1) Please compare IIS and Apache. Rate both products on efficiency and security. Factor in the usage base and number of people served.
2a) Look at the number of software developers working on a project. Add a percentage of total users to representing those who are of sufficiently advanced skill to understand the code with a desire to review it. Compare to the percentage of black hat hackers who would target the application.
2b) In any case, open source will usually have a better ratio of white hats examing and fixing the code to black hats attacking it. The pool of white hats for closed source is limited, while the pool o f white hats for open source is theoritically unlimited.
Consider that a thought experiment, because I at least don't have those figures. You can still make reasonable estimates and infer the liklihood of truth to my claims.
Not all good arguments are deductive, a lot can be learned from induction.
Of course, you don't have to have source code to find exploitable bugs. So closed or secret source doesn't entirely solve the 0-day issue.
You are exactly right. But, it does generally help to have the code, but, yes, its not needed at all.
Still I agree, open source is still generally more secure. I don't usually check the code for backdoors, trojans, etc. But, with open source you can look at the code and inspect it for yourself. For all we know, Windows has some sort of series of passwords that will backdoor you in. It probably doesn't, but its far harder to check without access to the code.
The really important thing as far as I'm concerned is the length of time needed to fix newly discovered bugs, not the number, and this is where the open source development model works so much better.
I'm also concerned about those nasty 0-Day vulnerabilites that are out there but we don't know about. The problem with open source is that the code is out there, so its easier to find the bugs. The saving grace is that the code is generally better, and there are usually more white hats looking for the problem than black hats.
I still think FF is safer than IE, but I also think its just as important to be wary of the bugs we don't know about as the ones we do. The same goes for any software product.
I'll admit to not doing exhaustive research before making my commentary.
I believe that the Docs & Settings folder is owned by the user in question and has the permissions set to keep other users out. But, thanks to the way the Windows runs, everyone pretty much need to be an Administrator to do things like, idk, run a CD-Burning app, so a knowledgable user could change the permissions and look inside.
But, this is a generic Windows problem, most users are Administrators, and they can therefore see other users files. This might not be true in corporate enviornments, but at home its usually the case.
Remember what your mother said, and do not take the name of root in vain.
This guy's business is to tell the industry what the scene is doing. Keeping contacts in the scene by buying a camcorder is no different then taking somebody out to a fine restuarant. It could actually be legit.
... Doing a "user graph" like you say could be done, but it wouldn't be that easy. Think of how much data is going through the Mayes, or other major "junctions" of the Internet (big "I"). Granted every individual packer will have a source and a destination address, but the sheer number of packets going through these routers makes it difficult to do such large statistical analysis. That's not to say its impossible, just rather difficult.
Not to mention the legality of doing something like that. Courts don't issue search warrants for fishing expiditions, and although the government may be able to get into a Maye without a warrant, when two private ISPs meet up, they might not want to let them in.
And you can say Carnivoure all you like, but it looks for specific things and logs them. It examines everything and discards all but a small portion. Thats very different that keeping a small record of everything.
Encrpytion also makes any scrutiny irrelevant. Not to mention that most people want a privacy policy saying that not everything they do on line will be observed by Big Brother.
It's possible, but if it were simple, the Feds would be doing it.
What A9 does is offer an interesting way of presenting search results. In that way, A9 is almost more of a portal than a search engine in and of itself.
Most of us/.ers won't see A9 as a contender to Google because its not truly a search engine. However, Joe User wants something that looks nice, and he might like A9 more than Google because of the way it lets him play around.
You're right. The latest and greatest virus are going to disable just about any useful AV once the virus gets loaded into memory. However, file system scans are still useful for detecting virii that may be dormant on your system. Have you ever copied a file and not immediately opened it?
I vote for Norton, but that's probably because its what I've used for a long time. McAfee tends to run background scans (at least in implentations I've seen) while Norton runs in the foreground. Obviously, both do realtime protection as well, but I prefer foreground virus scans that I can schedule when I'm not using my computer, like at 3:37 am.
I fear that alot of the consumer "switches" on the market do not do proper routing
I'd be more afraid if my switch started routing!
As a side note, even my really old switches have a 2K MAC table, which should be more than enough for a home/SOHO LAN. That doesn't mean it can't be ARP flooded, however.
You can make a statistical arguement for either side of this issue. The probability of a drive failing in month N isn't constant. A drive is far more likely to fail very soon after manufacture (defect) or after several years (age).
Also, check your statistics, its not as simple as multiplying the probability. Others have explained the statistics better than I can, however.
But, regardless of the chances of a drive failing, the reliability of the drive doesn't matter in this application. RAID-0 isn't "stupid" because it doesn't have redundency, because not everyone needs redundency.
I know of several pros with high end multimedia setups and none of them use anything other than seperate IDE drives!
Using seperate 7200 RPM / 8 MB buffer IDE drives is the bare minimum for doing Digital Video (DV) editting. That's enough to do one DV stream. If you want to work with uncompressed high def, or record multiple streams simultaneously, then you need something a little better, usually a RAID of IDE or SCSI disks. And, don't try to tell me that TIVOs record two streams on a 7200 RPM IDE disk either, that's MPEG, which is much more compressed.
When dealing with video editting, its often not worth the extra money for redundency. While your editting, you need fast access to your data, but you never archive on a hard drive. That's what tapes and DVDs are for. Of course, there are some situations where you need the redundancy, for instance some broadcast situations, but it's usually cheaper to do the work twice the rare times you have a drive crash on a single workstation than to have redundency everywhere.
Am I the only one who doesn't really see the difference in special effects between the original and the SEs? DVDs don't make it that hard to have multiple chapter sequences. There aren't that many differences between the two, so I'm sure one DVD could hold both versions with just a little extra video.
...downloading a TV show is still illegal because you don't have permission to distribute the content. On the other hand, its perfectly legal to record it off the air yourself and timeshift it.
Yet another legal quirk that makes absolutely no common sense.
Slashdot Mirror
Most of what you credit to Myth is really a PC with a video out card.
And what do you think a TiVo is?
...are you firing laced paint????
Play beer! Please tell me that some other people on /. watch sports and have seen those commercials. Please.
Don't be so ethnocentric. There are such things as trinary systems.
1) Please compare IIS and Apache. Rate both products on efficiency and security. Factor in the usage base and number of people served.
2a) Look at the number of software developers working on a project. Add a percentage of total users to representing those who are of sufficiently advanced skill to understand the code with a desire to review it. Compare to the percentage of black hat hackers who would target the application.
2b) In any case, open source will usually have a better ratio of white hats examing and fixing the code to black hats attacking it. The pool of white hats for closed source is limited, while the pool o f white hats for open source is theoritically unlimited.
Consider that a thought experiment, because I at least don't have those figures. You can still make reasonable estimates and infer the liklihood of truth to my claims.
Not all good arguments are deductive, a lot can be learned from induction.
(Yes, I know that wasn't an inductive argument.)
Fell free to shoot me down.
Of course, you don't have to have source code to find exploitable bugs. So closed or secret source doesn't entirely solve the 0-day issue.
You are exactly right. But, it does generally help to have the code, but, yes, its not needed at all.
Still I agree, open source is still generally more secure. I don't usually check the code for backdoors, trojans, etc. But, with open source you can look at the code and inspect it for yourself. For all we know, Windows has some sort of series of passwords that will backdoor you in. It probably doesn't, but its far harder to check without access to the code.
I would never suggest anything of the sort. You must work for SCO or something to suggest that I was suggesting that.
/. and serious reflection on situation is seldom the norm.
<Quasi-seriousness>
IE does suck all on its own, but this is
</Quasi-seriousness>
The really important thing as far as I'm concerned is the length of time needed to fix newly discovered bugs, not the number, and this is where the open source development model works so much better.
I'm also concerned about those nasty 0-Day vulnerabilites that are out there but we don't know about. The problem with open source is that the code is out there, so its easier to find the bugs. The saving grace is that the code is generally better, and there are usually more white hats looking for the problem than black hats.
I still think FF is safer than IE, but I also think its just as important to be wary of the bugs we don't know about as the ones we do. The same goes for any software product.
I'll admit to not doing exhaustive research before making my commentary.
I believe that the Docs & Settings folder is owned by the user in question and has the permissions set to keep other users out. But, thanks to the way the Windows runs, everyone pretty much need to be an Administrator to do things like, idk, run a CD-Burning app, so a knowledgable user could change the permissions and look inside.
But, this is a generic Windows problem, most users are Administrators, and they can therefore see other users files. This might not be true in corporate enviornments, but at home its usually the case.
Remember what your mother said, and do not take the name of root in vain.
Are you new here? IE is a MS product and therefore is evil, rotten, and sucks.
I sit corrected.
This guy's business is to tell the industry what the scene is doing. Keeping contacts in the scene by buying a camcorder is no different then taking somebody out to a fine restuarant. It could actually be legit.
... Doing a "user graph" like you say could be done, but it wouldn't be that easy. Think of how much data is going through the Mayes, or other major "junctions" of the Internet (big "I"). Granted every individual packer will have a source and a destination address, but the sheer number of packets going through these routers makes it difficult to do such large statistical analysis. That's not to say its impossible, just rather difficult.
Not to mention the legality of doing something like that. Courts don't issue search warrants for fishing expiditions, and although the government may be able to get into a Maye without a warrant, when two private ISPs meet up, they might not want to let them in.
And you can say Carnivoure all you like, but it looks for specific things and logs them. It examines everything and discards all but a small portion. Thats very different that keeping a small record of everything.
Encrpytion also makes any scrutiny irrelevant. Not to mention that most people want a privacy policy saying that not everything they do on line will be observed by Big Brother.
It's possible, but if it were simple, the Feds would be doing it.
What A9 does is offer an interesting way of presenting search results. In that way, A9 is almost more of a portal than a search engine in and of itself.
/.ers won't see A9 as a contender to Google because its not truly a search engine. However, Joe User wants something that looks nice, and he might like A9 more than Google because of the way it lets him play around.
Most of us
You're right. The latest and greatest virus are going to disable just about any useful AV once the virus gets loaded into memory. However, file system scans are still useful for detecting virii that may be dormant on your system. Have you ever copied a file and not immediately opened it?
I vote for Norton, but that's probably because its what I've used for a long time. McAfee tends to run background scans (at least in implentations I've seen) while Norton runs in the foreground. Obviously, both do realtime protection as well, but I prefer foreground virus scans that I can schedule when I'm not using my computer, like at 3:37 am.
As a side note, even my really old switches have a 2K MAC table, which should be more than enough for a home/SOHO LAN. That doesn't mean it can't be ARP flooded, however.
...you can get a copy of Linux Format? My B&N is always sold out!
...statistics.
You can make a statistical arguement for either side of this issue. The probability of a drive failing in month N isn't constant. A drive is far more likely to fail very soon after manufacture (defect) or after several years (age).
Also, check your statistics, its not as simple as multiplying the probability. Others have explained the statistics better than I can, however.
But, regardless of the chances of a drive failing, the reliability of the drive doesn't matter in this application. RAID-0 isn't "stupid" because it doesn't have redundency, because not everyone needs redundency.
When dealing with video editting, its often not worth the extra money for redundency. While your editting, you need fast access to your data, but you never archive on a hard drive. That's what tapes and DVDs are for. Of course, there are some situations where you need the redundancy, for instance some broadcast situations, but it's usually cheaper to do the work twice the rare times you have a drive crash on a single workstation than to have redundency everywhere.
Am I the only one who doesn't really see the difference in special effects between the original and the SEs? DVDs don't make it that hard to have multiple chapter sequences. There aren't that many differences between the two, so I'm sure one DVD could hold both versions with just a little extra video.
Most people don't even read the short articles!
...downloading a TV show is still illegal because you don't have permission to distribute the content. On the other hand, its perfectly legal to record it off the air yourself and timeshift it.
Yet another legal quirk that makes absolutely no common sense.
...you actually read the article?