Actually Ditching IE wouldn't fix the problem. Microsoft integrated it into the OS. That means that parts of IE are used by the OS. So even if you stop using it you will still need to patch and repatch and repatch... If you don't you can still be open to other attack vectors against the IE components that Microsoft foolishly integrated.
A lot of people feel that Microsoft chose to do that in order to prevent the Justice Department from forcing them to remove it before Netscape was rendered completely irrelevant.
Personally, I can't help but be amused that Microsoft's anticompetitive practices are coming back to bite them in the ass in this manner.
It doesn't take something new for a lot of users to want to switch. We're seeing that in other countries that are switching.
What it takes is something old. Microsoft's inability to secure their OS because the integrated IE. Microsoft's heavy handed Licensing agreements and fees.. etc.. Nothing new at all but reasons to switch.
I run a Mandrake Linux server at home. I have a shared printer attached. When I install Linux on my computer, my wife's computer and my kid's computer it automatically searched the network and found the printer and installed it.
So yes, a new user can do that. And that's a shared printer. Setting up a dedicated printer on a computer is just as easy. Linux sees it. Linux configures for it. Done!
"we've been through these discussions over and over again. linux is NOT a suitable desktop operating system for the majority of users. most users do NOT want to spend a whole lot of time reading documentation on how to setup/configure their system, and most find it fustrating."
Yes we have been over this kind of FUD over and over. Linux USE TO BE a geek only OS. Have you tried Mandrake Linux? I find it much easier to install than Windows. And as computer vendors more and more include preinstalled Linux instead of preinstalled Windows...
Did you even read the Slashdot story to which this thread is related? The reason to switch is that IE is integrated into Microsoft's OS and Microsoft is incapable of securing their OS because of it! Even if you run a diffrent browser on a Microsoft OS, IE is integrated so that parts of it that may be subject to attack are being used by other parts of the OS. This forces you to apply patch after patch after patch to keep half a step ahead of the bad guys.
The dilemma that Microsoft is in is a natural consequence of relating success to dollar amounts rather than the feeling one gets when one puts out a quality product.
Corporations are really a kind of abomination. They embody only one ideal; greed. They are financial black holes sucking up all available wealth. It's there only purpose of existence. The problem is that once the entire market is consumed what then? Either enter into new markets or start squeezing their own workers of course! Cut benefits, wages and any other expenses.
People, we need to wake up and consider where the world is going. After considering what a corporate world will be like do we really want to allow that? The natural conclusion of a world where corporations own everything is simple. Two classes. The few very rich and the modern day peasants.
He shot the film but Disney owns the rights unless he bought them. And you know the right wing is going to vigorously oppose this film being widely distributed until after November. So look for major busts of people passing it around.
Being that Micro$oft insisted on integrating IE into there OS; a move that many feel is motivated by an ongoing anti-competitive strategy, consumers cannot protect themselves by simply not using IE.
Many subsystems of IE are used by many other parts of Micro$oft's OS. That's what is meant by "integrated." This could allow other vector's of attack if IE is not patched and patched and patched...
You made your fricking bed Micro$oft... Now your users will have to sleep in it.
"Zordak writes "Fox News is reporting that the MPAA has chosen a new chief to replace Jack Valenti. Dan Glickman is an avid Linux user, a well-known consumer advocate, vehemently critical of the DMCA and a member of the EFF. Ha ha. Just kidding..."
I like the idea of writing code once and being able to run it on multiple platforms. MONO takes us a half a step closer to that. I do have concerns, however. Primarily the screwy patent laws bother me.
The SCO fiasco, which was funded both directly and indirectly by Microsoft, tells me that litigation is probably going to be Microsoft's weapon of choice in the not too distant future. I have expressed these concerns in previous MONO discussions and always get a lot of replies telling me that Microsoft "won't" do this because of this reason or that reason. What I have never got was a reply telling me why Microsoft CAN'T to this.
So, given the fact that SCO has shown that litigation can and is being used as an anti-competitive tactic and given the fact that Balmer not so long ago said, when referring to open source that Microsoft would "vigorously enforce its IP rights", why should I feel good about the MONO project?
Would some lawyer type please tell me why Microsoft CAN'T prevail in a lawsuit over patent violations when the time is right for them to strike? I'm not trolling. I really want to be able to use MONO and feel good about it. But until I know that I'm not putting Linux at risk I simply can't support MONO.
The problem is, is that the game is fixed. There is no way anyone can "do their homework."
If a person was really going to "do their homework" they would be required to read mountains of documents each day to be sure that these political bastards aren't up to something. They pass acts that have nice sound bite names that mislead the public. They enact good programs and then simply don't fund them. They make back room, special interest deals and tack them onto unrelated legislation. The effort required to scrutinize this group of clowns is enormous. Don't believe that for a second that these guys don't know it. They know that no one has the time to work a full time job AND do the research it would take to really know what these fuck wits are really doing.
So what is a person to do? Well we listen to other people who are suppose to do the resarch for us. The problem with that is that one cannot tell who is giving the fruits of good research and who is giving slanted, self serving facts. So if you want to keep the population in the dark, you make the system too complex for anyone to be able to "do their homework" without giving up their day job. Then you hire a bunch of yo-yos to disseminate misinformation so that the good research of honest people just becomes part of the background noise. No one will be able to tell fact from spin.
...that they have a budget to educate their employees and a person who is certified would be one of the first people they hire but if you tell them that you want training to get certified they won't help you.
I think they're afraid that once certified, you'll seek employment elsewhere. Totally screwed up.
We are in complete agreement. Like I said, a hate web site could possibly cause an unstable person to commit a violent act but so could a Rambo movie. The point being that once you start down that slippery slop of censorship where do you stop?
"The SunnComm and BMG execs quoted in the article say that they're pleased with the apparent consumer acceptance of the anti-piracy technology, but they have been hearing questions about how people can get the copy-blocked songs from the CD onto an iPod."
This should tell them that the people buying the CDs probably don't realize what it is that they are buying and are going to be pissed when they find out.
I think your point is that not all expressions of thought are legal. I agree. You can't yell "fire" in a theater or call in a phony bomb threat.
Sometimes rights conflict. The right of free speech and public safety as in the case of yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. However, most of the time when the right to free speech is challenged there is a clear conflict between exercising that right and the public good.
In the case of child porn there is a victim. The child must be protected and therefore you don't have a right to express yourself by taking pictures of under aged children engaged in sex acts.
In the case of hate messages it is less clear that there is a victim. Yes, it is possible that hateful posts could incite an unstable person into doing violence but so could a Rambo movie.
Open office has "on the fly" spell check. I don't know about revision control or task panes but few people (even in business) actually use them.
The problem with Microsoft Word is that it has so many "features" that it's really a liability. Case in point VBA. I can sit down with a copy of Word 97 and write a complete application using VBA. It's way over kill and guess what? People with way too much time on their hands use all of that extra power to write malicious code.
Open office has a macro language also which I'm not too happy about. It's always a bad ideal to mix your data and executables. Way big security risk.
Right now I have 3 120 Gig drives in my home server. It started out to be just a backup server for my family so I set it up as RAID 0. I felt it would be a little over kill to backup the backup server. But now it's also hosting a friends web site. He's got the number one google hit for Ella Wheeler Wilcox so I'm thinking that I may have to rethink my desaster recovery stratagy.
Oh bother...
My MOBO has hardware raid but I couldn't get it to work with Linux. I didn't spend too much time trying however. I should probably try again although Linux software RAID seems very fast and it may not be worth the trouble/risk.
"CSU, which has just won the European elections, said they won't support Linux since its Feierabendprogrammierer ('leisure-time coders') would destroy Munich's IT-landscape (Microsoft Germany and other big companies are located in and around Munich) and they also fear that the personnel would have problems with learning how to use OpenOffice and other migrated systems."
Sounds a little too much like "direct from Redmond" FUD doesn't it? Let's hope these Microsoft shills don't have the power to sabotage the whole thing. We can expect Microsoft to try to buy politicians in Germany just like they have in the US. At any rate I would suggest that the government of Munich be prepared for Microsoft's interference.
Yeah RAID 6 isn't too common yet and how often are two drives going to fail at the same time? I believe (but don't quote me) that the minimum configuration requires at least four drives whereas one can get by with only three at RAID 5.
I have a home server with three drives and just run RAID 0. I may regret that if a drive ever fails because I'll be unable to recover anything on any of the drives. If I get a couple more drive I'll probably switch to RAID 5.
The thing is though, if one runs RAID 5 one takes a small performance hit on the write due to the number crunching that goes on. But the reads are still a little faster than non-RAID.
"The only semi-common RAID I know of that could handle two drives failing at the same time would be RAID 10"
They actually have a RAID 6 which is just like RAID 5 except that it allows two drives to fail before you're toast.
The think is with RAID 5 verses mirroring is that in order to mirror you lose exactly half of your disk space to the redundancy. With RAID 5 you lose 1 disk and with RAID 6 you will lose 2 disks.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually Ditching IE wouldn't fix the problem. Microsoft integrated it into the OS. That means that parts of IE are used by the OS. So even if you stop using it you will still need to patch and repatch and repatch... If you don't you can still be open to other attack vectors against the IE components that Microsoft foolishly integrated.
A lot of people feel that Microsoft chose to do that in order to prevent the Justice Department from forcing them to remove it before Netscape was rendered completely irrelevant.
Personally, I can't help but be amused that Microsoft's anticompetitive practices are coming back to bite them in the ass in this manner.
It doesn't take something new for a lot of users to want to switch. We're seeing that in other countries that are switching.
What it takes is something old. Microsoft's inability to secure their OS because the integrated IE. Microsoft's heavy handed Licensing agreements and fees.. etc.. Nothing new at all but reasons to switch.
I run a Mandrake Linux server at home. I have a shared printer attached. When I install Linux on my computer, my wife's computer and my kid's computer it automatically searched the network and found the printer and installed it.
So yes, a new user can do that. And that's a shared printer. Setting up a dedicated printer on a computer is just as easy. Linux sees it. Linux configures for it. Done!
"we've been through these discussions over and over again. linux is NOT a suitable desktop operating system for the majority of users. most users do NOT want to spend a whole lot of time reading documentation on how to setup/configure their system, and most find it fustrating."
Yes we have been over this kind of FUD over and over. Linux USE TO BE a geek only OS. Have you tried Mandrake Linux? I find it much easier to install than Windows. And as computer vendors more and more include preinstalled Linux instead of preinstalled Windows...
"They'll want actual reasons to switch."
Did you even read the Slashdot story to which this thread is related? The reason to switch is that IE is integrated into Microsoft's OS and Microsoft is incapable of securing their OS because of it! Even if you run a diffrent browser on a Microsoft OS, IE is integrated so that parts of it that may be subject to attack are being used by other parts of the OS. This forces you to apply patch after patch after patch to keep half a step ahead of the bad guys.
Seems like an "actual reason" to me!
The dilemma that Microsoft is in is a natural consequence of relating success to dollar amounts rather than the feeling one gets when one puts out a quality product.
Corporations are really a kind of abomination. They embody only one ideal; greed. They are financial black holes sucking up all available wealth. It's there only purpose of existence. The problem is that once the entire market is consumed what then? Either enter into new markets or start squeezing their own workers of course! Cut benefits, wages and any other expenses.
People, we need to wake up and consider where the world is going. After considering what a corporate world will be like do we really want to allow that? The natural conclusion of a world where corporations own everything is simple. Two classes. The few very rich and the modern day peasants.
I don't think he owns the rights to do that...
He shot the film but Disney owns the rights unless he bought them. And you know the right wing is going to vigorously oppose this film being widely distributed until after November. So look for major busts of people passing it around.
Being that Micro$oft insisted on integrating IE into there OS; a move that many feel is motivated by an ongoing anti-competitive strategy, consumers cannot protect themselves by simply not using IE.
...
Many subsystems of IE are used by many other parts of Micro$oft's OS. That's what is meant by "integrated." This could allow other vector's of attack if IE is not patched and patched and patched
You made your fricking bed Micro$oft... Now your users will have to sleep in it.
"Zordak writes "Fox News is reporting that the MPAA has chosen a new chief to replace Jack Valenti. Dan Glickman is an avid Linux user, a well-known consumer advocate, vehemently critical of the DMCA and a member of the EFF. Ha ha. Just kidding..."
Yeah, real funny. I just shit my paints!
I like the idea of writing code once and being able to run it on multiple platforms. MONO takes us a half a step closer to that. I do have concerns, however. Primarily the screwy patent laws bother me.
The SCO fiasco, which was funded both directly and indirectly by Microsoft, tells me that litigation is probably going to be Microsoft's weapon of choice in the not too distant future. I have expressed these concerns in previous MONO discussions and always get a lot of replies telling me that Microsoft "won't" do this because of this reason or that reason. What I have never got was a reply telling me why Microsoft CAN'T to this.
So, given the fact that SCO has shown that litigation can and is being used as an anti-competitive tactic and given the fact that Balmer not so long ago said, when referring to open source that Microsoft would "vigorously enforce its IP rights", why should I feel good about the MONO project?
Would some lawyer type please tell me why Microsoft CAN'T prevail in a lawsuit over patent violations when the time is right for them to strike? I'm not trolling. I really want to be able to use MONO and feel good about it. But until I know that I'm not putting Linux at risk I simply can't support MONO.
Help me out here Please!
"Do your homework."
The problem is, is that the game is fixed. There is no way anyone can "do their homework."
If a person was really going to "do their homework" they would be required to read mountains of documents each day to be sure that these political bastards aren't up to something. They pass acts that have nice sound bite names that mislead the public. They enact good programs and then simply don't fund them. They make back room, special interest deals and tack them onto unrelated legislation. The effort required to scrutinize this group of clowns is enormous. Don't believe that for a second that these guys don't know it. They know that no one has the time to work a full time job AND do the research it would take to really know what these fuck wits are really doing.
So what is a person to do? Well we listen to other people who are suppose to do the resarch for us. The problem with that is that one cannot tell who is giving the fruits of good research and who is giving slanted, self serving facts. So if you want to keep the population in the dark, you make the system too complex for anyone to be able to "do their homework" without giving up their day job. Then you hire a bunch of yo-yos to disseminate misinformation so that the good research of honest people just becomes part of the background noise. No one will be able to tell fact from spin.
The fix is in...
"a method of collecting solar energy efficiently from space and beaming it down to earth..."
Why do I get a visual of a kid standing beside an ant hill with a magnifying glass? Ouch...
Microsoft = Evil
Open source = Good
Microsoft open source = My brain really hurting....
I wonder how they will define "Open?" Not GPL probably.
"Q: Will we get a chance to see the new astronaut and hear what he has to say about the flight?"
A: No one will be able to talk to the astronaut after the flight but we believe the inflight conversation will be something like:
Astronaut: SWEET MARY MOTHER OF GOD!!! AAAAAAAAAAAAAHH!!!
Okay, just kidding about the last part.
...that they have a budget to educate their employees and a person who is certified would be one of the first people they hire but if you tell them that you want training to get certified they won't help you.
I think they're afraid that once certified, you'll seek employment elsewhere. Totally screwed up.
We are in complete agreement. Like I said, a hate web site could possibly cause an unstable person to commit a violent act but so could a Rambo movie. The point being that once you start down that slippery slop of censorship where do you stop?
"The SunnComm and BMG execs quoted in the article say that they're pleased with the apparent consumer acceptance of the anti-piracy technology, but they have been hearing questions about how people can get the copy-blocked songs from the CD onto an iPod."
This should tell them that the people buying the CDs probably don't realize what it is that they are buying and are going to be pissed when they find out.
I think your point is that not all expressions of thought are legal. I agree. You can't yell "fire" in a theater or call in a phony bomb threat.
Sometimes rights conflict. The right of free speech and public safety as in the case of yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. However, most of the time when the right to free speech is challenged there is a clear conflict between exercising that right and the public good.
In the case of child porn there is a victim. The child must be protected and therefore you don't have a right to express yourself by taking pictures of under aged children engaged in sex acts.
In the case of hate messages it is less clear that there is a victim. Yes, it is possible that hateful posts could incite an unstable person into doing violence but so could a Rambo movie.
Open office has "on the fly" spell check. I don't know about revision control or task panes but few people (even in business) actually use them.
The problem with Microsoft Word is that it has so many "features" that it's really a liability. Case in point VBA. I can sit down with a copy of Word 97 and write a complete application using VBA. It's way over kill and guess what? People with way too much time on their hands use all of that extra power to write malicious code.
Open office has a macro language also which I'm not too happy about. It's always a bad ideal to mix your data and executables. Way big security risk.
Right now I have 3 120 Gig drives in my home server. It started out to be just a backup server for my family so I set it up as RAID 0. I felt it would be a little over kill to backup the backup server. But now it's also hosting a friends web site. He's got the number one google hit for Ella Wheeler Wilcox so I'm thinking that I may have to rethink my desaster recovery stratagy.
Oh bother...
My MOBO has hardware raid but I couldn't get it to work with Linux. I didn't spend too much time trying however. I should probably try again although Linux software RAID seems very fast and it may not be worth the trouble/risk.
"CSU, which has just won the European elections, said they won't support Linux since its Feierabendprogrammierer ('leisure-time coders') would destroy Munich's IT-landscape (Microsoft Germany and other big companies are located in and around Munich) and they also fear that the personnel would have problems with learning how to use OpenOffice and other migrated systems."
Sounds a little too much like "direct from Redmond" FUD doesn't it? Let's hope these Microsoft shills don't have the power to sabotage the whole thing. We can expect Microsoft to try to buy politicians in Germany just like they have in the US. At any rate I would suggest that the government of Munich be prepared for Microsoft's interference.
Yeah RAID 6 isn't too common yet and how often are two drives going to fail at the same time? I believe (but don't quote me) that the minimum configuration requires at least four drives whereas one can get by with only three at RAID 5.
I have a home server with three drives and just run RAID 0. I may regret that if a drive ever fails because I'll be unable to recover anything on any of the drives. If I get a couple more drive I'll probably switch to RAID 5.
The thing is though, if one runs RAID 5 one takes a small performance hit on the write due to the number crunching that goes on. But the reads are still a little faster than non-RAID.
"The only semi-common RAID I know of that could handle two drives failing at the same time would be RAID 10"
They actually have a RAID 6 which is just like RAID 5 except that it allows two drives to fail before you're toast.
The think is with RAID 5 verses mirroring is that in order to mirror you lose exactly half of your disk space to the redundancy. With RAID 5 you lose 1 disk and with RAID 6 you will lose 2 disks.
1. FUD on a stick
2. Bogus law suits in a box. (Discounts given to existing customers.)
Just curious, what happens after 15 days?