300 times nothing is still nothing. 300 times very little may not be "very little", but it still won't be anywhere near "a lot". So my maths teacher says...
Yes, you simply have to de-select the DRM features when ripping/encoding your DVD's. Or did you want to remove DRM from other peoples media?
I believe what the parent poster wanted was to remove DRM from his own media, but not from media that he had himself created. The concept that you only "own" media you've created yourself is ridicilous; If I have bought a DVD in a store, it's mine. I don't own the copyright, but the physical product belongs to me, so if I want to remove DRM from it, that's my business and my right. By any sane definition of the word, that does not infringe copyright. Making copies for my personal use is Fair Use.
Obviously, I don't live in the US. Where I live, when you've bought something, you own it.
I want to know what happened to MP3-CD players and why no-one seems to care enough to review them anymore, let alone include them in large-scale comparisons such as these. I have an ancient AVC SoulPlayer DMP-201 which was cheap when I got it, and sells for even less ($99!) nowadays. Highlights in brief:
It plays MP3 (VBR/CBR) and WMA burned to regular CD-R or CD-RW. No OGG, but then again, very few players do.
It plays regular CD's! Yes, the kind you buy in a store, or the kind you have to keep around still because it's all your car's CD player supports.
Storage: As many tracks as you can fit on a CD(-R[W]), which is to say, about 700 MB. That is, between 150-250 songs (my regular playlist is about 50 songs, though I can see how being able to store "only" 250 tracks may be a problem for some people).
Battery life: 10-15 hours. Well in excess of what most flash or HD-based players can do as reported by this article.
Media costs: Dirt cheap and easy to replace (CD-RW's are what, $1-$2 apiece?)
Portability: Not as good as a flash-based player, for obvious reasons. Comparable to one of the larger HD-based players in width, but pretty thin. Fits in most pockets (goes without saying that newer MP3/CD players are smaller). Doesn't weigh much.
Other: Great sound. Does not crackle up when batteries run low. Headphone and line-out stereo connections. Menu-based interface, lots of options. Upgradeable firmware.
Now, this is not to say that MP3-CD players are without their issues. Do I hear someone mention skipping? The DMP-201 has 10+ minutes of cache memory. No, you can't use it while jogging (unless your jogs are really short) but it's sufficient on a bicycle or at the gym. Again, like the storage space, this is a problem that will not affect everyone.
That's assuming you don't use Sneakemail and have thousands of disposable addresses to hand out. Or, assuming you meant the password to the e-mail account itself, you would need the adresses to the mail servers (POP3 or whatever); and of course, the sender's private key (who doesn't sign their mail nowadays?).
One has a Tux sitting next to it and one has a blue screen on it. And the caption is "And I could have spent HOW MUCH less?")
You would indeed have to be a soccer mom or busy single parent (meaning: little or no knowledge of computers due to lack of time/interest/intellect) to fall for such a ridicilous ad. Windows no longer bluescreens anywhere near as often or as easily as it used to, as anyone in the know will tell you if you asked. Yes, it's still possible to bring the system down with a dodgy driver. But please name one desktop operating system where this can't happen... At least on Windows, I can use my perfectly common graphics card with full 3D and not have to worry about crashes.
1. its a Unix clone.. comes with all the strengths
This might be an advantage over Windows, but not over Linux (also a Unix clone). Also, there's a lot of baggage that comes with being a Unix clone, not just advantages.
2. It has a very well designed, clean and consistent UI
Matter of taste. Most Linux users I know customize their desktop environments to suit their personal tastes, I've done the same with Windows XP. It certainly fits my idea of what is "well designed, clean and consistent" now. So this is not an OSX-specific advantage, either.
3. Its so intuitive that your ganma can use it (try it..)
It might be good for first-time users, but I always feel very disoriented when I have to try and configure something on a Mac. So what is "inituitive" is mostly a matter of what you're used to...
4. It allows you to run MS office, Photoshop , dreamweaver and tons of other commercial apps alongside your Unix apps like apache, smb, namp etc.
I'm running commercial apps alongside "Unix" and other open-source apps on Windows just fine. Just like there are Unix/Linux alternatives to most Windows apps, the reverse is true for pretty much all useful Unix/Linux apps. That said, if Mozilla didn't exist for Windows I'd probably switch.:)
5. You can run X windows apps but turn it off when your dont need it and can run pretty much any (non hardware dependent)app linux can.
Useful for people migrating from Linux, but not for Windows users, who will have very few if any X-windows apps they feel the need to bring over to OSX.
6. OSX boxes can emulate i386 very fast the reverse does not exist yet
I can't think of a time when I've actually felt the need or desire to emulate a Macintosh on my x86. Why would I need to do this, exactly?
7. All development tools are free (gcc) and very easy to use GUIs(Xcode)
There's GCC for both Linux and Windows, and very good development environments for both. So this is not an OSX-specific advantage, either.
8. The development API (cocoa) is open and cross platform (GNUstep, openstep)
Don't know about this one (mostly because I've never used cocoa) but there are plenty of (reasonably) open and cross-platform API's out there.
9. Very good 3rd party hardware support.
Windows has this. Next, please.
10. Fantastic applications like ilife apps, itunes etc that make windows users gawk.
Not this Windows user, they don't. At the university where I work and study, I very rarely hear any mac apps mentioned in a favourable manner, so I'm fairly certain I'm not alone in having this opinion.
Ever tried setting up a WebDAV server? That fits anybody's definition of hard.
I strongly disagree. Setting up a Subversion repository to be accessible over the 'net was PISS EASY, even for me, a first-time user. You can use the included light-weight server (svnserve) or Apache2 if you need options like complex authentication. It's very easy to set up and very nice to look at if you enable XML output.:)
The batteries that destroyed the CoLo would have been the heavy-duty supersized ones that go in UPS'es and the like. Those really are dangerous if you handle them incorrectly. The ordinary batteries you can buy at the grocery store, however, almost never explode, especially not the non-rechargeable kinds. Besides, if you are carrying this box in your pocket, and a battery explodes, you will have more important things to worry about than whether the box catches fire or not...
ah well. it's kinda scary that even the largest/richest software co in the world can't stop the spread of their IP, and that it takes only one person.
Not scary at all. I'd say it is a good thing that not even one of the most powerful forces on this planet can stop information from spreading across the web. Information wants to be free, remember?
Interesting, it's the other way around here in Sweden. DVD+R's are usually a tad more expensive as far as I've been able to tell, and I found it hard to find places that had DVD+R's in really big bulk packages (50+ discs). I own a multi-format burner (Nec ND-1300A) but I use DVD-R's exclusively for the above reasons.
$7.99 is really expensive for a DVD. Over here, even with out gross taxes on writeable media, one DVD-R sets you back about $2, much less if you buy them in bulk. CD's are about $.8, again, much less if you buy them in bulk. A typical CD stores 700 MB, a DVD-R stores 4.7GB. Any compression you can think of that could be applied to squeeze more data into a CD could be applied to the data on a DVD just the same. Just imagine how much you could fit on a single DVD if everything was heavily compressed! Any way you look at it, unless DVD media costs a lot more where you live for some reason, the cost argument is irrelevant after 1.5GB or so.
The "fix" could just as well be switching browsers to Mozilla. Note that Microsoft does _not_ force you to use IE, it just ships Windows with IE as the default. So what if you can't upgrade IE, replace it instead. Yes, IE will still be there, but for websurfing (which is where you would most likely encounter this particular exploit) it wouldn't be used, and thus it would be harmless.
There's also a world of difference between a web browser and a kernel. The 2.0 kernel is still updated yes, but can the same be said for every major open source application, regarding the version which was current in the year 2000? I doubt it.
But this IE exploit shows that the author was wrong on at least one account.
Wrong. He was right. This particular IE exploit has been fixed; it only affects an old version of IE. And IE is free, so there's no real excuse for not upgrading it. If I found a bug in an older version of an open-source app, and filed a bug report on it despite the fact that it had been fixed AGES ago in a newer version, I think I would be told to shut the fuck up and upgrade with little or no delay.
Did SP1 include updates to the OpenGL screensavers? Because those are in there, and I can't say I think those were updated in SP1. However, the code may very well be (part of) Windows 2000 with the SP1 changes applied. The timestamps on the files suggest this, I've been told.
The nature of open source makes security problems an inevitable concern.
There are a handful of ways that malicious code can make its way into open
source and avoid detection during security testing, making government adoption
of open source particularly worrisome.
by A. Russell Jones February 11, 2004
An old adage that governments would be well-served to heed is: You get what
you pay for. When you rely on free or low-cost products, you often get the
shaft, and that, in my opinion, is exactly what governments are on track to get.
Perhaps not today, nor even tomorrow, and not because open source products are
less capable or less efficient than commercial products, but because sooner or
later, governments that rely on free open source software will put their
country's and their citizens' data in harm's way. Eventually--and inevitably--an
open source product will be found to contain a security breach--not one
discovered by hackers, security personnel, or a CS student or professor.
Instead, the security breach will be placed into the open source software from
inside, by someone working on the project.
This will happen because the open source model, which lets anyone modify
source code and sell or distribute the results, virtually guarantees that
someone, somewhere, will insert malicious code into the source. Malevolent code
can enter open source software at several levels. First, and least worrisome, is
that the core project code could be compromised by inclusion of source
contributed as a fix or extension. As the core Linux code is carefully
scrutinized, that's not terribly likely. Much more likely is that distributions
will be created and advertised for free, or created with the express purpose of
marketing them to governments at cut-rate pricing. As anyone can create and
market a distribution, it's not far-fetched to imagine a version subsidized and
supported by organizations that may not have U.S. or other government interests
at heart.
Third, an individual or group of IT insiders could target a single
organization by obtaining a good copy of Linux, and then customizing it for an
organization, including malevolent code as they do so. That version would then
become the standard version for the organization. Given the prevalence of
inter-corporation and inter-governmental spying, and the relatively large
numbers of people in a position to accomplish such subterfuge, this last
scenario is virtually certain to occur. Worse, these probabilities aren't
limited to Linux itself, the same possibilities (and probabilities) exist for
every open source software package installed and used on the machines.
How Can This Happen? The products of the open source software development model have become
increasingly entrenched in large organizations and governments, primarily in the
form of Linux, a free open-source operating system, the free open-source Apache
Web server, and open source office suites. There are several reasons that open
source software--and Linux in particular--are seeing such a dramatic uptick in
use, including IBM's extensive Linux support effort over the past several years,
and the widespread perception that Linux is more secure than Windows, despite
the fact that both products are riddled with software security holes. (Use this
menu to see the number of vulnerabilities reported by security watchdog group
Secunia for an OS-by-OS comparison.)
So far, major Linux distributions such as Debian and others have been able to
discover and remedy attacks on their core source-code servers. The distributions
point to the fact that they discovered and openly discussed these breaches as
evidence that their security measures work. Call me paranoid, but such attacks,
however well handled, serve to raise the question of whether other such attacks
have been more successful (in other words, undiscovered). Because anyone can
create and market--or give away--a Linux distribution, there's also a reasonably
hi
The only problem, I'd say, is that it's not obvious to most people which distro to use, and picking the wrong one is sure to end in, as you say "a HUGE waste of time" for first time users. This is unfortunate, but it doesn't really equal "Linux is unusable for everyone who isn't a programmer".
That is indeed a problem (though I can't agree with you that it's the only) but I will argue that the large amount of time it takes to get [some distro of] Linux up and running can make Linux unusable. There is a treshold; any user, no matter how committed, will stop trying to get Linux working after N hours of trying and failing, where N varies with the individual. I think my N is pretty high, but still not high enough, apparently. That, or I was just unlucky. My point is, Joe Home User has an abysmally small value for N. So Linux can and will be unusable to him because of that.
I do find it interesting that someone working in tech support at a major university condones piracy, but I'm not going to deny that you have a point there.
It wasn't my intention to condone piracy - I'm merely speaking from real experience, not saying the way it is is the way it _should_ be. In tech support (the hands-on kind), you get to see the hard drives of MANY people's computers. Even the non-savvy run Kazaa, DC and BitTorrent and stockpile gigs of warez, porn and movies on their fragile little laptops.
OTOH, non technical users seldom have the knowledge to locate pirated copies of the software they'd need (if they even know the software exists!)
See above. While at the university where I work, most people are pretty tech-savvy, there are also a huge number of people who are not. They're using warezed software all the same, having gotten it from their (savvier) friends. When everyone's on 100Mbit (11Mb on the WLAN) there's nothing stopping the warez from propagating. Though, for people who aren't tech-savvy themselves and don't have too many l33t h4x0rz in their social circles, you've got a point.
If we consider pre installed machines, so does Linux.
How is the operating system "out of the box" if it comes pre-installed? What I mean is that given a PC, I can chuck a WinXP install CD in, boot from it, and be somewhat sure that I will have a working system when the install finishes. In my experience, this is rarely true for any but the most newbie-friendly of Linux distros. Though I admit RH9 was a huge step forward in this regard.
What you're saying is "If I do all the right things, and keep patching all the time, it's fairly secure.". Please name a modern OS this isn't true for.
It is exactly as you say. However, Linux proponents regularly call Windows insecure because of this fact, completely forgetting that Linux is the same.
For most people $650 is a bit too much to cough up.
Come on. Noone actually pays $650 for Photoshop. Everyone who needs it professionally gets a license from where they work (or a heavily subsidized price). Everyone who doesn't just gets it off their favourite warez network. So how much a certain piece of software costs is really irrelevant when comparing features, because to many users, price is not an issue anyway.
I'm going to skip over the "STFU NOOB" bit because I intended that one as a bit of a joke.
But please, tell me how much amount of your free time is consumed by inserting a boot CD and then asking it to install the working system to HD.
Last time I wanted to try Linux, it took several distros before I found one that would even install and boot without errors. Each one took roughly as long as Windows (some longer) to install. Once I had found one that worked, it was a pain getting everything looking and working the way I wanted, and installing software, mostly due to a great deal of the configuration having to be done through text files, and many drivers only being available as (broken) sources that I had to edit manually to compile. That, and Galleon kept crashing... So installing Linux, especially for a first-timer who is used to getting stuff working without outside help (as I have always been able to in Windows, at least for common tasks like installing software and drivers), can really be a HUGE waste of time.
One could of course argue that people who have so strong opinions about how something works, even though they they admit that they don't use it are idiots too...
I don't currently use Linux, but that doesn't mean that I haven't; in fact, I have. Then I stopped using it for reasons partially mentioned above. I do however work in technical support at a university where we do have to support Linux, so I'm "forced" to deal with it on a daily basis even though I don't run it on any of my own PC's.
When you are perfectly happy with Windows, because it:
works out of the box (possibly given a visit to Windows Update),
autodetects all your hardware (some Linux distros do this yes, but not nearly as well),
does NOT get you rooted because the security is there if you know how to use it (and not use IE/Outlook),
does play all the latest games and software which I need (the alternatives suck, try comparing Photoshop with GIMP),
does have free and competent technical support available which does not have "STFU NOOB" in its vocabulary,
does not require me to devote a significant amount of my free time just to get it installed and working semi-well.
Linux is a Fine OS(TM) but it is NOT ready for Mr Non-Hax0r unless he/she has a real hax0r around to take care of all the problems that inevitably show up. Being the practically-minded type myself, I use what works, silly ideologies aside. I don't have the patience to bother with Linux, so I don't use it, simple as that. People who think everyone can and should switch today are idiots and don't deserve a +5 moderation.
Fair point. Though it can be argued that people still running those ancient Windows versions deserve what they're getting by not upgrading (that's what Linux users whining about poor features and instability in Linux versions released around the same time as Win98 would be told, anyway), many are no doubt "forced" to run Win9x/Me at their workplaces and/or at home because of policy or because their hardware is too obsolete to run anything else.
I also know of lots of folks that run Win9x with "no instability problems whatsoever" according to themselves. Whether they are in the majority, however, I can't say (and frankly, I doubt it).
Of course they're getting boring. No knowledgeable Windows user actually gets BSOD's on a regular basis anymore. What you need to understand is that trolls such as those posting these comments are not worth wasting your time on. Just add them to your list of foes and move on.
It's a fact that 99% (possibly more) of BSOD's in modern day Windows operating systems are caused by bad hardware or bad drivers. Third party drivers. Now, the zealots would no doubt argue that a faulty driver shouldn't be able to bring the whole operating system down. Well, this is not a characteristic unique to Windows. Linux cries like a stuck pig over bad drivers, too. At least for Windows, I can find drivers for _all_ my hardware. For that, I'm willing to stand having to dodge a few BSOD's, just like most Linux users have nothing against spending hours tweaking text-based config files getting their systems running properly.
I've never received an unfair metamod for modding down an anti-MS troll, btw, so most Slashdotters (the ones dedicated enough to metamod, anyway) probably agree that BSOD jokes no longer have a place here.
Yes, because we allknowhow effectiveregion codesare, don't we?
Surely even the movie industry must have realized by now there is no way of creating digital media such that it is both enjoyable and uncopyable by the end user.
Slashdot Mirror
300 times nothing is still nothing. 300 times very little may not be "very little", but it still won't be anywhere near "a lot". So my maths teacher says...
Yes, you simply have to de-select the DRM features when ripping/encoding your DVD's. Or did you want to remove DRM from other peoples media?
I believe what the parent poster wanted was to remove DRM from his own media, but not from media that he had himself created. The concept that you only "own" media you've created yourself is ridicilous; If I have bought a DVD in a store, it's mine. I don't own the copyright, but the physical product belongs to me, so if I want to remove DRM from it, that's my business and my right. By any sane definition of the word, that does not infringe copyright. Making copies for my personal use is Fair Use.
Obviously, I don't live in the US. Where I live, when you've bought something, you own it.
- It plays MP3 (VBR/CBR) and WMA burned to regular CD-R or CD-RW. No OGG, but then again, very few players do.
- It plays regular CD's! Yes, the kind you buy in a store, or the kind you have to keep around still because it's all your car's CD player supports.
- Storage: As many tracks as you can fit on a CD(-R[W]), which is to say, about 700 MB. That is, between 150-250 songs (my regular playlist is about 50 songs, though I can see how being able to store "only" 250 tracks may be a problem for some people).
- Battery life: 10-15 hours. Well in excess of what most flash or HD-based players can do as reported by this article.
- Media costs: Dirt cheap and easy to replace (CD-RW's are what, $1-$2 apiece?)
- Portability: Not as good as a flash-based player, for obvious reasons. Comparable to one of the larger HD-based players in width, but pretty thin. Fits in most pockets (goes without saying that newer MP3/CD players are smaller). Doesn't weigh much.
- Other: Great sound. Does not crackle up when batteries run low. Headphone and line-out stereo connections. Menu-based interface, lots of options. Upgradeable firmware.
Now, this is not to say that MP3-CD players are without their issues. Do I hear someone mention skipping? The DMP-201 has 10+ minutes of cache memory. No, you can't use it while jogging (unless your jogs are really short) but it's sufficient on a bicycle or at the gym. Again, like the storage space, this is a problem that will not affect everyone.That's assuming you don't use Sneakemail and have thousands of disposable addresses to hand out. Or, assuming you meant the password to the e-mail account itself, you would need the adresses to the mail servers (POP3 or whatever); and of course, the sender's private key (who doesn't sign their mail nowadays?).
Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.
One has a Tux sitting next to it and one has a blue screen on it. And the caption is "And I could have spent HOW MUCH less?")
You would indeed have to be a soccer mom or busy single parent (meaning: little or no knowledge of computers due to lack of time/interest/intellect) to fall for such a ridicilous ad. Windows no longer bluescreens anywhere near as often or as easily as it used to, as anyone in the know will tell you if you asked. Yes, it's still possible to bring the system down with a dodgy driver. But please name one desktop operating system where this can't happen... At least on Windows, I can use my perfectly common graphics card with full 3D and not have to worry about crashes.
1. its a Unix clone.. comes with all the strengths
:)
This might be an advantage over Windows, but not over Linux (also a Unix clone). Also, there's a lot of baggage that comes with being a Unix clone, not just advantages.
2. It has a very well designed, clean and consistent UI
Matter of taste. Most Linux users I know customize their desktop environments to suit their personal tastes, I've done the same with Windows XP. It certainly fits my idea of what is "well designed, clean and consistent" now. So this is not an OSX-specific advantage, either.
3. Its so intuitive that your ganma can use it (try it..)
It might be good for first-time users, but I always feel very disoriented when I have to try and configure something on a Mac. So what is "inituitive" is mostly a matter of what you're used to...
4. It allows you to run MS office, Photoshop , dreamweaver and tons of other commercial apps alongside your Unix apps like apache, smb, namp etc.
I'm running commercial apps alongside "Unix" and other open-source apps on Windows just fine. Just like there are Unix/Linux alternatives to most Windows apps, the reverse is true for pretty much all useful Unix/Linux apps. That said, if Mozilla didn't exist for Windows I'd probably switch.
5. You can run X windows apps but turn it off when your dont need it and can run pretty much any (non hardware dependent)app linux can.
Useful for people migrating from Linux, but not for Windows users, who will have very few if any X-windows apps they feel the need to bring over to OSX.
6. OSX boxes can emulate i386 very fast the reverse does not exist yet
I can't think of a time when I've actually felt the need or desire to emulate a Macintosh on my x86. Why would I need to do this, exactly?
7. All development tools are free (gcc) and very easy to use GUIs(Xcode)
There's GCC for both Linux and Windows, and very good development environments for both. So this is not an OSX-specific advantage, either.
8. The development API (cocoa) is open and cross platform (GNUstep, openstep)
Don't know about this one (mostly because I've never used cocoa) but there are plenty of (reasonably) open and cross-platform API's out there.
9. Very good 3rd party hardware support.
Windows has this. Next, please.
10. Fantastic applications like ilife apps, itunes etc that make windows users gawk.
Not this Windows user, they don't. At the university where I work and study, I very rarely hear any mac apps mentioned in a favourable manner, so I'm fairly certain I'm not alone in having this opinion.
Ever tried setting up a WebDAV server? That fits anybody's definition of hard.
:)
I strongly disagree. Setting up a Subversion repository to be accessible over the 'net was PISS EASY, even for me, a first-time user. You can use the included light-weight server (svnserve) or Apache2 if you need options like complex authentication. It's very easy to set up and very nice to look at if you enable XML output.
There are howtos in the Subversion book. Happy reading.
The batteries that destroyed the CoLo would have been the heavy-duty supersized ones that go in UPS'es and the like. Those really are dangerous if you handle them incorrectly. The ordinary batteries you can buy at the grocery store, however, almost never explode, especially not the non-rechargeable kinds. Besides, if you are carrying this box in your pocket, and a battery explodes, you will have more important things to worry about than whether the box catches fire or not...
That's not true. Next time, you ought to check your facts before posting. I suggest using Google . :)
Moz/Fb/Ffox users, the download link is here.
ah well. it's kinda scary that even the largest/richest software co in the world can't stop the spread of their IP, and that it takes only one person.
Not scary at all. I'd say it is a good thing that not even one of the most powerful forces on this planet can stop information from spreading across the web. Information wants to be free, remember?
Interesting, it's the other way around here in Sweden. DVD+R's are usually a tad more expensive as far as I've been able to tell, and I found it hard to find places that had DVD+R's in really big bulk packages (50+ discs). I own a multi-format burner (Nec ND-1300A) but I use DVD-R's exclusively for the above reasons.
Oopsie. I put "with out" where I meant "with our". Please don't think that I meant "without". :)
$7.99 is really expensive for a DVD. Over here, even with out gross taxes on writeable media, one DVD-R sets you back about $2, much less if you buy them in bulk. CD's are about $.8, again, much less if you buy them in bulk. A typical CD stores 700 MB, a DVD-R stores 4.7GB. Any compression you can think of that could be applied to squeeze more data into a CD could be applied to the data on a DVD just the same. Just imagine how much you could fit on a single DVD if everything was heavily compressed! Any way you look at it, unless DVD media costs a lot more where you live for some reason, the cost argument is irrelevant after 1.5GB or so.
The "fix" could just as well be switching browsers to Mozilla. Note that Microsoft does _not_ force you to use IE, it just ships Windows with IE as the default. So what if you can't upgrade IE, replace it instead. Yes, IE will still be there, but for websurfing (which is where you would most likely encounter this particular exploit) it wouldn't be used, and thus it would be harmless.
There's also a world of difference between a web browser and a kernel. The 2.0 kernel is still updated yes, but can the same be said for every major open source application, regarding the version which was current in the year 2000? I doubt it.
But this IE exploit shows that the author was wrong on at least one account.
Wrong. He was right. This particular IE exploit has been fixed; it only affects an old version of IE. And IE is free, so there's no real excuse for not upgrading it. If I found a bug in an older version of an open-source app, and filed a bug report on it despite the fact that it had been fixed AGES ago in a newer version, I think I would be told to shut the fuck up and upgrade with little or no delay.
Did SP1 include updates to the OpenGL screensavers? Because those are in there, and I can't say I think those were updated in SP1. However, the code may very well be (part of) Windows 2000 with the SP1 changes applied. The timestamps on the files suggest this, I've been told.
Open Source Is Fertile Ground for Foul Play
The nature of open source makes security problems an inevitable concern. There are a handful of ways that malicious code can make its way into open source and avoid detection during security testing, making government adoption of open source particularly worrisome.
by A. Russell Jones February 11, 2004
An old adage that governments would be well-served to heed is: You get what you pay for. When you rely on free or low-cost products, you often get the shaft, and that, in my opinion, is exactly what governments are on track to get. Perhaps not today, nor even tomorrow, and not because open source products are less capable or less efficient than commercial products, but because sooner or later, governments that rely on free open source software will put their country's and their citizens' data in harm's way. Eventually--and inevitably--an open source product will be found to contain a security breach--not one discovered by hackers, security personnel, or a CS student or professor. Instead, the security breach will be placed into the open source software from inside, by someone working on the project.
This will happen because the open source model, which lets anyone modify source code and sell or distribute the results, virtually guarantees that someone, somewhere, will insert malicious code into the source. Malevolent code can enter open source software at several levels. First, and least worrisome, is that the core project code could be compromised by inclusion of source contributed as a fix or extension. As the core Linux code is carefully scrutinized, that's not terribly likely. Much more likely is that distributions will be created and advertised for free, or created with the express purpose of marketing them to governments at cut-rate pricing. As anyone can create and market a distribution, it's not far-fetched to imagine a version subsidized and supported by organizations that may not have U.S. or other government interests at heart.
Third, an individual or group of IT insiders could target a single organization by obtaining a good copy of Linux, and then customizing it for an organization, including malevolent code as they do so. That version would then become the standard version for the organization. Given the prevalence of inter-corporation and inter-governmental spying, and the relatively large numbers of people in a position to accomplish such subterfuge, this last scenario is virtually certain to occur. Worse, these probabilities aren't limited to Linux itself, the same possibilities (and probabilities) exist for every open source software package installed and used on the machines.
How Can This Happen?
The products of the open source software development model have become increasingly entrenched in large organizations and governments, primarily in the form of Linux, a free open-source operating system, the free open-source Apache Web server, and open source office suites. There are several reasons that open source software--and Linux in particular--are seeing such a dramatic uptick in use, including IBM's extensive Linux support effort over the past several years, and the widespread perception that Linux is more secure than Windows, despite the fact that both products are riddled with software security holes. (Use this menu to see the number of vulnerabilities reported by security watchdog group Secunia for an OS-by-OS comparison.)
So far, major Linux distributions such as Debian and others have been able to discover and remedy attacks on their core source-code servers. The distributions point to the fact that they discovered and openly discussed these breaches as evidence that their security measures work. Call me paranoid, but such attacks, however well handled, serve to raise the question of whether other such attacks have been more successful (in other words, undiscovered). Because anyone can create and market--or give away--a Linux distribution, there's also a reasonably hi
The only problem, I'd say, is that it's not obvious to most people which distro to use, and picking the wrong one is sure to end in, as you say "a HUGE waste of time" for first time users. This is unfortunate, but it doesn't really equal "Linux is unusable for everyone who isn't a programmer".
That is indeed a problem (though I can't agree with you that it's the only) but I will argue that the large amount of time it takes to get [some distro of] Linux up and running can make Linux unusable. There is a treshold; any user, no matter how committed, will stop trying to get Linux working after N hours of trying and failing, where N varies with the individual. I think my N is pretty high, but still not high enough, apparently. That, or I was just unlucky. My point is, Joe Home User has an abysmally small value for N. So Linux can and will be unusable to him because of that.
I do find it interesting that someone working in tech support at a major university condones piracy, but I'm not going to deny that you have a point there.
It wasn't my intention to condone piracy - I'm merely speaking from real experience, not saying the way it is is the way it _should_ be. In tech support (the hands-on kind), you get to see the hard drives of MANY people's computers. Even the non-savvy run Kazaa, DC and BitTorrent and stockpile gigs of warez, porn and movies on their fragile little laptops.
OTOH, non technical users seldom have the knowledge to locate pirated copies of the software they'd need (if they even know the software exists!)
See above. While at the university where I work, most people are pretty tech-savvy, there are also a huge number of people who are not. They're using warezed software all the same, having gotten it from their (savvier) friends. When everyone's on 100Mbit (11Mb on the WLAN) there's nothing stopping the warez from propagating. Though, for people who aren't tech-savvy themselves and don't have too many l33t h4x0rz in their social circles, you've got a point.
If we consider pre installed machines, so does Linux.
How is the operating system "out of the box" if it comes pre-installed? What I mean is that given a PC, I can chuck a WinXP install CD in, boot from it, and be somewhat sure that I will have a working system when the install finishes. In my experience, this is rarely true for any but the most newbie-friendly of Linux distros. Though I admit RH9 was a huge step forward in this regard.
What you're saying is "If I do all the right things, and keep patching all the time, it's fairly secure.". Please name a modern OS this isn't true for.
It is exactly as you say. However, Linux proponents regularly call Windows insecure because of this fact, completely forgetting that Linux is the same.
For most people $650 is a bit too much to cough up.
Come on. Noone actually pays $650 for Photoshop. Everyone who needs it professionally gets a license from where they work (or a heavily subsidized price). Everyone who doesn't just gets it off their favourite warez network. So how much a certain piece of software costs is really irrelevant when comparing features, because to many users, price is not an issue anyway.
I'm going to skip over the "STFU NOOB" bit because I intended that one as a bit of a joke.
But please, tell me how much amount of your free time is consumed by inserting a boot CD and then asking it to install the working system to HD.
Last time I wanted to try Linux, it took several distros before I found one that would even install and boot without errors. Each one took roughly as long as Windows (some longer) to install. Once I had found one that worked, it was a pain getting everything looking and working the way I wanted, and installing software, mostly due to a great deal of the configuration having to be done through text files, and many drivers only being available as (broken) sources that I had to edit manually to compile. That, and Galleon kept crashing... So installing Linux, especially for a first-timer who is used to getting stuff working without outside help (as I have always been able to in Windows, at least for common tasks like installing software and drivers), can really be a HUGE waste of time.
One could of course argue that people who have so strong opinions about how something works, even though they they admit that they don't use it are idiots too...
I don't currently use Linux, but that doesn't mean that I haven't; in fact, I have. Then I stopped using it for reasons partially mentioned above. I do however work in technical support at a university where we do have to support Linux, so I'm "forced" to deal with it on a daily basis even though I don't run it on any of my own PC's.
- works out of the box (possibly given a visit to Windows Update),
- autodetects all your hardware (some Linux distros do this yes, but not nearly as well),
- does NOT get you rooted because the security is there if you know how to use it (and not use IE/Outlook),
- does play all the latest games and software which I need (the alternatives suck, try comparing Photoshop with GIMP),
- does have free and competent technical support available which does not have "STFU NOOB" in its vocabulary,
- does not require me to devote a significant amount of my free time just to get it installed and working semi-well.
Linux is a Fine OS(TM) but it is NOT ready for Mr Non-Hax0r unless he/she has a real hax0r around to take care of all the problems that inevitably show up. Being the practically-minded type myself, I use what works, silly ideologies aside. I don't have the patience to bother with Linux, so I don't use it, simple as that. People who think everyone can and should switch today are idiots and don't deserve a +5 moderation.In Preferences, Messages tab, set Metamoderation results to "Web" or "E-mail".
Fair point. Though it can be argued that people still running those ancient Windows versions deserve what they're getting by not upgrading (that's what Linux users whining about poor features and instability in Linux versions released around the same time as Win98 would be told, anyway), many are no doubt "forced" to run Win9x/Me at their workplaces and/or at home because of policy or because their hardware is too obsolete to run anything else.
I also know of lots of folks that run Win9x with "no instability problems whatsoever" according to themselves. Whether they are in the majority, however, I can't say (and frankly, I doubt it).
Of course they're getting boring. No knowledgeable Windows user actually gets BSOD's on a regular basis anymore. What you need to understand is that trolls such as those posting these comments are not worth wasting your time on. Just add them to your list of foes and move on.
It's a fact that 99% (possibly more) of BSOD's in modern day Windows operating systems are caused by bad hardware or bad drivers. Third party drivers. Now, the zealots would no doubt argue that a faulty driver shouldn't be able to bring the whole operating system down. Well, this is not a characteristic unique to Windows. Linux cries like a stuck pig over bad drivers, too. At least for Windows, I can find drivers for _all_ my hardware. For that, I'm willing to stand having to dodge a few BSOD's, just like most Linux users have nothing against spending hours tweaking text-based config files getting their systems running properly.
I've never received an unfair metamod for modding down an anti-MS troll, btw, so most Slashdotters (the ones dedicated enough to metamod, anyway) probably agree that BSOD jokes no longer have a place here.
Yes, because we all know how effective region codes are, don't we? Surely even the movie industry must have realized by now there is no way of creating digital media such that it is both enjoyable and uncopyable by the end user.