I would say Mandrake is being VERY efficent with their money these days (when is the last time you checked out their financials?), and if selling ads is the same as begging, then I suppose you got me there, but only if we are in Soviet Russia.
You know, sometimes things change and one must adapt one's thoughts to accurately relate to the present state of reality. Or are you still calling IBM the "evil empire" these days?
"The goal of The Fedora Project is to work with the Linux community to build a complete, general purpose operating system exclusively from open source software."
Yet another example of Mandrake innovation influencing and improving the industry.
I fully support Red Hat's push to be more open and community based. However, if you are interested in a more mature implementation of such ideas, please visit mandrakeclub.com.
Funny how Mandrake started out as a knock-off of Red Hat and now Red Hat appears to sometimes follow Mandrake's lead.
"You think pro sports stars have got it bad as they're driving home after the game when they've gone 1 for 10 and missed five three-pointers."
How can this guy even believe he can possibly relate to athletes who devote their lives to a special talent!?What talent does it take to be grossly negligent and then try to make up for it by making fraudalent claims? That is not talent but a mental illness.
What makes him any different from the guy who claims that he is "famous" for going on a road rampage and ramming innocent drivers in a police chase? We are witnessing someone who has totally lost touch with reality and probably won't figure things out until he is well behind bars.
And if I were Mormon, I would be extremely embarassed by his behavior. All Mormons I have met have had extremely well rounded characters, and it is really a shame that Daryl is not just damaging his own public image, but all other groups he "claims" to belong to.
"They could be "throwing" everyone off by making themselves look like idiots. Has it dawned on anyone that maybe the code snippets that were leaked were meant to be leaked?"
It would be much more effective for them to leak actually infringing code. Sure, then it would immediately be taken out of the kernel, but they wouldn't leak ALL of the infringing code. This would have VALIDATED their claims, even though this would be at the sacrifice of some of their precious "hostage code." This has really hurt their case, though.
No, basically they LIED when they claimed they were showind infringing snippets, and there is no advanage to their case, what so ever. You can't expect to ALWAYS lie about everything and expect it to convince people. They may be smarter than we think, but here they really screwed up.
For instance, later, when the SEC actually gets its butt into gear, they will have a documented instance where SCO said they were showing infringing code (which, no doubt, would cause investors to buy their stock), which was, in fact, not infringing. Not a smoking gun, but stuff like that accumulates and will eventually put you in prison. And though it might be hard to prove fraud, gross negligence can result in just as harsh a sentence .
Maybe 50% of the light that it absorbs
on
Solar Window Panes
·
· Score: 1
However, it appears that a lot of light gets through, so by no means could it be 50% of the light that the surface is is exposed. In contrast, a regular solar cells are opaque and therefore their percentage is out of 100% of the light that they are exposed to (sounds a bit harder, to me).
I've read that part of the problem with solar cell efficiency is that they only use a narrow part of the light spectrum. So, I guess the light that doesn't make it through these transparent solar cells is more likely to be used to make electricity and gets filtered out in the process.
1. When I said URPMI, I ment The Mandrake Control Center, where users can just click on what they want and it magically downloads and installs. I don't think apt-dep can compete in "ease of use" in that respect
2. Yeah, maybe in the future, but you have to realize that at this point it is just not feasible to have someone make an rpm for you everytime you ask, for $60 a year! The system is still developing, so maybe one day the rpm voting system will get developers devoted to packaging members' requests (personally, I really don't care whether it is a paid developer or volunteer who packages my request . ..).
3. See above . ..
4. Errh, this is really a GREAT idea. Millions of people download the distro, and they really can earn a lot of revenue this way. But I just don't get you. First you complain that they aren't spending enough to make mandrakeclub worth paying for and then when they try to generate revenue that should relieve a lot of the burden from club members (and allow more money to go into making the club better), you call it "The last nail in their financial struggle." I guess some people are IMPOSSIBLE to satisfy . ..
Makes me wonder if you really have a problem with Mandrake or just have some significant problems understanding the way things work.
Anyway, why doesn't the FSF take matters into their own hands and start collecting as many software patents as possible and "punishing" the greedy software patent owners that are suing everyone by suing THEM?
Then again, I agree with you. Software patents are dumb because they give the holder so much power that, if the owner hates software patents, he can sue ONLY those companies that actively use software patents. Theoretically, the system can be used to destory itself . . . if enough people were to organize (and reinvested proceeds from lawsuit victories).
They are a reality and we might as well learn to live with them (in America). Just accept it!
Now that we accept it, this is what we do . . . we start getting people and companies to donate software patents to the FSF, who starts suing companies, only when a given company files a software patent lawsuit (that is the good thing about patents, you get to CHOOSE who you sue). The $ from the FSF lawsuits goes back into the pot to buy more lawsuits and sue more companies that use them. Eventually, noone will want to touch software patents because the FSF will have so many patents that they can sue ANYBODY for violations (but, again, they ONLY sue those who file software patent lawsuits).
So software patents are not bad, as long as we (the "good guys") have so many that we can make the system useless:)
"No matter who is suing who for whatever perceived infringement du jour, this abuse is going to fsck all of us over."
If people where to turn over patents to the fsf, then the fsf could selectively sue only those companies that brought up software patent lawsuits. The proceeds from the lawsuits could then go back to the fsf to buy more patents that would give them even more power to punish those "software patent" using companies. Eventually, they could become so large that they could effectively make software patents worthless, by make the price for suing over software patents too great.
I believe THIS kind of software patent litigation would be quite beneficial to the industry and our society. I think when our community realizes that "anyone can sue, over anything" and uses it to our advantage, we will really start to see drastic changes for the better.
Do you think it is possible for a bunch of people who don't like patents to each invest in patenting ideas and then cheaply sell those patents to an organization that would then sue businesses that over use business and software patents?
I'm thinking of something where the FSF creates a Patent Division that everyone who hated patents could sell their patents for like a $1 each. Then the FSF could then turn around and sue business like SCO for being freaking idiots and trying to destroy OSS. Basically, the FSF would do what IBM is doing now. And, this would be economically sustainable in itself (they could purchase more patents when they won rulings). The key is that they would only choose to sue organizations that overzealously used software patents, as a form of social engineering through monetary punishment.
If such an organization got enough software patents, could they basically make the entire system of software patents practically useless (regardless of what "new" software patent gets created, a given business couldn't possibly be immune to ALL software patents)? Kind of using the system to destroy itself?
I am constantly impressed by the amount of true innovation that has come from one company:
1. urpmi 2. Mandrakeclub 3. rpm voting (yeah, I know Deb was here before, but this is the first time for a Commercial Company to do this) 4. Open Source Sponsor Ads
I am proud to be a Silver member and will gladly give products of Mandrake sponsors priority when I consume (and will look forward to see who is sponsoring my software next time I update my computers. I though the point of Open Source is great code is great, regardless of who coded it or paid for it to be coded under the GPL).
btw, if you are mad about these ads because now you really wont be getting a 100% free lunch when you download MDK 9.2, it is time to move out of your parent's basement and get a job. Good intentions don't pay for dinner (though, Mandrake is getting damn close to that scenario!)
"If I charged you for sex, I could easily get $100/hour. How about I have sex with you, without your consent, for free?"
No, let's say you have cancer, but you don't know it, and you are not getting proper check-ups so you aren't going to find out. Some self-proclaimed doctor rigs the urinal you are about to use so that he can get a sample of your urine. He then takes the sample to his lab in the basement (without your knowledge) and performs a urinalysis. When he discovers you have cancer, he fully discloses to the world (without your permission 'cause he knows doctor-phobes, like yourself, would never give him permission) that you have cancer saying, "See how screwed up it is not to get regular check-ups at the doctor's office. This guy had CANCER, and he was going to DIE just because he refused to get check-ups." In other words, the social issue takes priority to the individual's rights.
Now, regardless of whether you agree with this or not, you have to admit that this is more accurate than the "sex" analogy. If you can come up with a more accurate analogy to what actually happened, by all means post it, but arguments supported by poor ananologies are poor arguments, regardless of the core ideas behind them.
Starting nmap V. 3.00 ( www.insecure.org/nmap/ ) Interesting ports on localhost (127.0.0.1): (The 1581 ports scanned but not shown below are in state: closed) Port State Service 21/tcp open ftp 22/tcp open ssh 25/tcp open smtp 53/tcp open domain 111/tcp open sunrpc 139/tcp open netbios-ssn
Nmap run completed -- 1 IP address (1 host up) scanned in 2 seconds
Now, how the hell am I suppose to know whether or not this is a vulnerable system without running some exploit code on one of these services!? It seems like your understanding of "cracking" is much more academic than mine.
"He could have walked away or alerted the responsible parties that they were running vulnerable software and potentially had holes in their system."
Uh, he did that . . . that's how he got caught. Oh, I see, "excuse me,sir. I would like to alert you to the fact that you are running 'ftp.' Certain versions of this program have been known to be exploitable, but since I have not run any exploit code on your version, I don't know the state of your version." Yeah. sure. THAT will get their attention.
"That sort of practice is not acceptable to a company, even if the company network is run by an admin who can't even tie his own shoe."
Yes, and the people believing that laws are protecting them from exploits through the Internet are complete morons. . . The REAL exploits, causing damage, never get reported, because people like you are too embarassed to report them and are afraid of damaging their "goodwill."
"What I find is funny is that you go on and on about "unenforceable laws", but they ARE enforcing it! That's what you are pissed about!"
Yeah, like capturing people who openly communicate their intentions is hard, and we can consider it "enforcing laws against crackers"? Like I said, he could have done the EXACT same thing outside the U.S. and been safe or just not informed the company and trashed their systems. His crime was being in the U.S. and being nice enough to inform people about the vulnerabilities.
After this incident, I doubt we will be hearing cases like this. People will just exclusively crack to destroy and admins won't know what hit them.
"First of all, what the hell is it with you and the chinese army?"
China has become the biggest threat to the U.S. sphere of influence. Also, Taiwan recently accused China of cyber attacks. It is just an example . . . try no to be so easily distracted.
"what you seem to be proposing is complete anarchy"
Having the U.S. stand clear of making laws IT CAN'T ENFORCE actually strengthens its authority. I don't know how you got off on the tangent that "no unenforceable laws" is the same as "no laws."
"There are ways to alert folks of problems with security without actively hacking them."
I'm sorry . . . I honestly do not understand your logic here. How is someone suppose to find out whether a system is crackable or not without trying to crack into it!? That is actually a pretty funny quote . . . maybe you should make it your sig.:)
"why do you think that because we have less legal course of action against someone on the other side of the globe that we should not enforce laws for people who live here"
All laws are limited to their jurisdiction, a geographical area in which they have authority. The Internet has no such geographical limitations, therefore futile attempts by legislators to regulate activity on the Internet does nothing more than further complicate an already complicated legal system, create more loop-holes for corps to stick it to the consumer, and make drones, like youself, complacent with the current state of U.S. security.
Truth is, the only reason they found out about this guy was because he was trying to help out (and was a bit naive). The types of people these laws are really trying to deter are simply never going to be caught.
You are simply going to drive "white hat hackers" to become "black hat hackers", and the Chinese army is going to have a lot easier time cracking our systems without this guy pointing out our weaknesses.
And what happens when someone "violates the law," but they are working for the Chinese government and don't really care about U.S. law? Oh, and they also decide to totally trash the system they cracked into.
It seems we are making harsher laws for our own citizens simply because the Internet is Global and our laws can only be enforced locally. Futhermore, it seems we are making companies complacent by giving them these laws to use against U.S. crackers, when these laws will do NOTHING to protect against a foreign attack.
Ads aren't about informing the public anymore. They are about telling the public what is cool or not. People need only one word to learn about Linux and that is "Linux." If they think it is cool, they will search on the web to find out what it is.
I'd say The Matrix did pretty well without actually letting anyone KNOW what it was . ..
Or buying safer cars? Or boycotting companies that pollute, lie, or steal?
Consumers can be a powerful and influential force on the market, and, if we choose, we can make companies become more responsible.
Btw, Open Source is EXTREMELY environmentally friendly. Programmers usually reside in developed countries, where each invidual has the heaviest impact on the environment. Open Source allows reuse of code, which means less programmers waste less time rewriting the same code. This results in more useful code being contributed per programmer and an increase of the ratio of useful code per a given unit of pollution.
Maybe if you spent less time being so cynical, you would realize your ability to contribute towards a better society. ..
Have you tried Internet Explorer on Wine? This site has a large list of instructions on how to get different "windows only" applications running with Wine (including IE).
I just had blazing success with Paltalk. The harder it is for you to use Linux in your niche, the more significant an accompolishment it will be when you are finally able to go 100% Windows free.
All kidding aside, I have been absolutely suprised by Wine recently. I sent my sister a computer (Linux, of course) and she said, "Great, but we absolutely have to have Paltalk." Suprise, suprise, Paltalk has Windows and Mac (or should I say, BSD?) versions, but no Linux version. Okay, so I go to this site and am pleasantly amazed to find the different apps that now run under Wine (according to this one site). And, this is the FREE version of Wine I am talking about (though, if you are new to Linux, you might want to just buy something like Crossoffice). So my sister gets a stable, virus free computer that does EVERYTHING she wants it to do, and I can support her remotely through SSH (she lives a thousand mile away from me).
Honestly, between the apps that are getting ported and the steady progress of Wine, I think it is time for you to find a new excuse why you are not using Linux. If you run out of reasonable/coherent excuses, you can always check these guys out.
of companies using Linux (or other Open Source software) throughtout their company?
You know, so instead of just buying products friendly for the natural environment, we can support products that are friendly to the IT environment (assuming monopolies are bad for industries and have an Economics degree to back that assumption).
Slashdot Mirror
Red Hat is a company. So is Mandrake. Debian and Gentoo, from what I know, are not companies.
I would say Mandrake is being VERY efficent with their money these days (when is the last time you checked out their financials?), and if selling ads is the same as begging, then I suppose you got me there, but only if we are in Soviet Russia.
You know, sometimes things change and one must adapt one's thoughts to accurately relate to the present state of reality. Or are you still calling IBM the "evil empire" these days?
Of course, by "Mandrake's innovation" I specifically meant Mandrake implementing a Debian-like system for development of their product;)
"The goal of The Fedora Project is to work with the Linux community to build a complete, general purpose operating system exclusively from open source software."
Yet another example of Mandrake innovation influencing and improving the industry.
I fully support Red Hat's push to be more open and community based. However, if you are interested in a more mature implementation of such ideas, please visit mandrakeclub.com.
Funny how Mandrake started out as a knock-off of Red Hat and now Red Hat appears to sometimes follow Mandrake's lead.
"Senators Byron Dorgan (D-ND) and Trent Lott (R-MS)"
But now they are allotted a certain number of senator representatives, like a state!? Figures . . .
"You think pro sports stars have got it bad as they're driving home after the game when they've gone 1 for 10 and missed five three-pointers."
How can this guy even believe he can possibly relate to athletes who devote their lives to a special talent!?What talent does it take to be grossly negligent and then try to make up for it by making fraudalent claims? That is not talent but a mental illness.
What makes him any different from the guy who claims that he is "famous" for going on a road rampage and ramming innocent drivers in a police chase? We are witnessing someone who has totally lost touch with reality and probably won't figure things out until he is well behind bars.
And if I were Mormon, I would be extremely embarassed by his behavior. All Mormons I have met have had extremely well rounded characters, and it is really a shame that Daryl is not just damaging his own public image, but all other groups he "claims" to belong to.
"They could be "throwing" everyone off by making themselves look like idiots. Has it dawned on anyone that maybe the code snippets that were leaked were meant to be leaked?"
It would be much more effective for them to leak actually infringing code. Sure, then it would immediately be taken out of the kernel, but they wouldn't leak ALL of the infringing code. This would have VALIDATED their claims, even though this would be at the sacrifice of some of their precious "hostage code." This has really hurt their case, though.
No, basically they LIED when they claimed they were showind infringing snippets, and there is no advanage to their case, what so ever. You can't expect to ALWAYS lie about everything and expect it to convince people. They may be smarter than we think, but here they really screwed up.
For instance, later, when the SEC actually gets its butt into gear, they will have a documented instance where SCO said they were showing infringing code (which, no doubt, would cause investors to buy their stock), which was, in fact, not infringing. Not a smoking gun, but stuff like that accumulates and will eventually put you in prison. And though it might be hard to prove fraud, gross negligence can result in just as harsh a sentence .
However, it appears that a lot of light gets through, so by no means could it be 50% of the light that the surface is is exposed. In contrast, a regular solar cells are opaque and therefore their percentage is out of 100% of the light that they are exposed to (sounds a bit harder, to me).
I've read that part of the problem with solar cell efficiency is that they only use a narrow part of the light spectrum. So, I guess the light that doesn't make it through these transparent solar cells is more likely to be used to make electricity and gets filtered out in the process.
1. When I said URPMI, I ment The Mandrake Control Center, where users can just click on what they want and it magically downloads and installs. I don't think apt-dep can compete in "ease of use" in that respect
.).
.
.
2. Yeah, maybe in the future, but you have to realize that at this point it is just not feasible to have someone make an rpm for you everytime you ask, for $60 a year! The system is still developing, so maybe one day the rpm voting system will get developers devoted to packaging members' requests (personally, I really don't care whether it is a paid developer or volunteer who packages my request . .
3. See above . .
4. Errh, this is really a GREAT idea. Millions of people download the distro, and they really can earn a lot of revenue this way. But I just don't get you. First you complain that they aren't spending enough to make mandrakeclub worth paying for and then when they try to generate revenue that should relieve a lot of the burden from club members (and allow more money to go into making the club better), you call it "The last nail in their financial struggle." I guess some people are IMPOSSIBLE to satisfy . .
Makes me wonder if you really have a problem with Mandrake or just have some significant problems understanding the way things work.
or just really greedy.
Anyway, why doesn't the FSF take matters into their own hands and start collecting as many software patents as possible and "punishing" the greedy software patent owners that are suing everyone by suing THEM?
Then again, I agree with you. Software patents are dumb because they give the holder so much power that, if the owner hates software patents, he can sue ONLY those companies that actively use software patents. Theoretically, the system can be used to destory itself . . . if enough people were to organize (and reinvested proceeds from lawsuit victories).
They are a reality and we might as well learn to live with them (in America). Just accept it!
Now that we accept it, this is what we do . . . we start getting people and companies to donate software patents to the FSF, who starts suing companies, only when a given company files a software patent lawsuit (that is the good thing about patents, you get to CHOOSE who you sue). The $ from the FSF lawsuits goes back into the pot to buy more lawsuits and sue more companies that use them. Eventually, noone will want to touch software patents because the FSF will have so many patents that they can sue ANYBODY for violations (but, again, they ONLY sue those who file software patent lawsuits).
So software patents are not bad, as long as we (the "good guys") have so many that we can make the system useless:)
"No matter who is suing who for whatever perceived infringement du jour, this abuse is going to fsck all of us over."
If people where to turn over patents to the fsf, then the fsf could selectively sue only those companies that brought up software patent lawsuits. The proceeds from the lawsuits could then go back to the fsf to buy more patents that would give them even more power to punish those "software patent" using companies. Eventually, they could become so large that they could effectively make software patents worthless, by make the price for suing over software patents too great.
I believe THIS kind of software patent litigation would be quite beneficial to the industry and our society. I think when our community realizes that "anyone can sue, over anything" and uses it to our advantage, we will really start to see drastic changes for the better.
So who is for creating a FSF Patent division?
Do you think it is possible for a bunch of people who don't like patents to each invest in patenting ideas and then cheaply sell those patents to an organization that would then sue businesses that over use business and software patents?
I'm thinking of something where the FSF creates a Patent Division that everyone who hated patents could sell their patents for like a $1 each. Then the FSF could then turn around and sue business like SCO for being freaking idiots and trying to destroy OSS. Basically, the FSF would do what IBM is doing now. And, this would be economically sustainable in itself (they could purchase more patents when they won rulings). The key is that they would only choose to sue organizations that overzealously used software patents, as a form of social engineering through monetary punishment.
If such an organization got enough software patents, could they basically make the entire system of software patents practically useless (regardless of what "new" software patent gets created, a given business couldn't possibly be immune to ALL software patents)? Kind of using the system to destroy itself?
I am constantly impressed by the amount of true innovation that has come from one company:
1. urpmi
2. Mandrakeclub
3. rpm voting (yeah, I know Deb was here before, but this is the first time for a Commercial Company to do this)
4. Open Source Sponsor Ads
I am proud to be a Silver member and will gladly give products of Mandrake sponsors priority when I consume (and will look forward to see who is sponsoring my software next time I update my computers. I though the point of Open Source is great code is great, regardless of who coded it or paid for it to be coded under the GPL).
btw, if you are mad about these ads because now you really wont be getting a 100% free lunch when you download MDK 9.2, it is time to move out of your parent's basement and get a job. Good intentions don't pay for dinner (though, Mandrake is getting damn close to that scenario!)
"If I charged you for sex, I could easily get $100/hour. How about I have sex with you, without your consent, for free?"
No, let's say you have cancer, but you don't know it, and you are not getting proper check-ups so you aren't going to find out. Some self-proclaimed doctor rigs the urinal you are about to use so that he can get a sample of your urine. He then takes the sample to his lab in the basement (without your knowledge) and performs a urinalysis. When he discovers you have cancer, he fully discloses to the world (without your permission 'cause he knows doctor-phobes, like yourself, would never give him permission) that you have cancer saying, "See how screwed up it is not to get regular check-ups at the doctor's office. This guy had CANCER, and he was going to DIE just because he refused to get check-ups." In other words, the social issue takes priority to the individual's rights.
Now, regardless of whether you agree with this or not, you have to admit that this is more accurate than the "sex" analogy. If you can come up with a more accurate analogy to what actually happened, by all means post it, but arguments supported by poor ananologies are poor arguments, regardless of the core ideas behind them.
I still don't get it:
#nmap localhost
Starting nmap V. 3.00 ( www.insecure.org/nmap/ )
Interesting ports on localhost (127.0.0.1):
(The 1581 ports scanned but not shown below are in state: closed)
Port State Service
21/tcp open ftp
22/tcp open ssh
25/tcp open smtp
53/tcp open domain
111/tcp open sunrpc
139/tcp open netbios-ssn
Nmap run completed -- 1 IP address (1 host up) scanned in 2 seconds
Now, how the hell am I suppose to know whether or not this is a vulnerable system without running some exploit code on one of these services!? It seems like your understanding of "cracking" is much more academic than mine.
"He could have walked away or alerted the responsible parties that they were running vulnerable software and potentially had holes in their system."
Uh, he did that . . . that's how he got caught. Oh, I see, "excuse me,sir. I would like to alert you to the fact that you are running 'ftp.' Certain versions of this program have been known to be exploitable, but since I have not run any exploit code on your version, I don't know the state of your version." Yeah. sure. THAT will get their attention.
"That sort of practice is not acceptable to a company, even if the company network is run by an admin who can't even tie his own shoe."
Yes, and the people believing that laws are protecting them from exploits through the Internet are complete morons. . . The REAL exploits, causing damage, never get reported, because people like you are too embarassed to report them and are afraid of damaging their "goodwill."
"What I find is funny is that you go on and on about "unenforceable laws", but they ARE enforcing it! That's what you are pissed about!"
Yeah, like capturing people who openly communicate their intentions is hard, and we can consider it "enforcing laws against crackers"? Like I said, he could have done the EXACT same thing outside the U.S. and been safe or just not informed the company and trashed their systems. His crime was being in the U.S. and being nice enough to inform people about the vulnerabilities.
After this incident, I doubt we will be hearing cases like this. People will just exclusively crack to destroy and admins won't know what hit them.
"First of all, what the hell is it with you and the chinese army?"
China has become the biggest threat to the U.S. sphere of influence. Also, Taiwan recently accused China of cyber attacks. It is just an example . . . try no to be so easily distracted.
"what you seem to be proposing is complete anarchy"
Having the U.S. stand clear of making laws IT CAN'T ENFORCE actually strengthens its authority. I don't know how you got off on the tangent that "no unenforceable laws" is the same as "no laws."
"There are ways to alert folks of problems with security without actively hacking them."
I'm sorry . . . I honestly do not understand your logic here. How is someone suppose to find out whether a system is crackable or not without trying to crack into it!? That is actually a pretty funny quote . . . maybe you should make it your sig.:)
"why do you think that because we have less legal course of action against someone on the other side of the globe that we should not enforce laws for people who live here"
All laws are limited to their jurisdiction, a geographical area in which they have authority. The Internet has no such geographical limitations, therefore futile attempts by legislators to regulate activity on the Internet does nothing more than further complicate an already complicated legal system, create more loop-holes for corps to stick it to the consumer, and make drones, like youself, complacent with the current state of U.S. security.
Truth is, the only reason they found out about this guy was because he was trying to help out (and was a bit naive). The types of people these laws are really trying to deter are simply never going to be caught.
You are simply going to drive "white hat hackers" to become "black hat hackers", and the Chinese army is going to have a lot easier time cracking our systems without this guy pointing out our weaknesses.
And what happens when someone "violates the law," but they are working for the Chinese government and don't really care about U.S. law? Oh, and they also decide to totally trash the system they cracked into.
.
It seems we are making harsher laws for our own citizens simply because the Internet is Global and our laws can only be enforced locally. Futhermore, it seems we are making companies complacent by giving them these laws to use against U.S. crackers, when these laws will do NOTHING to protect against a foreign attack.
So, I guess his crime was being in the U.S. . .
Ads aren't about informing the public anymore. They are about telling the public what is cool or not. People need only one word to learn about Linux and that is "Linux." If they think it is cool, they will search on the web to find out what it is.
.
I'd say The Matrix did pretty well without actually letting anyone KNOW what it was . .
Or buying safer cars? Or boycotting companies that pollute, lie, or steal?
.
Consumers can be a powerful and influential force on the market, and, if we choose, we can make companies become more responsible.
Btw, Open Source is EXTREMELY environmentally friendly. Programmers usually reside in developed countries, where each invidual has the heaviest impact on the environment. Open Source allows reuse of code, which means less programmers waste less time rewriting the same code. This results in more useful code being contributed per programmer and an increase of the ratio of useful code per a given unit of pollution.
Maybe if you spent less time being so cynical, you would realize your ability to contribute towards a better society. .
Have you tried Internet Explorer on Wine? This site has a large list of instructions on how to get different "windows only" applications running with Wine (including IE).
I just had blazing success with Paltalk. The harder it is for you to use Linux in your niche, the more significant an accompolishment it will be when you are finally able to go 100% Windows free.
Best of luck!
never seem to discover Wine?
All kidding aside, I have been absolutely suprised by Wine recently. I sent my sister a computer (Linux, of course) and she said, "Great, but we absolutely have to have Paltalk." Suprise, suprise, Paltalk has Windows and Mac (or should I say, BSD?) versions, but no Linux version. Okay, so I go to this site and am pleasantly amazed to find the different apps that now run under Wine (according to this one site). And, this is the FREE version of Wine I am talking about (though, if you are new to Linux, you might want to just buy something like Crossoffice). So my sister gets a stable, virus free computer that does EVERYTHING she wants it to do, and I can support her remotely through SSH (she lives a thousand mile away from me).
Honestly, between the apps that are getting ported and the steady progress of Wine, I think it is time for you to find a new excuse why you are not using Linux. If you run out of reasonable/coherent excuses, you can always check these guys out.
of companies using Linux (or other Open Source software) throughtout their company?
.
You know, so instead of just buying products friendly for the natural environment, we can support products that are friendly to the IT environment (assuming monopolies are bad for industries and have an Economics degree to back that assumption).
Just wondering . .
Microsft pay YOU!
.
I'm just enjoying the non-SCO news . .