MP3 does have that little propritary problem doesn't it.
I find that ogg files suit me just fine thank you. I have ripped all of my CDs to ogg format and put them on my server so that I can listen to them from any room in my house with a computer. And since I'm a geek that means most of them!
I'm afraid that you are incorrect. If you modify the source code from a GPL'd project you must release it under the SAME GPL license. It specifically states that you CAN NOT sublicense it or change the conditions of the original license in any way.
Slashdot readers are making something out of this that they shouldn't. I don't think that Mr Aucsmith is suggesting that we ought not patch our boxes or that Microsoft should return to a policy of security through obscurity.
What I read is a simple statement of fact. That virus and worm writers reverse engineer the patches to make it easier to write code that exploits the vulnerabilities that the patches fix. He goes on to urge companies to keep up with patches because the time they had to react before hackers released exploits was shrinking.
He also makes a few bogus comments like it's a myth that hackers find the holes etc. I would dare to say that hackers find almost all of the holes but not all hackers wear black hats.
You are 100% correct. We can not track attacks that are so successful as not to leave a trace. However, I think the point of the parent was that it is possible that many more Windows boxes that get hacked don't leave a trace so this type of survey doesn't mean much. It will however be used by the Microsoft FUD machine to suggest that Widows is a more secure platform than Linux.
I do know that, in my shop at least, the administrators have a hard time knowing just what is going on with our Windows servers due to poor logging. It wouldn't surprise me if the vast number of hacked Windows servers do go undetected.
Also the survey didn't include automated attacks which seem to be very popular on the Windows platform and almost non-existent in the Linux world.
All that being stated, I do believe that the Linux community must continue to strive to get better and better. It really scares me when distros make bad judgement calls like opening up ports that aren't needed and installing server software by default.
Although Lindows or Lindash isn't primarily a server product they have made a very poor judgement call in that they decided to make the default user be root. This kind of stupidity could make Linux the next desktop security joke.
Most training that I go to is paid for my my employer. A two or three day course costs $2,000.00 and more. This is simply out of reach for most people.
Then if you consider that technology changes so quickly that this investment is depreciates significantly in just a few years it becomes obvious why providing this kind of training is a risky business. Too few students.
I don't know what the cost is to provide the training but it isn't cheap. They provide the building, computers, and software and all of the Mountain Dew you can drink.
This is another area where Linux may be cheaper if they don't have to spend an arm and leg for licenses. Although the Linux courses seem to be every bit as pricey right now.
I think that rather than charge for email sent ISPs should simply limit the number of emails that each person can send in any given day. People who want to run mailing lists would need to make special arrangements.
But the real problem is that any computer can be made to be a mail server and many worms contain code to allow just that.
Getting us ready for a email stamp fee. I do hate SPAM but more than that I hate the thought of email just becomeing another cash cow for large ISPs.
Charging the sender for each email is not the answer. There are just too many ways that the spammer will be able to not pay while joe mailing list will have to stop providing a real service.
Who will pay when a worm places a mailer on your PC and then a spammer uses it to mail out thousands of emails?
Most people I know resist change. In my shop we upgraded from Word 6.0 to Word 95 (years ago) and so we rewrote all of the Word Macros from the old scripting language to the new VBA.
We tried to keep the look and feel exactly the same. But we had complaints from users about things as trivial as button sizes. The application didn't look the same. And of course anything that goes wrong after a change is blamed on the change even if it is totally unrelated. It's just human nature I guess.
Anyhow, we spent a lot of wasted time during the convention dealing with bogus user complaints. It just goes with the territory. You have to do it to keep the users happy and you should do it with a smile on your face.
This change was no where nearly as drastic as switching from Windows to Linux. I can just imagine what the poor IT people are going through. All I can say is: Hang in there. Do what you need to do to keep the users as happy as possible. Things will get better and once use to Linux they won't want to go back to Windows anymore.
"Of course, all of this is IMHO. In case you're wondering, I do NOT design databases for a living."
Well, I do design databases for a living and I can see your point. I don't completely agree with it however.
A person designing a relational database can get over their heads quite quickly. Normalizing tables correctly will make or break a database.
What I have found however is that people who have very basic needs (One table) can use Access to meet their needs. When their needs grow to a point where they can't handle it (More than one or two tables) they call me in.
Also Access comes with wizards that will create common databases. Asset tracking etc. And though the final product may not be tailored to them, it will usually be more than adequate.
I have Staroffice at home and it came with a database. I haven't had any time to play with that part of it so I don't really know how it compares with Access but Linux could defiantly use tools that will allow average users track rudimentary data without calling in a C++ guru.
I think the parent post may have been talking about the distilling process. I don't no if one can extract the Ethanol from the mixture using only solar power.
"The switch to Windows allowed people to do things they would not have been able to do, and wanted to. Games, internet applications, better word processing, etc. were all Windows benefits. Linux is an alternative to Windows, not a necessary upgrade. For the average person, the only benefit to switching to Linux is saving a few dollars and a bit more security. That's simply not enough to make them enter an unfamiliar environment."
ROFLMAO!
Sorry kid but I was there. When Windows first came out it ran on top of DOS and it was horrible!
All the types of programs you mention were available under DOS.
What windows did do is allow the illustion of multitasking. However at a terrible cost. Programming applications became nearly impossible and the system would hang... a lot...
So I guess we should all still be running DOS.
There are many advantages to switching to Linux that far exceed the downside. You want to talk about the cost of learning new applications?
Most people use word processors, spreadsheets, mail clients, etc. These are all available for Linux and there is no great learning curve. Point and click people, point and click.
Now lets talk about the cost of keeping a windows system secure from viruses, worms and the cost of constant patches due to other windows flaws. It's a LOT more than Linux.
So to sum it up. Linux doesn't have a huge learning curve for the average user and it is easier to keep secure.
Get a copy of Mandrake and install it. It is no harder than installing Windows.
"Learn an entirely new operating system." You really don't know what you're talking about. It's all point and click people! For the average user there is nothing to learn!
Spammers are going to remain anoymous and will not get billed. It's the average joe that will line Microsoft's pockets.
Tell me this: If a hacker is able to hack into a mail server running Microsoft exchange and email out millions of emails because of Microsoft's buggy insecure software, will Microsoft pick up the postage or will the poor fool who trusted Microsoft's products?
You are correct. It is an anti-competetive practice and yes, it is not legal.
The idea of letting the market place take care of itself is good until one company becomes a monopoly. At that point the monopoly can force the market to stop behaving in a normal manner.
Microsoft telling an OEM that they must sell only Microsoft OSes or not get a discount in a market where profit margins are so small is the same as telling that OEM that either they go exclusivly Microsoft or they go out of business.
Right... Don't put windows (the OS that 99% of your customers want) on the PCs that you sell.
Yeah, you could do that. You could also only sell 3 computers ever couple of years. Kind of hard to feed a family on that kind of cash flow don't you think?
Um no, it's not an exaggeration and um.. no its not perfectly okay for a monopoly to flex its muscle in this manner.
Are you saying that if Microsoft (which has it's OS running on 90% + desktops in the world) should be allowed to tell an OEM that if they want to be competitive (read stay in business) then they must sell Microsoft OSes exclusively?? It doesn't take a genus to understand that this is an anti competitive practice.
I guess there are some people who will just never get it. The free market stops working when monopoly businesses abuse there position to stay in a monopoly position or to expand their influence into other areas. That's why there are anti trust laws. You should read them someday.
1. They have a name very close to Microsofts trademark. 2. They make Lindows look a lot like Windows XP. 3. They log the user on as root by default making Lindows very insecure.
"The product may be totally different, but that isn't the point."
Well... Actually that is the point when it comes to trademarks. I could make a product and call that product "Windows" as long as there was little or no possibility of confusion with the Microsoft Windows product.
However, both Lindows and Windows are both operating systems so I think it could be argued that Lindows was enough like Windows that the name "Lindows" is infringing on the "Microsoft Windows" trademark
There are two ways in which the words "free software" are used.
1. Free of Cost. 2. Free in the sense that the code will always be open.
The two are not the same.
The original idea behind GNU software was that developers could share code and build upon each other's works. In this way everyone was contributing. However, non-programmers cannot contribute in this way.
It is rude to be a complete parasite and use but not support open source projects, however. If one really wants to support open source then one really should throw a few bucks in the direction of some of the developers that provide quality software. Something that I fear is NOT too common in this "I won't pay unless you force me" society.
Writing closed source apps for GNOME is NOT abusing. It's giving businesses an incentive to develop software for Linux and giving Linux users a choice of programs they can run. They can either pay for a proprietary application or look for an open source solution.
Slashdot Mirror
This is a case where the free market will decide.
If enough people are willing to pay for that kind of service then more power to them but I for one will not.
MP3 does have that little propritary problem doesn't it.
I find that ogg files suit me just fine thank you. I have ripped all of my CDs to ogg format and put them on my server so that I can listen to them from any room in my house with a computer. And since I'm a geek that means most of them!
I'm afraid that you are incorrect. If you modify the source code from a GPL'd project you must release it under the SAME GPL license. It specifically states that you CAN NOT sublicense it or change the conditions of the original license in any way.
Slashdot readers are making something out of this that they shouldn't. I don't think that Mr Aucsmith is suggesting that we ought not patch our boxes or that Microsoft should return to a policy of security through obscurity.
What I read is a simple statement of fact. That virus and worm writers reverse engineer the patches to make it easier to write code that exploits the vulnerabilities that the patches fix. He goes on to urge companies to keep up with patches because the time they had to react before hackers released exploits was shrinking.
He also makes a few bogus comments like it's a myth that hackers find the holes etc. I would dare to say that hackers find almost all of the holes but not all hackers wear black hats.
I would be willing to make a trade of equal value. They can send me a license and I'll send them my next bowel movement.
You are 100% correct. We can not track attacks that are so successful as not to leave a trace. However, I think the point of the parent was that it is possible that many more Windows boxes that get hacked don't leave a trace so this type of survey doesn't mean much. It will however be used by the Microsoft FUD machine to suggest that Widows is a more secure platform than Linux.
I do know that, in my shop at least, the administrators have a hard time knowing just what is going on with our Windows servers due to poor logging. It wouldn't surprise me if the vast number of hacked Windows servers do go undetected.
Also the survey didn't include automated attacks which seem to be very popular on the Windows platform and almost non-existent in the Linux world.
All that being stated, I do believe that the Linux community must continue to strive to get better and better. It really scares me when distros make bad judgement calls like opening up ports that aren't needed and installing server software by default.
Although Lindows or Lindash isn't primarily a server product they have made a very poor judgement call in that they decided to make the default user be root. This kind of stupidity could make Linux the next desktop security joke.
Most training that I go to is paid for my my employer. A two or three day course costs $2,000.00 and more. This is simply out of reach for most people.
Then if you consider that technology changes so quickly that this investment is depreciates significantly in just a few years it becomes obvious why providing this kind of training is a risky business. Too few students.
I don't know what the cost is to provide the training but it isn't cheap. They provide the building, computers, and software and all of the Mountain Dew you can drink.
This is another area where Linux may be cheaper if they don't have to spend an arm and leg for licenses. Although the Linux courses seem to be every bit as pricey right now.
I think that rather than charge for email sent ISPs should simply limit the number of emails that each person can send in any given day. People who want to run mailing lists would need to make special arrangements.
But the real problem is that any computer can be made to be a mail server and many worms contain code to allow just that.
Getting us ready for a email stamp fee. I do hate SPAM but more than that I hate the thought of email just becomeing another cash cow for large ISPs.
Charging the sender for each email is not the answer. There are just too many ways that the spammer will be able to not pay while joe mailing list will have to stop providing a real service.
Who will pay when a worm places a mailer on your PC and then a spammer uses it to mail out thousands of emails?
Most people I know resist change. In my shop we upgraded from Word 6.0 to Word 95 (years ago) and so we rewrote all of the Word Macros from the old scripting language to the new VBA.
We tried to keep the look and feel exactly the same. But we had complaints from users about things as trivial as button sizes. The application didn't look the same. And of course anything that goes wrong after a change is blamed on the change even if it is totally unrelated. It's just human nature I guess.
Anyhow, we spent a lot of wasted time during the convention dealing with bogus user complaints. It just goes with the territory. You have to do it to keep the users happy and you should do it with a smile on your face.
This change was no where nearly as drastic as switching from Windows to Linux. I can just imagine what the poor IT people are going through. All I can say is: Hang in there. Do what you need to do to keep the users as happy as possible. Things will get better and once use to Linux they won't want to go back to Windows anymore.
"Of course, all of this is IMHO. In case you're wondering, I do NOT design databases for a living."
Well, I do design databases for a living and I can see your point. I don't completely agree with it however.
A person designing a relational database can get over their heads quite quickly. Normalizing tables correctly will make or break a database.
What I have found however is that people who have very basic needs (One table) can use Access to meet their needs. When their needs grow to a point where they can't handle it (More than one or two tables) they call me in.
Also Access comes with wizards that will create common databases. Asset tracking etc. And though the final product may not be tailored to them, it will usually be more than adequate.
I have Staroffice at home and it came with a database. I haven't had any time to play with that part of it so I don't really know how it compares with Access but Linux could defiantly use tools that will allow average users track rudimentary data without calling in a C++ guru.
I think the parent post may have been talking about the distilling process. I don't no if one can extract the Ethanol from the mixture using only solar power.
" Perhaps this will convince those spammers, that not everybody is stupid enough to buy their snake-oil."
;-)
But the only people who can sue are the people who ARE stupid enough to buy their snake-oil...
"The switch to Windows allowed people to do things they would not have been able to do, and wanted to. Games, internet applications, better word processing, etc. were all Windows benefits. Linux is an alternative to Windows, not a necessary upgrade. For the average person, the only benefit to switching to Linux is saving a few dollars and a bit more security. That's simply not enough to make them enter an unfamiliar environment."
ROFLMAO!
Sorry kid but I was there. When Windows first came out it ran on top of DOS and it was horrible!
All the types of programs you mention were available under DOS.
What windows did do is allow the illustion of multitasking. However at a terrible cost. Programming applications became nearly impossible and the system would hang... a lot...
So I guess we should all still be running DOS.
There are many advantages to switching to Linux that far exceed the downside. You want to talk about the cost of learning new applications?
Most people use word processors, spreadsheets, mail clients, etc. These are all available for Linux and there is no great learning curve. Point and click people, point and click.
Now lets talk about the cost of keeping a windows system secure from viruses, worms and the cost of constant patches due to other windows flaws. It's a LOT more than Linux.
So to sum it up. Linux doesn't have a huge learning curve for the average user and it is easier to keep secure.
Get a copy of Mandrake and install it. It is no harder than installing Windows.
"Learn an entirely new operating system." You really don't know what you're talking about. It's all point and click people! For the average user there is nothing to learn!
God. You Window's zealots just don't get it.
Have you ever run Linux? Have you?
Try it. Boot up a Linux box into KDE or GNOME. Looks a lot like windows huh?
Do you feel lost? If you do, let me help. Everything is point and click... Just like in Windows...
Now that wasn't hard was it. Why I'll bet even a "typical" user could do it with no problems.
You should really know what you are talking about or risk posting such a uninformed comment.
this is an attempt to create a cash cow.
Spammers are going to remain anoymous and will not get billed. It's the average joe that will line Microsoft's pockets.
Tell me this: If a hacker is able to hack into a mail server running Microsoft exchange and email out millions of emails because of Microsoft's buggy insecure software, will Microsoft pick up the postage or will the poor fool who trusted Microsoft's products?
You are correct. It is an anti-competetive practice and yes, it is not legal.
The idea of letting the market place take care of itself is good until one company becomes a monopoly. At that point the monopoly can force the market to stop behaving in a normal manner.
Microsoft telling an OEM that they must sell only Microsoft OSes or not get a discount in a market where profit margins are so small is the same as telling that OEM that either they go exclusivly Microsoft or they go out of business.
Right... Don't put windows (the OS that 99% of your customers want) on the PCs that you sell.
Yeah, you could do that. You could also only sell 3 computers ever couple of years. Kind of hard to feed a family on that kind of cash flow don't you think?
Um no, it's not an exaggeration and um.. no its not perfectly okay for a monopoly to flex its muscle in this manner.
Are you saying that if Microsoft (which has it's OS running on 90% + desktops in the world) should be allowed to tell an OEM that if they want to be competitive (read stay in business) then they must sell Microsoft OSes exclusively?? It doesn't take a genus to understand that this is an anti competitive practice.
I guess there are some people who will just never get it. The free market stops working when monopoly businesses abuse there position to stay in a monopoly position or to expand their influence into other areas. That's why there are anti trust laws. You should read them someday.
Oh but they are trying to mimic MS Windows.
1. They have a name very close to Microsofts trademark.
2. They make Lindows look a lot like Windows XP.
3. They log the user on as root by default making Lindows very insecure.
"The "Windows" serious isn't being worked on anymore, yes its being supported, but all new innovations will be in Longhorn."
And then...
By the people who brought you the award winning Lindows.... Longthorn! Their news OS offering.
"The product may be totally different, but that isn't the point."
Well... Actually that is the point when it comes to trademarks. I could make a product and call that product "Windows" as long as there was little or no possibility of confusion with the Microsoft Windows product.
However, both Lindows and Windows are both operating systems so I think it could be argued that Lindows was enough like Windows that the name "Lindows" is infringing on the "Microsoft Windows" trademark
There are two ways in which the words "free software" are used.
1. Free of Cost.
2. Free in the sense that the code will always be open.
The two are not the same.
The original idea behind GNU software was that developers could share code and build upon each other's works. In this way everyone was contributing. However, non-programmers cannot contribute in this way.
It is rude to be a complete parasite and use but not support open source projects, however. If one really wants to support open source then one really should throw a few bucks in the direction of some of the developers that provide quality software. Something that I fear is NOT too common in this "I won't pay unless you force me" society.
Writing closed source apps for GNOME is NOT abusing. It's giving businesses an incentive to develop software for Linux and giving Linux users a choice of programs they can run. They can either pay for a proprietary application or look for an open source solution.