Same could be said for IE really. I hate the thought of making a defense with IE in the same sentence, but a few mouse clicks and you can lock it down pretty tightly. In fact, If you have had any exposure to 2003, it comes from the box that way. Now I hear people complaining that they can't figure out how to get 'out of the box' and onto the web. Go figure.
"if you did that Windows Explorer, the control panel, Software Update, and an increasing number of little Windows-Explorer-integrated applets would misbehave or simply not work."
Perhaps that could be proven to be true with IE in an older context, but not with their latest releases. Download yourself a copy of 2003 enterprise server and try to browse the web with it without making any changes to the default settings. Everything in the OS will work just fine, even the 'IE integrated applets'. You may have a great deal of experience with the UNIX side of the fence, I too have a great deal on the Windows side (watch me get trolled for that one sentence). MS has surely made some grand mistakes and put crap out just to make sure they got their share of shelf space. But they are (finally) learning.
Hopefully you see that I too do my homework (I even have your home phone number now.;) (I like to know who I am talking to.) My only point in saying that is, it is not so much the tools we use that makes us insecure, it's the way we use (or misuse) them. (try to find my home phone number).
Unfortunately, Windows has nearly as much ability to be misused as used properly. To layer that problem even deeper is the fact that most people misuse it due to their own lack of understanding. Take for instance IE's ability to render bad web code. Too many coders out there have 'learned' web coding base on IE's ability to render code that is not formed perfectly well. From one perspective it can be a boon. Allows one to make mistakes and keeps working, like a puncture resistant tire. Also allows morons to run over nails and keep driving despite the fact that their tire is now going to go flat soon. Who is really to blame? I would hesitate to say that a run flat tire is bad, unless I intend on getting mad because i punctured it and ran it until it shredded. You could argue both sides. The wiser man is going to be able to recognize that are merits to both, and make a good decision based on that understanding. The fool refuses to see both sides of the issue and makes bad decisions based on his refusal to listen.
hmmm. Your own blog would suggest otherwise, it would seem anyway. You ardently defend here, but seem to take issue with respect, to the same issue in other areas.
http://www.taronga.com/~peter/io/apple2.html
"I am completely unable to imagine the confusion that must exist in your mind that would lead you to this assumption"
Ouch! and agreed on both accounts. I do not consider myself a 'christian'. I find that the term and widely accepted generalization as what a christian is, as absolutely revolting to me.
"The thing that I find surprising is the people who claim to be Christians and claim to believe in Christ but who don't act in a way consistent with that belief,"
I find your insight there a relief. I wish more people recfognized that and could take a step back from their 'beliefs' and see what kind of nonsense they were projecting.
As far as my salvation. That is between me and my god. Even according to the much heralded biblical scriptures, that is the way it should be.
"My response was that there are good reasons why Macs weren't as cheap as PCs"
Boy, you would think they could make them as cheap at least. They don't have to fabricate as many mouse buttons and the MB and monitor are housed in a single case (in some models). If they can't save money by cutting down on real expenses like that, then perhaps you are right, they will never be cheaper or even competitive in pricing.
"To be open a standard must be usable for free. You may have to pay for a copy of the standard, but royalties are a complete killer"
Once you start paying 'royalties', I consider it to be in the 'not free' category again. Reproduction fees and handling are fine, but royalties suggest someone is getting paid for the body of work that was done and hence no longer free. I have to agree with the parent that MS has an very strong aversion to open source on nearly any level. Anything they have done in the past to 'prove' otherwise' seems to be a token stroke to shake some of the people off their back.
That's rationalization, not faith or belief. I can believe all I want that someone died on a cross. Doesn't necessarily make any difference to me unless you have some notion that that person was not human, an alien or some sort of supreme being.
I choose not to rationalize that way (or better said be irrational in that way).
Everyone seems to have taken offense to me pointing out how much the shuttle program has spent since it's last mission and not pointed out that I multiplied the numbers incorrectly. It is actually 9.6 Billion, not 6.6 Billion. 3.2 per year times 3 years is 9.6 not 6.6. oops. (Blame it on that stupid MS calculator I was using;)
"If there were 90% Macs and 10% Windows users, you'd STILL write that Windows virus."
That is completely indefensible, unless you presume that all virus wrriters hate Microsoft and do not have any other goal than to hurt Microsoft users. You would then have to point the finger at non-microsoft users (i.e. Linux and Apple users) as the culprits. So I am not sure we want to go there if you are trying to defend those groups. I do not believe that is the reason however. The simplest explaination that probably most always applies in this case is that the virus writers simply want to infect as many machines as possible, therefore they write their code for a windows platform (target equals 90+ percent of installed systems then). It's simple and defensible. Anything else becomes ridiculous and convoluted.
The 3.2 billion number is the actual NASA budget number for the space shuttle program alone for one year. These actual numbers and budgetary constraints can be found at NASA's own site or at the US Congress's site.
Presumably you can start getting that number per mission lowered as you start launching more shuttles. The total budget numbers do not change even though the number of launches increase. Therefore each mission would carry less and less of the overhead over time. Right now however, this one mission carries the entire overhead for three years of the shuttle budget, which accounts for a total of 6.6 billion in expenditures. Moon, mars and other mission are paid for under other budget line items. That is not being cynical at all. It is being factual and the facts state this mission has cost 6.6 billion dollars. Perhaps if we can squeeze one more mission in before the end of the year, that number would be cut in half to 3.3 billion dollars. Once we move into next year, we have to add another 3.2 billion to the total and again divide by the total number of missions, but hopefully the nuumber of mission will increase and lower that per mission burden substantially. It would be nice to see it under 1 billion per mission at the least.
"Does this 3.2 billon include launching satilites into space as well?"
Nope. The 3.2 billion is the NASA budget number for the space shuttle program alone. The expenditures associated with satelite launches, even with the shuttle are accounted for under other budgetary categories. The actual numbers and budgetary constraints can be found at NASA's own site or at the US Congress's site.
Presumably you can start getting that number per mission lowered as you start launching more shuttles. The total budget numbers do not change even though the number of launches increase. Therefore each mission would carry less and less of the overhead over time. Right now however, this one mission carries the entire overhead for three years of the shuttle budget, which accounts for a total of 6.6 billion in expenditures. Moon, mars and other mission are paid for under other budget line items.
What is cynical about stating the facts? We have spent 6.6 billion dollars on the Shuttle program since it's last flight (3.2 Billion per year at 3 years since the last successful flight). Until another shuttle is launched, you have to attribute that entire cost to the single flight. It's simple math. If you take offense to it, yell at NASA or the person who invented math, not me. I just stated the facts. I brough up what problems they were fixing or at what cost or if they did them successfully or not. I simply stated that this flight has a totla overhead of 6.6 Billion until a time that another shuttle flys to divide that expenditure between more flights. It doesn't look like that is going to happen anytime soon as the program is again grounded.
The space shuttle program has been allocated 3.2 billion per year over the last three years. We have seen 1 successful shuttle mission in that time. With the program currently grounded, again, we will not see another this year (it is pretty safe to say). So by their own published number, this mission cost us taxpayers 6.6 billion. That's a bit higher than the 200 million estimate.
It will probably never fly again anyway. It took 2 + years to rework it the first time and they didn't fix the problem, by their own admission. What makes you think it will take less time to fix it right the second time? By the time another few years have passed, I would hope we have something better to blow the billions of dollars on than this thing.
" Save your company some money; if you have Windows desktops connected to the internet, don't even bother"
That is a pretty unprofessional view. It's awfully odd that 90+ percent of the companies out there in the US already run a Windows environment and they already successfully manage it. The problem is not that you cannot make a windows environment secure, it's that a great deal of people do not take the time to do it or don't understand how to. There is a great division of understanding between a home user, who is most likely vulnerable and a corporate environment, where it is more than likely so locked down that you can't get your coffee without signing on seven times.
The real challenge is to figure out where you can draw the line between utilizing open source software and where it will not suit your needs and you need to use a windows or other pay for use product. A good manager will be able to mix both where necessary and keep a lid on the costs associated with licensing of the pay for use stuff and the cost of management of the open source wares.
To flat out dismiss a possible solution, because you have a misconceived notion of it's abilities or lack thereof is a proven road to failure.
Perhaps you should go back and read the update that slashdot posted on their own article submission. In case you cannot find it, I will post it here again for you. You are far to quick to point a finger and shake a fist. Don't do it unless you are willing to the same treatment applied to yuorself.
"Update: 08/06 04:45 GMT by Z : As Mr. Toulouse states here, the submission here adds one and one and gets three. Monad hasn't been in Vista for about two months. The CNet article is clarifying a previous report stating that Monad could potentially be the first source of viruses in an OS which incorporated it. The interesting news about Monad in the server edition was obscured by the factually incorrect submission, which at first blush seemed to make sense. Mea Culpa"
Are you complaining that you have a choice? Gosh I thought that was the whole point. Seems to me that it is exactly what everyone is after. Moreover, if the forced raping of the customer base isn't eliminated by the relaxing of the DSL rules, we will be facing a monopoly, cable. Cable will survive, because they don't have to play by the same rules, will telcos will suffer, because they are forced to resell their services at a cosst lower than what they can charge users directly. I don't see where the problem is. If we want competition, we have to allow both players to play the game with the same set of rules.
As far as living outside the bounds of service, that is a small percentage of the potential customer base as the vast majority of the populace lives well within the service areas of both DSL and cable. Perhaps that will take care of itself too, if the playing filed is actually leveled. Both parties will have to compete with much more vigor for each potential customer, including those currently out of the service area.
MS finally does what everyone complains that they don't do, not ship softare until they have covered all security aspects, andwhat do we get? Slashdotters making fun and pointing fingers. I am not an MS fan, but I am also not two faced.
They have plenty of competition. The majority of the markets are served by multiple broadband vendors (Cable, Satellite, wireless, fiber) . So, it's not all DSL. If the teleco's can't learn to price their services in-line with other broadband services, then they won't sell subscriptions and be forced out of the market. That's why they should not be forced to resell thier services to smaller companies anymore at a discount. They have to compete with bigger players now and they are being hobbled by all of these DSL kiddie companies hanging onto their ankles.
I can just seem President Bush up on the podium defending this.
"I support IDIOTs," then with his foolish grin spreading across his face, thinking he is making a cool joke, "Heck, I was an IDIOT myself once." (narrator interjection: just once?) After a quick chuckle at his own 'joke' and composing himself once again, "My wife is a school teacher and she too believes in IDIOTs. If fact over dinner last night we discussed this and we both believe that all true blooded Americans had ought to adopt IDIOTs. I look forward to the day when all of our schools in this great nation of ours have IDIOTs as part of our curricalum" (Narrator interjection: yea curricalum because he can't say curriculum right)
Very sadly, I can really picture him saying those words in National TV. Very sad indeed.
I could tyake this so far.. But gosh we only have so much time here and... The FBI is knocking on my door...
You do realize that including Intelligent Design In Our Teachings creates the acronym I.D.I.O.T.(s) or IDIOT. Just though you would like to know, (or is this really about not knowing).;)
Slashdot Mirror
"It is not even difficult to run Safari safely. "
;) (I like to know who I am talking to.) My only point in saying that is, it is not so much the tools we use that makes us insecure, it's the way we use (or misuse) them. (try to find my home phone number).
Same could be said for IE really. I hate the thought of making a defense with IE in the same sentence, but a few mouse clicks and you can lock it down pretty tightly. In fact, If you have had any exposure to 2003, it comes from the box that way. Now I hear people complaining that they can't figure out how to get 'out of the box' and onto the web. Go figure.
"if you did that Windows Explorer, the control panel, Software Update, and an increasing number of little Windows-Explorer-integrated applets would misbehave or simply not work."
Perhaps that could be proven to be true with IE in an older context, but not with their latest releases. Download yourself a copy of 2003 enterprise server and try to browse the web with it without making any changes to the default settings. Everything in the OS will work just fine, even the 'IE integrated applets'. You may have a great deal of experience with the UNIX side of the fence, I too have a great deal on the Windows side (watch me get trolled for that one sentence). MS has surely made some grand mistakes and put crap out just to make sure they got their share of shelf space. But they are (finally) learning.
Hopefully you see that I too do my homework (I even have your home phone number now.
Unfortunately, Windows has nearly as much ability to be misused as used properly. To layer that problem even deeper is the fact that most people misuse it due to their own lack of understanding. Take for instance IE's ability to render bad web code. Too many coders out there have 'learned' web coding base on IE's ability to render code that is not formed perfectly well. From one perspective it can be a boon. Allows one to make mistakes and keeps working, like a puncture resistant tire. Also allows morons to run over nails and keep driving despite the fact that their tire is now going to go flat soon. Who is really to blame? I would hesitate to say that a run flat tire is bad, unless I intend on getting mad because i punctured it and ran it until it shredded. You could argue both sides. The wiser man is going to be able to recognize that are merits to both, and make a good decision based on that understanding. The fool refuses to see both sides of the issue and makes bad decisions based on his refusal to listen.
To quote a somewhat wise old man, ""Ahhh. A man with a sharp wit. Someone ought to take it away from him before he cuts himself."
;)
hmmm. Your own blog would suggest otherwise, it would seem anyway. You ardently defend here, but seem to take issue with respect, to the same issue in other areas.
;)
http://www.taronga.com/~peter/io/apple2.html
"I am completely unable to imagine the confusion that must exist in your mind that would lead you to this assumption"
Hey, hey! My mind may be confused, but at least I am not holding my face wrong! http://peter.hates-software.com/
"it's the 40% profit margin that does it."
Don't you find that evil in it's own regard?
lol, sense of humor. I like that. Most would take offense to the purposefully open ended comment and assume that it was derogatory.
;)
The wave form, of course
Ouch! and agreed on both accounts. I do not consider myself a 'christian'. I find that the term and widely accepted generalization as what a christian is, as absolutely revolting to me.
"The thing that I find surprising is the people who claim to be Christians and claim to believe in Christ but who don't act in a way consistent with that belief,"
I find your insight there a relief. I wish more people recfognized that and could take a step back from their 'beliefs' and see what kind of nonsense they were projecting.
As far as my salvation. That is between me and my god. Even according to the much heralded biblical scriptures, that is the way it should be.
BTW- like your site, http://www.taronga.com/~peter/ , Is that a recent picture of you, wildman?
"My response was that there are good reasons why Macs weren't as cheap as PCs"
Boy, you would think they could make them as cheap at least. They don't have to fabricate as many mouse buttons and the MB and monitor are housed in a single case (in some models). If they can't save money by cutting down on real expenses like that, then perhaps you are right, they will never be cheaper or even competitive in pricing.
"To be open a standard must be usable for free. You may have to pay for a copy of the standard, but royalties are a complete killer"
Once you start paying 'royalties', I consider it to be in the 'not free' category again. Reproduction fees and handling are fine, but royalties suggest someone is getting paid for the body of work that was done and hence no longer free. I have to agree with the parent that MS has an very strong aversion to open source on nearly any level. Anything they have done in the past to 'prove' otherwise' seems to be a token stroke to shake some of the people off their back.
""
Depends on whether yours is already collapsed or not.
hmmm. Reading your posts?...
"It's integrating that and everything it implies"
That's rationalization, not faith or belief. I can believe all I want that someone died on a cross. Doesn't necessarily make any difference to me unless you have some notion that that person was not human, an alien or some sort of supreme being.
I choose not to rationalize that way (or better said be irrational in that way).
Everyone seems to have taken offense to me pointing out how much the shuttle program has spent since it's last mission and not pointed out that I multiplied the numbers incorrectly. It is actually 9.6 Billion, not 6.6 Billion. 3.2 per year times 3 years is 9.6 not 6.6. oops. (Blame it on that stupid MS calculator I was using ;)
"If there were 90% Macs and 10% Windows users, you'd STILL write that Windows virus."
That is completely indefensible, unless you presume that all virus wrriters hate Microsoft and do not have any other goal than to hurt Microsoft users. You would then have to point the finger at non-microsoft users (i.e. Linux and Apple users) as the culprits. So I am not sure we want to go there if you are trying to defend those groups. I do not believe that is the reason however. The simplest explaination that probably most always applies in this case is that the virus writers simply want to infect as many machines as possible, therefore they write their code for a windows platform (target equals 90+ percent of installed systems then). It's simple and defensible. Anything else becomes ridiculous and convoluted.
The 3.2 billion number is the actual NASA budget number for the space shuttle program alone for one year. These actual numbers and budgetary constraints can be found at NASA's own site or at the US Congress's site. Presumably you can start getting that number per mission lowered as you start launching more shuttles. The total budget numbers do not change even though the number of launches increase. Therefore each mission would carry less and less of the overhead over time. Right now however, this one mission carries the entire overhead for three years of the shuttle budget, which accounts for a total of 6.6 billion in expenditures. Moon, mars and other mission are paid for under other budget line items. That is not being cynical at all. It is being factual and the facts state this mission has cost 6.6 billion dollars. Perhaps if we can squeeze one more mission in before the end of the year, that number would be cut in half to 3.3 billion dollars. Once we move into next year, we have to add another 3.2 billion to the total and again divide by the total number of missions, but hopefully the nuumber of mission will increase and lower that per mission burden substantially. It would be nice to see it under 1 billion per mission at the least.
"Does this 3.2 billon include launching satilites into space as well?"
Nope. The 3.2 billion is the NASA budget number for the space shuttle program alone. The expenditures associated with satelite launches, even with the shuttle are accounted for under other budgetary categories. The actual numbers and budgetary constraints can be found at NASA's own site or at the US Congress's site.
Presumably you can start getting that number per mission lowered as you start launching more shuttles. The total budget numbers do not change even though the number of launches increase. Therefore each mission would carry less and less of the overhead over time. Right now however, this one mission carries the entire overhead for three years of the shuttle budget, which accounts for a total of 6.6 billion in expenditures. Moon, mars and other mission are paid for under other budget line items.
What is cynical about stating the facts? We have spent 6.6 billion dollars on the Shuttle program since it's last flight (3.2 Billion per year at 3 years since the last successful flight). Until another shuttle is launched, you have to attribute that entire cost to the single flight. It's simple math. If you take offense to it, yell at NASA or the person who invented math, not me. I just stated the facts. I brough up what problems they were fixing or at what cost or if they did them successfully or not. I simply stated that this flight has a totla overhead of 6.6 Billion until a time that another shuttle flys to divide that expenditure between more flights. It doesn't look like that is going to happen anytime soon as the program is again grounded.
The space shuttle program has been allocated 3.2 billion per year over the last three years. We have seen 1 successful shuttle mission in that time. With the program currently grounded, again, we will not see another this year (it is pretty safe to say). So by their own published number, this mission cost us taxpayers 6.6 billion. That's a bit higher than the 200 million estimate.
It will probably never fly again anyway. It took 2 + years to rework it the first time and they didn't fix the problem, by their own admission. What makes you think it will take less time to fix it right the second time? By the time another few years have passed, I would hope we have something better to blow the billions of dollars on than this thing.
" Save your company some money; if you have Windows desktops connected to the internet, don't even bother"
That is a pretty unprofessional view. It's awfully odd that 90+ percent of the companies out there in the US already run a Windows environment and they already successfully manage it. The problem is not that you cannot make a windows environment secure, it's that a great deal of people do not take the time to do it or don't understand how to. There is a great division of understanding between a home user, who is most likely vulnerable and a corporate environment, where it is more than likely so locked down that you can't get your coffee without signing on seven times.
The real challenge is to figure out where you can draw the line between utilizing open source software and where it will not suit your needs and you need to use a windows or other pay for use product. A good manager will be able to mix both where necessary and keep a lid on the costs associated with licensing of the pay for use stuff and the cost of management of the open source wares.
To flat out dismiss a possible solution, because you have a misconceived notion of it's abilities or lack thereof is a proven road to failure.
" Slashdotters are generally more tech-aware, are more likely to read and understand tech journals"
:0
I think you meant to say "read and misunderstand", as the comment thread clearly denotes.
Perhaps you should go back and read the update that slashdot posted on their own article submission. In case you cannot find it, I will post it here again for you. You are far to quick to point a finger and shake a fist. Don't do it unless you are willing to the same treatment applied to yuorself.
"Update: 08/06 04:45 GMT by Z : As Mr. Toulouse states here, the submission here adds one and one and gets three. Monad hasn't been in Vista for about two months. The CNet article is clarifying a previous report stating that Monad could potentially be the first source of viruses in an OS which incorporated it. The interesting news about Monad in the server edition was obscured by the factually incorrect submission, which at first blush seemed to make sense. Mea Culpa"
Are you complaining that you have a choice? Gosh I thought that was the whole point. Seems to me that it is exactly what everyone is after. Moreover, if the forced raping of the customer base isn't eliminated by the relaxing of the DSL rules, we will be facing a monopoly, cable. Cable will survive, because they don't have to play by the same rules, will telcos will suffer, because they are forced to resell their services at a cosst lower than what they can charge users directly. I don't see where the problem is. If we want competition, we have to allow both players to play the game with the same set of rules.
As far as living outside the bounds of service, that is a small percentage of the potential customer base as the vast majority of the populace lives well within the service areas of both DSL and cable. Perhaps that will take care of itself too, if the playing filed is actually leveled. Both parties will have to compete with much more vigor for each potential customer, including those currently out of the service area.
MS finally does what everyone complains that they don't do, not ship softare until they have covered all security aspects, andwhat do we get? Slashdotters making fun and pointing fingers. I am not an MS fan, but I am also not two faced.
They have plenty of competition. The majority of the markets are served by multiple broadband vendors (Cable, Satellite, wireless, fiber) . So, it's not all DSL. If the teleco's can't learn to price their services in-line with other broadband services, then they won't sell subscriptions and be forced out of the market. That's why they should not be forced to resell thier services to smaller companies anymore at a discount. They have to compete with bigger players now and they are being hobbled by all of these DSL kiddie companies hanging onto their ankles.
I can just seem President Bush up on the podium defending this.
"I support IDIOTs," then with his foolish grin spreading across his face, thinking he is making a cool joke,
"Heck, I was an IDIOT myself once."
(narrator interjection: just once?)
After a quick chuckle at his own 'joke' and composing himself once again,
"My wife is a school teacher and she too believes in IDIOTs. If fact over dinner last night we discussed this and we both believe that all true blooded Americans had ought to adopt IDIOTs. I look forward to the day when all of our schools in this great nation of ours have IDIOTs as part of our curricalum"
(Narrator interjection: yea curricalum because he can't say curriculum right)
Very sadly, I can really picture him saying those words in National TV. Very sad indeed.
I could tyake this so far.. But gosh we only have so much time here and... The FBI is knocking on my door...
You do realize that including Intelligent Design In Our Teachings creates the acronym I.D.I.O.T.(s) or IDIOT. Just though you would like to know, (or is this really about not knowing). ;)