You really can't hold network administrators responsible for unforseen problems in the code. We generally don't know what is a possible entry-point for an attack unless we're told about it.
But, you can't just go and hold the developers responsible either. People would stop developing free software, period. Microsoft would benifit greatly from this, even though they would initially take a big hit for current security flaws.
Some say "If you PAY for the software, they should liable." Horrible idea. I think we all know how much management loves accountability (or rather how they can blame others) and would start ONLY using software that they could sue over; effectively killing OSS/FS in the business markets.
On the other hand, we should start seeing some kind of guarentees, guarentees that can be more specific to the software at hand. We should expect them from a company that sells software at a premium.
As we stand now, there should be no reason to pay for software when you can get software that is just as good or better for free, with the same "no guarentee."
Look, the reason us Admins have to go to extreme lengths to "protect our network" is because some software has such a bad track record for having serious flaws (let's say, MS code..)
Sure, you should take the normal measures when configuring new systems and such. If there is absolutely no consideration for security, sure, you're a bad admin.
However, when security gets in the way of productivity or usefulness we need to look at the root of the problem, not blame the damned Network admins.
JPG is great for pictures and such, but GIF compression offers lossless compression and is much more widely used for general images and icons.
The limitation for GIF of course is it's 256 color palette; however it is adaptive and on most web graphics or icons you won't use even the 256 color limit. However, because of the smaller palette, the images end up much smaller, and because of the lossless compression the images look just as intended.
JPG images can always be spotted; you can see the artifacts in almost any JPG compressed image. However, because the palette can be millions of colors, you get better color representation suitable for full color pictures.
I couldn't imagine a web site that didn't use compressed images these days. This article seems to assume that nobody knows about it or something =)
This article is interesting, if not completely biased due to the origin of.
I don't know either way wether mainframes and Linux mix, at least in this manner, but it's not a bad thing. Nothing that pushes linux further is a bad thing.
I read through so many posts on Slashdot, and I see a lot of people that just don't seem to "get" it.
Linux is great for the computer world in general. It's free, open, and powerful. It's gaining new ground and userbase by the day.
It scares the crap out of the competition. How do you compete with something that is free? That is open source to everyone? And what happens because of this? You have to make your offerings better, cheaper, etc. to keep up. That's good!
Most of you don't need to run it. You can run Windows XP and be happy. That's fine! Run whatever you want to run, it's your machine.
So many people say "Linux is for this." "Linux is for that." Well, it's for whatever you want to do with it. You want to run a small web server on Linux because of the robust and flexible nature of UNIX? Do it! You want to run a powerful 8-way SMP machine to do heavy processing? It's being done now. You can do that too. Want to run Linux as a workstation? You can do that too.
If you want to run software that is not designed for Linux, well, too bad. Just like anything, use the system that suits your needs. If that is a Mac, use a Mac.
I agree that Linux isn't as user-friendly as a Windows or MacOS based machine when it comes to the workstation side of things. It's not there yet. Boy, has it improved on that front though! Someday a first time computer user will have just as many problems, hopefully less, than someone who is trying to install Windows.:)
Anything that pushes Linux further is a good thing. I hope someone does feel that this product from IBM is useful to them, and promote more innovations in the future from IBM.
So why do people use Linux? Because they choose to. It suits their needs, or they like the control over their systems that UNIX provides. Someday, I hope that the average computer user will also use it because the software they want to use runs on linux, and it's easy to use.
Why is it good for the industry? It's free, powerful, and only going to get better. Linux is obviously getting huge. Isn't it wonderful to see products from so many different competitors all sharing a common system? Who knows, it could even lead to true compatibility some day.
Well anyways, think twice before you judge anything. Whether you run it/like it or not, you can't ignore what could be the biggest evolution in the computer industry. And the evolution isn't even Linux itself, it's the idea of free, open, and very good software that works.
Slashdot Mirror
You really can't hold network administrators responsible for unforseen problems in the code. We generally don't know what is a possible entry-point for an attack unless we're told about it. But, you can't just go and hold the developers responsible either. People would stop developing free software, period. Microsoft would benifit greatly from this, even though they would initially take a big hit for current security flaws. Some say "If you PAY for the software, they should liable." Horrible idea. I think we all know how much management loves accountability (or rather how they can blame others) and would start ONLY using software that they could sue over; effectively killing OSS/FS in the business markets. On the other hand, we should start seeing some kind of guarentees, guarentees that can be more specific to the software at hand. We should expect them from a company that sells software at a premium. As we stand now, there should be no reason to pay for software when you can get software that is just as good or better for free, with the same "no guarentee."
Look, the reason us Admins have to go to extreme lengths to "protect our network" is because some software has such a bad track record for having serious flaws (let's say, MS code..) Sure, you should take the normal measures when configuring new systems and such. If there is absolutely no consideration for security, sure, you're a bad admin. However, when security gets in the way of productivity or usefulness we need to look at the root of the problem, not blame the damned Network admins.
JPG is great for pictures and such, but GIF compression offers lossless compression and is much more widely used for general images and icons.
The limitation for GIF of course is it's 256 color palette; however it is adaptive and on most web graphics or icons you won't use even the 256 color limit. However, because of the smaller palette, the images end up much smaller, and because of the lossless compression the images look just as intended.
JPG images can always be spotted; you can see the artifacts in almost any JPG compressed image. However, because the palette can be millions of colors, you get better color representation suitable for full color pictures.
I couldn't imagine a web site that didn't use compressed images these days. This article seems to assume that nobody knows about it or something =)
This article is interesting, if not completely biased due to the origin of.
:)
I don't know either way wether mainframes and Linux mix, at least in this manner, but it's not a bad thing. Nothing that pushes linux further is a bad thing.
I read through so many posts on Slashdot, and I see a lot of people that just don't seem to "get" it.
Linux is great for the computer world in general. It's free, open, and powerful. It's gaining new ground and userbase by the day.
It scares the crap out of the competition. How do you compete with something that is free? That is open source to everyone? And what happens because of this? You have to make your offerings better, cheaper, etc. to keep up. That's good!
Most of you don't need to run it. You can run Windows XP and be happy. That's fine! Run whatever you want to run, it's your machine.
So many people say "Linux is for this." "Linux is for that." Well, it's for whatever you want to do with it. You want to run a small web server on Linux because of the robust and flexible nature of UNIX? Do it! You want to run a powerful 8-way SMP machine to do heavy processing? It's being done now. You can do that too. Want to run Linux as a workstation? You can do that too.
If you want to run software that is not designed for Linux, well, too bad. Just like anything, use the system that suits your needs. If that is a Mac, use a Mac.
I agree that Linux isn't as user-friendly as a Windows or MacOS based machine when it comes to the workstation side of things. It's not there yet. Boy, has it improved on that front though! Someday a first time computer user will have just as many problems, hopefully less, than someone who is trying to install Windows.
Anything that pushes Linux further is a good thing. I hope someone does feel that this product from IBM is useful to them, and promote more innovations in the future from IBM.
So why do people use Linux? Because they choose to. It suits their needs, or they like the control over their systems that UNIX provides. Someday, I hope that the average computer user will also use it because the software they want to use runs on linux, and it's easy to use.
Why is it good for the industry? It's free, powerful, and only going to get better. Linux is obviously getting huge. Isn't it wonderful to see products from so many different competitors all sharing a common system? Who knows, it could even lead to true compatibility some day.
Well anyways, think twice before you judge anything. Whether you run it/like it or not, you can't ignore what could be the biggest evolution in the computer industry. And the evolution isn't even Linux itself, it's the idea of free, open, and very good software that works.