement if it had given away one of it's development platforms for free.
.NET Framework (which includes everything you need to develop applications), their scripting languages, and vast amounts of documentations, case studies, examples, advice, and support (via newsgroups and community sites). All for free.
... would you? Many people say yes, many people say no.
.NET, which is still very new and already Microsoft is changing the game with the upcoming WinFX for Longhorn, which promises to change application development yet again. Sometimes, they'll just shitcan a technology alltogether because it didn't take off well with customers.
They give away the
If they had fostered a Java-esque or CPAN-esque software repository
This doesn't make sense? Java-esque? CPAN-esque?
if they had given free SDK's for windows out
Sigh. They do. http://msdn.microsoft.com
if they supported or encouraged the development of free servers, browsers, desktop systems, and support utilities...
They do. I've received tons of help and support from Microsoft employees via their Development-related newsgroups. They have staff that proactively help developers, even us evil developers who like to write free, open source software (Gasp! Open source Windows developers?!?). They have bee extremely helpful, as is their vast MSDN site(s).
THEN Microsoft could have crushed the Open Source movement when it was just beginning.
They kind of have, that's why they're an illegal monopoly and "normal" companies don't have Linux all over their desktops.
If anything, the open source community is starting to force Microsoft to stop being lazy once again and be innovative. Microsoft has a nasty habit of getting lazy when it has no competition, and fierce when it does have competition.
But, then... it wouldn't be "Microsoft" would it? If Microsoft does these things... will Microsoft keep "Microsoft-like" control over the software market?
See above. If you're old enough to remember, you might remember the days when IBM was the big evil, and Microsoft was the respectable underdog that everyone cheered for.
If you could do everything you do now on Linux without having to learn Linux
I don't use Linux much anymore, except for occasional tinkering. This is due to many reasons: Microsoft now makes top-notch server products. NT 4 was complete shit. Just complete fucking shit. Windows 2000 was really good. Active Directory was great. Servers didn't crash all the time. Workstations could finally be TRULY managed centrally (via GPOs).
Windows isn't just an OS that people who "can't figure out" Linux use. Some of us prefer Windows, because it does more of what we need, and is well-integrated. I could elaborate here if you wanted me to.
Are enough people that are lazy enough to "just stay with Microsoft" developers? Are they a large enough group that they'd cripple the OSS movement?
Your first sentence is a huge myth. While development tools and languages and libraries in the open source world stay fairly stagnant and sane, it seems Microsoft is CONSTANTLY changing shit around and adopting new technologies. To be a competent MS programmer (or system engineer) for long, you really need to keep up with the industry and what Microsoft is doing.
This is both good and bad. Good because things are always getting better and you're getting new capabilities. Bad because you've always, always got to keep up with the game. Sometimes it gets ridiculous: you'll have something like
This same phenomenom doesn't happen in the open source world (As much) because developers are not profit-motivated, they are passion-motivated, so projects stand a much better chance of surviving. See seemingly-deadend open source projects which continue to flourish against all odds, such as ReactOS and GNUstep.
Do not allow any summer intern "wannabe engineer" code-boys anywhere near the core OS kernel source code without proper supervision.
I'm sure Microsoft already follows this guideline. You can at least be sure that this situation isn't nearly as bad for Microsoft as it is with Linux.
I know. I've submitted patches to the Linux kernel long ago and I know ass about kernel programming (although I'm fairly well-schooled on kernel internals).
No, most people aren't. Point me to any philanthropist either:
a.) giving as much to charity as bill gates
b.) A billionaire giving as high of a percentage of their total worth as Bill Gates.
It's also good to see what the world is getting with Gates' donations in billions of dollars.
You aren't donating tens of billions of dollars to good causes, are you? Thought not.
I'd also like to add that I'm damned glad that both Microsoft and Red Hat are so aggressively releasing patches.
One patch isn't "patches, patches everywhere!". If you want to see "patches, patches everywhere" for the month of December, look at Red Hat 9.
Seems like they've released yet another patch every other day this month. I know it hasn't been quite that many, but it's been several, and much more than Microsoft.
Could we have a little more fact, and a lot less Microsoft FUD? It makes Slashdot look rubbish.
The "Linux community" could stand to ridicule less and study their enemy more. Then maybe they wouldn't be slowly slipping behind the Windows Server platform more and more in providing more of the features people need.
It probably looks nice to the Chinese. Nintendo has a good habit of developing different case designs for specific markets.
For example, the Japanese version of the NES was a rounded, shiny cherry red case. The US version was a more conservative boxy gray.
The Japanese version of the SNES was an ugly... well can't even describe it. I owned one and didn't like the shape at all. The American version was much more appealing to me (an American).
The subscription is $799 a year. I can get a copy of Windows ____ Server for cheaper than that. Granted, that price doesn't include more than a handful of CALs.
If I get a copy of the CD from someone else, who will support it? Granted, the Linux volunteer community kills Microsoft in terms of support, but legally speaking, who?
"I got this unsupported CD-R copy of RHEL from a friend, and we're going to use it to run our mission-critical server" doesn't cut it at most larger places.
They don't give you jack shit. Provide me with a legitimate URL to download RHEL ES.
The Red Hat Enterprise Linux ES product is $349. A year of support is $799, from what I remember, so you're full of shit.
And don't give me that "Just use Fedora" shit, either. That may cut it for small workgroups, but it doesn't cut it in the real world.
This is going to be fun.
No, they just charge you $400 for your copy of Windows first.
And Red Hat charges $349 for Red Hat Enterprise Linux ES, per their website. This price includes a FULL year of updates for free. Uhm, wow.
We usually buy Windows _____ Server with a server, and so we pick it up for about $400 - $500.
A little more than the $349 Red Hat charges, but when you consider you get "free" updates for however long Microsoft supports the product (they still issue NT4 patches), and the polished quality of their products, it turns out to be a far better deal.
Red Hat is not polished, sorry.
Show me something as damaging as the RPC holes on RH.
Any remote root exploit, of which there have been several.
It has to be installed by default, you cannot just turn off the service blindly without breaking things, it has to lead to root access on the machine, and it also has to somehow bypass iptables in order to get into the machine in the first place.
Uhm, ever heard of firewalls? Ever heard of IPSec policies under Windows 2000? you probably haven't, but most competent 2000 administrators have, and they use them.
School yourself in them, and then get back to me, chump.
I'm talking about servers, mainly, and I definitely wouldn't use Fedora on a production... well anything.
I haven't seen yum referenced in Red Hat documentation, everything I've read refers to RHN.
It is unclear why an exploit was made public before Apple resolved the problem. [Link to RFP's policy]
Probably because the person who released the exploit wasn't RFP, maybe? Just a guess.