It's been proven time and time again that open source software is more secure as long as it's properly managed and vigilantly kept up to date.
ROTFLMAO!!! Isn't this true of any platform not just Open Source?
They're going to keep it to themselves until the damage has gone far beyond anything that open source would be vulnerable to.
And you think that they wouldn't on Open Source? If I found an exploit on any system why would I have it fixed? I'd want to add it to my "tool kit" and use it when ever I wanted. That's the sign of a real black hat hacker
This means gnoring security holes in old versions of OSS's and applications simply because they want to FORCE people to buy their new products.
If you are referring to MS's End of Life strategy name me one OSS package that does not do this as well? I'm no Linux Guru but Iâ(TM)m pretty sure that Linux has an End of Life for pervious versions as well. Show me a place where you can download patches for the 1.1.x kernel.
As long as companies are in this for profit, the main focus is going to be making more money with as little expense as possible.
You just described all companies who use OSS. They are making money off the backs of people who enjoy doing it for nothing. I have said it before and will say it again if companies like IBM, Red Hat, Suse, etc could package any OSS up and sell it like MS does they would in a heartbeat. You bleeding heart OSS people are pretty naive when it comes to the business world. Just because it's Open Source people won't want to exploit it and make money off of it. I live in a perfect world where everyone shares everything and all is a happy-happy joy-joy. I love Open Source and think it's cool but this is one of its fundamental flaws, exploitation.
2. Why use a client that apes Outlook behavior, when better faster thinner clients exist.
You obviously have never trained end users. The kind that when then turn on their computers expect to see it a certain way. This probably accounts for 75% of the corporate end users. The only way Linux and desktops alike will get more acceptability in todayâ(TM)s market is to mimic Windows as closely as possible. Most of the end users that I have trained are either terrified or disgusted with the fact that they have to learn the new features of an application/OS. For the most part IT/Management knows this and don't want a bunch of irate workers on their hands. Unless IT/Management wants to train its staff all over again the money then save by moving to Open Source they will need to cover the costs of re-training.
A better and more "realistic" statement would be a functional user friendly GUI interface (VB) to the data that a modeling tool has generated.
I have done a fair amount of work with the research community and I can tell you first hand that VB is a good choice for research companies. All of the raw research data that I have ever dealt with personally has been crunched by several modeling tools that were written in C and were command line based. That data generated (several hundreds of pages of raw text sometimes) has to be parsed and then moved into a database for further statistical research. Something that VB is more than qualified to do. I have also used third party graphing/charting components with VB to display the data visually
A good analyst would review the task at hand and pick the best tool to accomplish that task. No need to discredit something because is may seem to simplistic.
To bad Larry's claims of being Unbreakable? were squashed. As the article says:
"Some security experts have said that the discovery of these vulnerabilities changes the claim of "unbreakable" from marketing hype to a false sense of security."
Since each of the mentioned above are only riding off the backs of something free and trying to make a profit from it. Open Source being screwed and screwed again. You think that SCO, Novell, IBM or any other "profit" business cares about the people who develop these free OS's? Not on your life. If they could buy it, package it and sell it they would in a heartbeat.
I like the idea of Open Source but hate the idea that greedy individuals profit off of the efforts without as much as a contribution. I know of several companies that run *BSD & Linux based servers and have never purchased the media for them. And if small business does it you can imagine how much big business is raping the effort.
::::Score: -1.....What are you king sh*t of turd mountain or something?
Or the M$ leagal team (which probably rivals the US Gov) has found something that may (if taken to court) would make SCO the clear winner. If I had the chance to cover my a$$ I would do it before it went to court rather than after.
I use McAfee v4.5.1 SP1 w/hotfix and it has worked for me. Not that I'm a n00b with computers. I auto update my defs each night, run weekly scans and I use Outlook for email. The last time I was infected with a virus was back in 94' and it only took one time to keep me anal about virus updates and securing my system.
So lets all say it together and get along:
"Your OS platform is as secure as you make it."
Sure some offer better solutions and settings from the get go but it's up to the individual to be diligent on what content they wish to view/download/install
That's what I say. My main email account has never had a single piece if spam in over four years. While I do get spam on my hotmail account (and expect it) I have set the filtering to extreme and created white lists. I maintain the white lists whenever I sign up for a service that I want correspondence from. How hard is that? Spend a little time and due diligence on my part and viola! No problem.
I haven't received a penny from you for my product. There is no contract, not even an implied one. Therefore there is no liability. Simple.
But does this stop somebody from suing you? There is a difference in being sued and the win/loss. Just in being sued you can become the looser even if you win. Especially if you have to fork out the cost of a lawyer for x number of days/weeks to help you win. Since you get no monies from your open source development how would you recoup your loss of fees and or lost wages if you have an actual full time job. Something to ponder....
Another thing that should be done that may or may not be apart of the prototype is building a proof of concept for high risk scenarios. I have heard over and over again "oh ya we can do that" and in the end it's this little piece that trashes the project. The bonus of this is if the code is done correctly and not hacked together it can be implemented very easily into the code base.
Slashdot Mirror
Why? What are you going to do if I don't?
Most likely nothing since your just an anonymous coward anyway.
It's been proven time and time again that open source software is more secure as long as it's properly managed and vigilantly kept up to date.
ROTFLMAO!!! Isn't this true of any platform not just Open Source?
They're going to keep it to themselves until the damage has gone far beyond anything that open source would be vulnerable to.
And you think that they wouldn't on Open Source? If I found an exploit on any system why would I have it fixed? I'd want to add it to my "tool kit" and use it when ever I wanted. That's the sign of a real black hat hacker
This means gnoring security holes in old versions of OSS's and applications simply because they want to FORCE people to buy their new products.
If you are referring to MS's End of Life strategy name me one OSS package that does not do this as well? I'm no Linux Guru but Iâ(TM)m pretty sure that Linux has an End of Life for pervious versions as well. Show me a place where you can download patches for the 1.1.x kernel.
As long as companies are in this for profit, the main focus is going to be making more money with as little expense as possible.
You just described all companies who use OSS. They are making money off the backs of people who enjoy doing it for nothing. I have said it before and will say it again if companies like IBM, Red Hat, Suse, etc could package any OSS up and sell it like MS does they would in a heartbeat. You bleeding heart OSS people are pretty naive when it comes to the business world. Just because it's Open Source people won't want to exploit it and make money off of it. I live in a perfect world where everyone shares everything and all is a happy-happy joy-joy. I love Open Source and think it's cool but this is one of its fundamental flaws, exploitation.
2. Why use a client that apes Outlook behavior, when better faster thinner clients exist.
You obviously have never trained end users. The kind that when then turn on their computers expect to see it a certain way. This probably accounts for 75% of the corporate end users. The only way Linux and desktops alike will get more acceptability in todayâ(TM)s market is to mimic Windows as closely as possible. Most of the end users that I have trained are either terrified or disgusted with the fact that they have to learn the new features of an application/OS. For the most part IT/Management knows this and don't want a bunch of irate workers on their hands. Unless IT/Management wants to train its staff all over again the money then save by moving to Open Source they will need to cover the costs of re-training.
A better and more "realistic" statement would be a functional user friendly GUI interface (VB) to the data that a modeling tool has generated.
I have done a fair amount of work with the research community and I can tell you first hand that VB is a good choice for research companies. All of the raw research data that I have ever dealt with personally has been crunched by several modeling tools that were written in C and were command line based. That data generated (several hundreds of pages of raw text sometimes) has to be parsed and then moved into a database for further statistical research. Something that VB is more than qualified to do. I have also used third party graphing/charting components with VB to display the data visually
A good analyst would review the task at hand and pick the best tool to accomplish that task. No need to discredit something because is may seem to simplistic.
To bad Larry's claims of being Unbreakable? were squashed. As the article says:
"Some security experts have said that the discovery of these vulnerabilities changes the claim of "unbreakable" from marketing hype to a false sense of security."
It would be more of a love hate relationship.
Since each of the mentioned above are only riding off the backs of something free and trying to make a profit from it. Open Source being screwed and screwed again. You think that SCO, Novell, IBM or any other "profit" business cares about the people who develop these free OS's? Not on your life. If they could buy it, package it and sell it they would in a heartbeat.
I like the idea of Open Source but hate the idea that greedy individuals profit off of the efforts without as much as a contribution. I know of several companies that run *BSD & Linux based servers and have never purchased the media for them. And if small business does it you can imagine how much big business is raping the effort.
::::Score: -1.....What are you king sh*t of turd mountain or something?
Or the M$ leagal team (which probably rivals the US Gov) has found something that may (if taken to court) would make SCO the clear winner. If I had the chance to cover my a$$ I would do it before it went to court rather than after.
Just the ramblings of a mad man...
I use McAfee v4.5.1 SP1 w/hotfix and it has worked for me. Not that I'm a n00b with computers. I auto update my defs each night, run weekly scans and I use Outlook for email. The last time I was infected with a virus was back in 94' and it only took one time to keep me anal about virus updates and securing my system.
So lets all say it together and get along:
"Your OS platform is as secure as you make it."
Sure some offer better solutions and settings from the get go but it's up to the individual to be diligent on what content they wish to view/download/install
And that's all I have to say about that....
That's what I say. My main email account has never had a single piece if spam in over four years. While I do get spam on my hotmail account (and expect it) I have set the filtering to extreme and created white lists. I maintain the white lists whenever I sign up for a service that I want correspondence from. How hard is that? Spend a little time and due diligence on my part and viola! No problem.
I haven't received a penny from you for my product. There is no contract, not even an implied one. Therefore there is no liability. Simple.
But does this stop somebody from suing you? There is a difference in being sued and the win/loss. Just in being sued you can become the looser even if you win. Especially if you have to fork out the cost of a lawyer for x number of days/weeks to help you win. Since you get no monies from your open source development how would you recoup your loss of fees and or lost wages if you have an actual full time job. Something to ponder....
Another thing that should be done that may or may not be apart of the prototype is building a proof of concept for high risk scenarios. I have heard over and over again "oh ya we can do that" and in the end it's this little piece that trashes the project. The bonus of this is if the code is done correctly and not hacked together it can be implemented very easily into the code base.
Probably one of these idiot kids who figured they would pull a Jackass stunt and it went bad.
The only reason SUN picked this CPU is because of the name "Blade" sounds cooler and easier to market.
Think about it.....
Slashdot is the only .org site I ever visit. I was begining to think that it was the only one. A friggin' Vic 20 could serve up the requests for .org.