"And finally, SCO is still hoping for a settlement with IBM."
In the news today, there has been a settlement between SCO and IBM. Apparently SCO has agreed to hand over McBrides nut sack in return for IBM dropping its couter suit...
"We have absolute direct knowledge of this. If you go behind the scenes, the attacks that we get that don't have IBM's name on them, underneath the covers, are sponsored by IBM," McBride said.
Was anyone really surprised? Sure Microsoft cried foul when it looked like AOL had complete dominance but now that Microsoft has a foot hold they want to change the rules.
"Whereas previously, Microsoft has let third party clients connect, they now require a license for doing so."
Do you really think that they care about the small revenue that they might bring in from such licenses? Of course not! But they know that such license will lock out any products made that support operating systems that compete with Windows. In particular it locks out open source products that support Linux; their greatest fear. It's just a small measure to help protect their OS monopoly. A lot of small measures could add up to big frustrations to Linux users.
They're just pulling out all the stops knowing full well that the current legal system under our current administration is too spineless to bitch slap them like they deserve.
The longer the SCO fiasco goes on the more SCO looks like a group of bumbling buffoons.
One has to wonder if SCO has a hidden agenda. Perhaps wanting to benefit not so much from the lawsuit as from their own brand of FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Deception in this case.) They must know that their course of action is going to lead to the ultimate destruction of SCO. Not that they were any great company to begin with.
Perhaps it's a brilliant plan to boost stock prices long enough for the top insiders to sell their stocks just before SCO crashes headlong into legal reality?
Nah, they ARE just bumbling buffoons who didn't think things through.
You raise some good points. Things do need to be mostly shutoff by default but we should provide an easy way to turn them on in a secure way. It's better that than have a user run a process that is insecurly configured.
I don't agree that security begins with the user. I agree that no matter how secure a system is a moron can make it insecure PDQ. But let's not depend on the user. Most users will never be gurus and shouldn't have to be.
I guess what I'm saying is: have most things turned off by default and have easy utilities to guide the less-than-a-guru user when that user wants to enable some part of the system that he knows nothing about. Let's do it for him and make sure that it's done right.
I know a lot of purists will jump on me and say that we shouldn't make Windows-like wizards but just because we make wizards for the user doesn't mean that the gurus can't get under the hood and do things by hand if they really want to.
the Linux community needs to concentrate on not becoming the next big security joke. Okay, it's fun to laugh at Microsoft's pathetic record.... Just a second... Muhahahahahah. I feel better now. But as Linux becomes more and more popular blackhats will put more and more attention into breaking our OS.
We need to all make good design and operational decisions. Bad decisions like the one made by Lindows to run as root be default can lead to Linux having as bad a reputation as Microsoft.
The Linux community is positioned to demonstrate to the world that Linux, not Windows, should be used anywhere that security is an issue. Let's not blow it.
"Apparently, they try to argue that the copyright law, in giving consumers the right to make one backup of their software without any permission from the copyright holder, outlaws any contractual agreement that allows users to make more than one copy."
In no way does copyright law prevent the copyright owner from granting additional pemissions. The judge is going to have a good belly laugh over this one. Let's just hope that he can wait to get back to his chambers before rolling on the floor.
"So here is an example of murky money: You want to help the EFF? Write a big check. It will allow them to do better research, hire more people to lobby, fly to more conferences, print more flyers, etc. Hmmmm, sounds a lot like "providing funds to political campaigns in exchange for laws/policies/etc that benefit the organization", doesn't it?"
Except for lumping in lobbing it doesn't sound at all like "providing funds to political campaigns _IN EXCHANGE FOR_ laws/policies/etc that benefit the organization. (Special intrest group)
The sad fact is that money does talk so the poor masses are not represented above the rich few.
SCO probably knows that when the real litigation starts they don't stand a chance and IBM will drain them dry.
The top leaders with lots of stock in SCO may want to spread FUD to bolster it's pathetic performance in the stock market long enough to dump their stock. Think about it. Litigation against IBM over such a weak case can't due any good in the long run.
I'm very much pro-Linux. I switched from Microsoft to Linux years ago. It was kind of hard because so many "fun" programs could only be had in Windows. So I ran a dual boot for quite some time.
I finally removed Windows altogether. After a few months of running only Linux it struck me. My system had NEVER crashed after doing so. Programs would sometimes hang but the system stayed up, not requiring a reboot. It was like an epiphany. I just started laughing!
I was also relieved that I no longer had to worry so much about viruses. Or do I?
My question is: If Linux becomes the dominate desktop and virus writers switch their main focus onto my OS of choice, would we be in as bad a shape as Microsoft's XP, 2000, etc?
Well, tybalt44's reply is a little confusing. He says that parents generally can't be held liable but then admits that in all but a few states they can.
In Washington state this is the case. There are caps on liability so the RIAA is going to have a tough time extracting tens of thousands of dollars like they would want but even four-thousand dollars would hurt most people.
There is more going on here than contract law. If you have children, you are responsible for any damages that they cause until they reach the age where they are considered an adult under the law.
If your child shares music the RIAA can clam damages. They may not be able to sue the minor but they can sue the parent for those damages.
"The Not-Quite-Human Rights Movement", I thought it was going to be an article about US politicians but it turned out to be about a group of people who have been watching WAY too many episodes of Voyager.
"and will keep the RIAA away from your Kazaa files."
I'm not understanding this statement. If you are running a program that shares files then the RIAA will not magically be locked out. If they're talking about someone hacking your computer then I guess it depends on how they do it.
Once you boot using the key your computer is going to have to store and use that key in order to decrypt data on your drive. This has got to be done in the background by the MOBO. What a pain in the ass it would be to have to explicitly and in person tell the computer to decrypt every file you access!
That being the case, if someone forces one of your programs to crash but leave open a shell wouldn't the MOBO go on happily decrypting data for any process running in that shell?
If encryption/decryption is happening at the hardware level it would seem to me that the only real protection you would be getting is if someone steals your computer but doesn't take the device that you use to feed the MOBO the key. How many of us would just leave that device plugged in to the computer anyway?
For those telemarketers who are upset let me put this spin on the whole thing.
You are not going to lose 50% of your business. You are going to lose 50% of the numbers you can call. The 50% that don't want to be called and wouldn't buy anything if you did.
The remaining 50% will probably be more productive.
"Your computer belongs to you. What happens with that computer is your responsibility. It should be apparent, but for some reason it isn't to most people."
Not just your computer but your connection to the internet. Go with unsecured wireless and you could get popped if someone taps into your connection.
...that the RIAA claimed that they wanted the names of P2P users so that they could send them letters _warning_ that sharing copyrighted music was illegal?
How quickly things changed after they got the names that they wanted.
and they won't tell the Linux community exactly what code they feel is infringing so the Linux community can't just replace the code and move on. Oh no....
Slashdot Mirror
"And finally, SCO is still hoping for a settlement with IBM."
In the news today, there has been a settlement between SCO and IBM. Apparently SCO has agreed to hand over McBrides nut sack in return for IBM dropping its couter suit...
"We have absolute direct knowledge of this. If you go behind the scenes, the attacks that we get that don't have IBM's name on them, underneath the covers, are sponsored by IBM," McBride said.
What a pin-head.
(Okay IBM. Same bank account.)
I'd agree with you if they wanted to stick it up their ass.
...
Ooooo gonna lose lots of karma on that one
lol
Was anyone really surprised? Sure Microsoft cried foul when it looked like AOL had complete dominance but now that Microsoft has a foot hold they want to change the rules.
"Whereas previously, Microsoft has let third party clients connect, they now require a license for doing so."
Do you really think that they care about the small revenue that they might bring in from such licenses? Of course not! But they know that such license will lock out any products made that support operating systems that compete with Windows. In particular it locks out open source products that support Linux; their greatest fear. It's just a small measure to help protect their OS monopoly. A lot of small measures could add up to big frustrations to Linux users.
They're just pulling out all the stops knowing full well that the current legal system under our current administration is too spineless to bitch slap them like they deserve.
The longer the SCO fiasco goes on the more SCO looks like a group of bumbling buffoons.
One has to wonder if SCO has a hidden agenda. Perhaps wanting to benefit not so much from the lawsuit as from their own brand of FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Deception in this case.) They must know that their course of action is going to lead to the ultimate destruction of SCO. Not that they were any great company to begin with.
Perhaps it's a brilliant plan to boost stock prices long enough for the top insiders to sell their stocks just before SCO crashes headlong into legal reality?
Nah, they ARE just bumbling buffoons who didn't think things through.
And players are tested for chess playing brain implants....
You raise some good points. Things do need to be mostly shutoff by default but we should provide an easy way to turn them on in a secure way. It's better that than have a user run a process that is insecurly configured.
I don't agree that security begins with the user. I agree that no matter how secure a system is a moron can make it insecure PDQ. But let's not depend on the user. Most users will never be gurus and shouldn't have to be.
I guess what I'm saying is: have most things turned off by default and have easy utilities to guide the less-than-a-guru user when that user wants to enable some part of the system that he knows nothing about. Let's do it for him and make sure that it's done right.
I know a lot of purists will jump on me and say that we shouldn't make Windows-like wizards but just because we make wizards for the user doesn't mean that the gurus can't get under the hood and do things by hand if they really want to.
the Linux community needs to concentrate on not becoming the next big security joke. Okay, it's fun to laugh at Microsoft's pathetic record.... Just a second... Muhahahahahah. I feel better now. But as Linux becomes more and more popular blackhats will put more and more attention into breaking our OS.
We need to all make good design and operational decisions. Bad decisions like the one made by Lindows to run as root be default can lead to Linux having as bad a reputation as Microsoft.
The Linux community is positioned to demonstrate to the world that Linux, not Windows, should be used anywhere that security is an issue. Let's not blow it.
"Apparently, they try to argue that the copyright law, in giving consumers the right to make one backup of their software without any permission from the copyright holder, outlaws any contractual agreement that allows users to make more than one copy."
In no way does copyright law prevent the copyright owner from granting additional pemissions. The judge is going to have a good belly laugh over this one. Let's just hope that he can wait to get back to his chambers before rolling on the floor.
"...and filtering out the junk would have to be the first steps."
One man's junk is another man's mind control.
"Microsoft to do for Usenet what it did for Email & the Web"
-1 Troll
"So here is an example of murky money: You want to help the EFF? Write a big check. It will allow them to do better research, hire more people to lobby, fly to more conferences, print more flyers, etc. Hmmmm, sounds a lot like "providing funds to political campaigns in exchange for laws/policies/etc that benefit the organization", doesn't it?"
Except for lumping in lobbing it doesn't sound at all like "providing funds to political campaigns _IN EXCHANGE FOR_ laws/policies/etc that benefit the organization. (Special intrest group)
The sad fact is that money does talk so the poor masses are not represented above the rich few.
SCO probably knows that when the real litigation starts they don't stand a chance and IBM will drain them dry.
The top leaders with lots of stock in SCO may want to spread FUD to bolster it's pathetic performance in the stock market long enough to dump their stock. Think about it. Litigation against IBM over such a weak case can't due any good in the long run.
I'm very much pro-Linux. I switched from Microsoft to Linux years ago. It was kind of hard because so many "fun" programs could only be had in Windows. So I ran a dual boot for quite some time.
I finally removed Windows altogether. After a few months of running only Linux it struck me. My system had NEVER crashed after doing so. Programs would sometimes hang but the system stayed up, not requiring a reboot. It was like an epiphany. I just started laughing!
I was also relieved that I no longer had to worry so much about viruses. Or do I?
My question is: If Linux becomes the dominate desktop and virus writers switch their main focus onto my OS of choice, would we be in as bad a shape as Microsoft's XP, 2000, etc?
Well, tybalt44's reply is a little confusing. He says that parents generally can't be held liable but then admits that in all but a few states they can.
In Washington state this is the case. There are caps on liability so the RIAA is going to have a tough time extracting tens of thousands of dollars like they would want but even four-thousand dollars would hurt most people.
The thought of a bunch of geeks in wet T-Shirts kind of turns my stomach...
There is more going on here than contract law. If you have children, you are responsible for any damages that they cause until they reach the age where they are considered an adult under the law.
If your child shares music the RIAA can clam damages. They may not be able to sue the minor but they can sue the parent for those damages.
"The Not-Quite-Human Rights Movement", I thought it was going to be an article about US politicians but it turned out to be about a group of people who have been watching WAY too many episodes of Voyager.
"and will keep the RIAA away from your Kazaa files."
I'm not understanding this statement. If you are running a program that shares files then the RIAA will not magically be locked out. If they're talking about someone hacking your computer then I guess it depends on how they do it.
Once you boot using the key your computer is going to have to store and use that key in order to decrypt data on your drive. This has got to be done in the background by the MOBO. What a pain in the ass it would be to have to explicitly and in person tell the computer to decrypt every file you access!
That being the case, if someone forces one of your programs to crash but leave open a shell wouldn't the MOBO go on happily decrypting data for any process running in that shell?
If encryption/decryption is happening at the hardware level it would seem to me that the only real protection you would be getting is if someone steals your computer but doesn't take the device that you use to feed the MOBO the key. How many of us would just leave that device plugged in to the computer anyway?
I though the copyright laws were quite clear.
"if they just knock out the biggest sharers the network will become useless so that the small people stop using it too."
Are you saying that P2P is only used to steal... I mean infringe on other peoples IP?? I'm shocked!
Nailing people who are sharing copyrighted music is the correct response to the illegal actions of many P2P users.
Use P2P in a legal way and there won't be a problem.
For those telemarketers who are upset let me put this spin on the whole thing.
You are not going to lose 50% of your business. You are going to lose 50% of the numbers you can call. The 50% that don't want to be called and wouldn't buy anything if you did.
The remaining 50% will probably be more productive.
"Your computer belongs to you. What happens with that computer is your responsibility. It should be apparent, but for some reason it isn't to most people."
Not just your computer but your connection to the internet. Go with unsecured wireless and you could get popped if someone taps into your connection.
...that the RIAA claimed that they wanted the names of P2P users so that they could send them letters _warning_ that sharing copyrighted music was illegal?
How quickly things changed after they got the names that they wanted.
and they won't tell the Linux community exactly what code they feel is infringing so the Linux community can't just replace the code and move on. Oh no....