First of all, Hotmail was not originally owned by Microsoft -- they were bought out. Hotmail, by that original company, was originally written to run on FreeBSD, but it doesn't anymore. That white paper was written by an original Hotmail UNIX admin -- what do YOU think he'd stand up for? It meant (not) losing his job.
As for that "unsecured" box -- it's not like it was a compromised box or anything. Some asshat uploaded the white paper to a public FTP server. That's their fault, not an inherent fault in the server software, which to me seems to be what you are implying.
Although, since you're a BSD nut, I'm not surprised.;-)
The IIS server I used to admin had never been hacked. And yes, it was directly on the net and received a fairly high volume of traffic. Personally I would trust someone very knowledgeable with WinNT to put an IIS server up more than I would trust ye olde random Linux elitist to put his "uber-secure" Apache "b0x" on the web.
a web browser that doubles as a full-access file manager with the ability to run programs
Like Konqueror and Eazel's Nautilus?
a mail client that can and will automagically open (or even run) attachments
This was true in, like, 1999. Outlook doesn't do this anymore.
a scripting language so powerful that a component as central the registry can be modified with it that can be used in officially non-executable things as office documents and webpages
So you're saying you can't modify something in/etc using something such as Perl? There is an analog to everything you state.
This is what makes a system with pretty much any MicroSoft software on it insecure.
What falls prey to all these worms, et al that are going around are the people that are still running Windows 98 first edition with Outlook Express 4 that never bother to upgrade anything. All it takes is something as simple as going to Windows Update to fix all this. Then Microsoft comes along and tries to remedy this problem with the Automatic Updates feature to try and remove the middleman (read: uninformed/apathetic user) and what response does that receive from the Slashdot community? "No! Kill the bastards! They're spies! Seize them!"
I'm curious as to what you mean by that, because IIS has traditionally smoked Apache in serving benchmarks in terms of sheer numbers of connections it can serve up.
Also, the fact that he might be serving it up on a DSL line could be a factor.
The sad thing is that they probably paid some company for the webmail app, even though you can download several different ones at freshmeat.net for free.
Well, I think you're wrong, because Bucknell is using Horde/IMP, which is opensource, and is used by 99% of schools because it's $free$.
Here's a "white paper" that we heard from this guy who knows this kid who's going with a girl who saw Ferris pass-out at 31 Flavors last night. By the way, there is no official credible source.
I read "The Register" like I read "The Weekly World News." It's a tabloid in every sense.
Taco, I can't believe you had the balls to post this nonsense (which, if they're any truth to it, was written by a UNIX admin. WTF?)
Which is funny, because the Slashdot article keeps citing "IIS." Maybe someone forgot to edit the "canned microsoft submission.txt" file before submitting the story.
Well, I for one am getting sick and tired almost to the point where I want to put my penis in a locker door and slam it shut repeatedly after seeing day in and day out all of these "Linux will run on a piece of shit 8088 XT and make it run 3464865 times faster than M$ on a Pentium 1Ghz!! heheheh M$ 5uX0rs!!" posts. They make me sick. Even worse, most of them are modded up to +5. Sure, Linux will run on a 386, but it's more proof-of-concept. It's still slow --- take it from me, I've actually tried this with Slackware. It's almost impossible to get X working at any decent speed, if at all -- but Windows 3.1 will putz along just fine on that caliber of machine.
I've run Win 3.1 on a 386/16 with 4 MB of RAM and used it to log on to CompuServe (Windows version, even) back in the day (ahh the days of 2400 baud...).
While Linus wrote Linux for a 386, that was kernel 0.0.1 way back in the early 90s. Things have changed, times have changed. And the grandparent post's supposedly levelheaded comparison of "just try running Windows XP on that machine" made me retch in disgust, as it was supposed to be a valid comparison? How about, "Let's see KDE3 run on a 386 with 8M ram." What an asshole. (I know someone will prove me wrong, but...) the only thing remotely useful that you could do on that machine is run vi.
Let's see Windows XP run on a 386 with 8M ram. Nice FUD Bill.
You, sir, have won an express ticket to my foes list. Sure I *could* run Slackware 3 with Linux kernel 2.0 with barely any drivers loaded and just running c-shell (really slowly I might add) on that hardware, but not much else.
Of course you could just run DOS 6.22 on there as well.
By the way, I can get XP running faster than you can ever get KDE3/GNOME2 running on an identical system. That's a fact, not uninformed FUD.
I was thinking of something like that, but you spoil the true peer-to-peer creamy goodness by relying a centralized server -- there's still a central point where failure can occur.
Slashdot Mirror
First of all, Hotmail was not originally owned by Microsoft -- they were bought out. Hotmail, by that original company, was originally written to run on FreeBSD, but it doesn't anymore. That white paper was written by an original Hotmail UNIX admin -- what do YOU think he'd stand up for? It meant (not) losing his job.
As for that "unsecured" box -- it's not like it was a compromised box or anything. Some asshat uploaded the white paper to a public FTP server. That's their fault, not an inherent fault in the server software, which to me seems to be what you are implying.
What a crock of uninformed bullshit.
;-)
Although, since you're a BSD nut, I'm not surprised.
The IIS server I used to admin had never been hacked. And yes, it was directly on the net and received a fairly high volume of traffic. Personally I would trust someone very knowledgeable with WinNT to put an IIS server up more than I would trust ye olde random Linux elitist to put his "uber-secure" Apache "b0x" on the web.
WOPR: Wouldn't you prefer a good game of chess?
a web browser that doubles as a full-access file manager with the ability to run programs
/etc using something such as Perl? There is an analog to everything you state.
Like Konqueror and Eazel's Nautilus?
a mail client that can and will automagically open (or even run) attachments
This was true in, like, 1999. Outlook doesn't do this anymore.
a scripting language so powerful that a component as central the registry can be modified with it that can be used in officially non-executable things as office documents and webpages
So you're saying you can't modify something in
This is what makes a system with pretty much any MicroSoft software on it insecure.
What falls prey to all these worms, et al that are going around are the people that are still running Windows 98 first edition with Outlook Express 4 that never bother to upgrade anything. All it takes is something as simple as going to Windows Update to fix all this. Then Microsoft comes along and tries to remedy this problem with the Automatic Updates feature to try and remove the middleman (read: uninformed/apathetic user) and what response does that receive from the Slashdot community? "No! Kill the bastards! They're spies! Seize them!"
There's no winning.
he's on a 144k DSL line.. be nice" :)
I've always loved thinking about how people might approach that. "Maybe if I click the link really slowly..."
Be nice, he's using IIS [bbsmates.com]
I'm curious as to what you mean by that, because IIS has traditionally smoked Apache in serving benchmarks in terms of sheer numbers of connections it can serve up.
Also, the fact that he might be serving it up on a DSL line could be a factor.
Looks like we have another HURD on our hands: another useless, seriously incomplete, we-already-have-a=solution-for-this Free software project.
NTFS does this. Assigning a drive letter is optional to new volumes; you can just set a mount point inside any folder if you want.
"The last tree held nine drums!"
[obscure Simpsons quote]
You're not seeing the big picture: it's a fucking telephone.
He's the cool 70s guy from the Simpsons.
No, the article is wrong... the issue is IE not IIS-related.
If I would have to be shot into space in a lifeboat, it would have to be in a gigantic Bob's Big Boy.
Oh, BTW, don't sniff the fumes that are released either.
Moving your lemonade stand's staff to OpenOffice just doesn't count.
The sad thing is that they probably paid some company for the webmail app, even though you can download several different ones at freshmeat.net for free.
Well, I think you're wrong, because Bucknell is using Horde/IMP, which is opensource, and is used by 99% of schools because it's $free$.
Here's a "white paper" that we heard from this guy who knows this kid
who's going with a girl who saw Ferris pass-out at 31 Flavors last night. By the way, there is no official credible source.
I read "The Register" like I read "The Weekly World News." It's a tabloid in every sense.
Taco, I can't believe you had the balls to post this nonsense (which, if they're any truth to it, was written by a UNIX admin. WTF?)
Which is funny, because the Slashdot article keeps citing "IIS." Maybe someone forgot to edit the "canned microsoft submission.txt" file before submitting the story.
I find it ironic that your anti-MS apparel store runs on IIS with ASP.NET. Whatever's best for the job, I guess.
Now where did I hear that name before...?
Yeah they should have used the money to fix the potholes on main Street.
Well, I for one am getting sick and tired almost to the point where I want to put my penis in a locker door and slam it shut repeatedly after seeing day in and day out all of these "Linux will run on a piece of shit 8088 XT and make it run 3464865 times faster than M$ on a Pentium 1Ghz!! heheheh M$ 5uX0rs!!" posts. They make me sick. Even worse, most of them are modded up to +5. Sure, Linux will run on a 386, but it's more proof-of-concept. It's still slow --- take it from me, I've actually tried this with Slackware. It's almost impossible to get X working at any decent speed, if at all -- but Windows 3.1 will putz along just fine on that caliber of machine.
I've run Win 3.1 on a 386/16 with 4 MB of RAM and used it to log on to CompuServe (Windows version, even) back in the day (ahh the days of 2400 baud...).
While Linus wrote Linux for a 386, that was kernel 0.0.1 way back in the early 90s. Things have changed, times have changed. And the grandparent post's supposedly levelheaded comparison of "just try running Windows XP on that machine" made me retch in disgust, as it was supposed to be a valid comparison? How about, "Let's see KDE3 run on a 386 with 8M ram." What an asshole. (I know someone will prove me wrong, but...) the only thing remotely useful that you could do on that machine is run vi.
No, no, no... the article said 5000 yen. That's like.... um.... 7 cents.
*******Attention: FUD ALERT********
Let's see Windows XP run on a 386 with 8M ram. Nice FUD Bill.
You, sir, have won an express ticket to my foes list. Sure I *could* run Slackware 3 with Linux kernel 2.0 with barely any drivers loaded and just running c-shell (really slowly I might add) on that hardware, but not much else.
Of course you could just run DOS 6.22 on there as well.
By the way, I can get XP running faster than you can ever get KDE3/GNOME2 running on an identical system. That's a fact, not uninformed FUD.
I was thinking of something like that, but you spoil the true peer-to-peer creamy goodness by relying a centralized server -- there's still a central point where failure can occur.