The Blacklist Groups became arrogant beyond belief and alienated some of their strongest early supporters. We all know the story: blacklisting whole IP blocks (never mind the collateral damage to innocent parties, that's their fault for hosting with spammers, blaw, blaw, blaw...)
These people have NO ONE but THEMSELVES to blame, and the Internet is better off without their "I Am God" attitude.
First, I don't run nor use Microsoft products in my network, though it has to do not only with shitty MS software but also pricing and flexibility of the platform to use non MS apps, as well.
But I think al lot of this gets tossed around as the Gospel with nothing more than antidotes back it up:
...but I'm willing to bet the time differential between when the Copyright owner of the code knows about the problem, and when the patch is released, is much larger with Microsoft then with Open Source...
Yes, and Microsoft followers will be willing to bet the opposite, so what.
Finally, in my experience, on a Red Hat Linux machine, there is almost nothing I've upgraded in the last 3 years that was a security fix.
You made no security upgrades to your RH box in 3 years? Is it attached to the Internet? Please post your domain name and IP (be nice and tell us both the internal and external IP... After all, you have nothing to fear, right?), I'm sure there are some more devious types around here who would be able to show you some things
The fact is, *nix, and Linux in particular, and Open Source in general just do not get the same level heat for the same level of security fuck-ups. This dishonesty, in turn, colors the way a lot of the corporate suits look at Linux / Open Source ("it's backed up by a bunch of delusional religious zealots"), and this is why until the Open Source movement is more honest about the nature of software flaws, Open Source will never be embraced by corporate business.
My guess is that as a percentage more numskulls run Windows then Red Hat, but I think that's because Windows users/admins are a significantly larger group. To run Red Hat isn't done by the average home users. If Red Hat shipped by default on as many machines, that statement would flip flop, and Red Hat would have a higher percentage of clueless users.
Exactly. And in this respect, if Open Source wants to be accepted by a larger percentage of commercial MS users, they need to do a lot better at PR, rather than frothing at Darl et al.
It's a risk/benefit thing. HP get the benefit of the world knowing they're covered under HP. HP know the risk SCO's claims mean anything is less than that benefit.
Absolutely a risk / benefit thing. HP (who can certainly afford high caliber analysts) has decided that SCO is full of shit, so the risk of SCO drying up HP coffers via law suites is very slim. Now if only other companies would take notice of this (like Red Hat, perhaps).
By the way, has SCO been very quiet on the public FUD front of late? Darl seems to have lost his frothy verbal spew.
Suspended? Do you have any idea how our legal system works? You mean appealed? Ha, you see this one going to the Supreme Court? "One's Constitutional Right to Spam"
Do you correct spelling too? You know exactly what I mean, so why make yourself look like such an ass? Unlike *some* people here, I do not pretend to be a lawyer
I am simply pointing out that with an almost 100% chance, this will be put into a legal holding pattern.
Open Source has less SEVERE security issues, because of how many patches are made available. Issues in Open Source software tend to be patched quicker than in closed software.
The very NUMBER of patches that MS issues shows this statement to be false. Microsoft issues TONS of patches, most before or shortly the vulnerability becomes known. Sorry, but these is the facts!
With Microsoft, it seems as though every time you patch, something else gets broken.Sure, dependencies can be an issue. But saying that upgrading and patching *nix platforms does not produce any mind-numbing dependency issues is simply a self delusion.
Problem is, this is meaningless. It will almost certainly be suspended while it goes through the court system, to it's ultimate death at the hands of people who have much more money than you or I to pay off the lawyers, courts, politicos. This bill is meaningless.
HOW DARE you bring up flaws in Open Source software. But on a more serious note, the items discussed yesterday were either no longer being supported by their keepers, or damn close to it.... Not sure that using obsolete projects to make a point is valid...
Sorry, should have used the tags. My point is, everytime Microsoft / Big Business has a security issue (and there are LOTS), they get just a little different treatment verses security issues with "open source". Please don't try to go down the road that "open source" has less security issues / patches, statistacally, that's a load of shit.
But, like you said, good programming habbits are not exclusive.
OpenSSH... A Microsoft product, right? Oppss... Forgot, one can not criticize open source on the same standards we hold "M$" to...
Alternative uses for AMD 64 chips...
on
Athlon 64 Debuts
·
· Score: 1
I'm thinking, get rid of the central gas fired heater I have, and just build a couple cheap AMD 64 boxes and leave the case open. Lord knows AMDs burn hot enough!
People have been talking about this for quite some time, but the paper-pushers in the elections offices don't really care, because no one who matters (and, no, you and I *do not* matter) gives a shit. Probably also, they are quite fine with the ability to clean up their fuck-ups without leaving a trace (especially here in King County, Washington).
I would fully expect ICANN to release some sort of order or advisory telling Verisign to stop this practice or lose their contract to run the.com and.net registries.
And then VeriSign will sue. In "Today's" business world, they might just win.
To be more "SPACIFIC" (sic), my search results from MSN tend to include dozens (if not more) of "search" sites - pages set up with hundreds of keywords or squatted domain names designed to get hits and redirect you to some type of SPAM site. Yahoo! is starting to get this way as well, although the problem is not as prevalent as it is with MSN.com. I rarely see this happen in a Google-found site.
There ya go. Facts.
Ahhhh yes. When all else fails, make fun of spelling, using the "[sic]" to highlight your brain power. Whatever. But the paragraph above is hardly "facts", it's just another statement.
Interestingly, another follow-up points out the MSN result to the search for "tits". That's a fact.
The search capabilities are horrible; Google is much better...
It's easy to just rattle off the standard anti-M$ line (and get "insightful"), few people here would require you back it up with (gasp) facts. So, can you be more SPACIFIC? Exactly *how* is the MSN search flaky?
Not only that, but if someone had a domain, but didn't have a host in the domain, they're claiming that as theirs, too.
What about this? Not just squating on unregistered domains, but also squating on domains that *ARE* owned but not hosted or otherwise pointed at anything?
I wonder if I can send them a bill for using my domain name?
It's just a big Flashed-out web site, and their address in Longboat Key is a residence, not a business address. Their domain is using Register.com's DNS server which means they are probibly hosting this pig on a broadband connection from some box in the guys basement. All Flash, no substance.
Slashdot Mirror
Yup, Big Business does indeed have more lawyers than you and me. This was to be expected.
Yesterday, I got wiped on the floor for suggesting that this will happen to the new Anti-Spam law in Cali.
Well, froth at the mouth all you want, it *will* come to pass.
The Blacklist Groups became arrogant beyond belief and alienated some of their strongest early supporters. We all know the story: blacklisting whole IP blocks (never mind the collateral damage to innocent parties, that's their fault for hosting with spammers, blaw, blaw, blaw...)
These people have NO ONE but THEMSELVES to blame, and the Internet is better off without their "I Am God" attitude.
First, I don't run nor use Microsoft products in my network, though it has to do not only with shitty MS software but also pricing and flexibility of the platform to use non MS apps, as well.
...but I'm willing to bet the time differential between when the Copyright owner of the code knows about the problem, and when the patch is released, is much larger with Microsoft then with Open Source...
But I think al lot of this gets tossed around as the Gospel with nothing more than antidotes back it up:
Yes, and Microsoft followers will be willing to bet the opposite, so what.
Finally, in my experience, on a Red Hat Linux machine, there is almost nothing I've upgraded in the last 3 years that was a security fix.
You made no security upgrades to your RH box in 3 years? Is it attached to the Internet? Please post your domain name and IP (be nice and tell us both the internal and external IP... After all, you have nothing to fear, right?), I'm sure there are some more devious types around here who would be able to show you some things
The fact is, *nix, and Linux in particular, and Open Source in general just do not get the same level heat for the same level of security fuck-ups. This dishonesty, in turn, colors the way a lot of the corporate suits look at Linux / Open Source ("it's backed up by a bunch of delusional religious zealots"), and this is why until the Open Source movement is more honest about the nature of software flaws, Open Source will never be embraced by corporate business.
My guess is that as a percentage more numskulls run Windows then Red Hat, but I think that's because Windows users/admins are a significantly larger group. To run Red Hat isn't done by the average home users. If Red Hat shipped by default on as many machines, that statement would flip flop, and Red Hat would have a higher percentage of clueless users.
Exactly. And in this respect, if Open Source wants to be accepted by a larger percentage of commercial MS users, they need to do a lot better at PR, rather than frothing at Darl et al.
It's a risk/benefit thing. HP get the benefit of the world knowing they're covered under HP. HP know the risk SCO's claims mean anything is less than that benefit.
Absolutely a risk / benefit thing. HP (who can certainly afford high caliber analysts) has decided that SCO is full of shit, so the risk of SCO drying up HP coffers via law suites is very slim. Now if only other companies would take notice of this (like Red Hat, perhaps).
By the way, has SCO been very quiet on the public FUD front of late? Darl seems to have lost his frothy verbal spew.
Suspended? Do you have any idea how our legal system works? You mean appealed? Ha, you see this one going to the Supreme Court? "One's Constitutional Right to Spam"
Do you correct spelling too? You know exactly what I mean, so why make yourself look like such an ass? Unlike *some* people here, I do not pretend to be a lawyer
I am simply pointing out that with an almost 100% chance, this will be put into a legal holding pattern.
Open Source has less SEVERE security issues, because of how many patches are made available. Issues in Open Source software tend to be patched quicker than in closed software.
The very NUMBER of patches that MS issues shows this statement to be false. Microsoft issues TONS of patches, most before or shortly the vulnerability becomes known. Sorry, but these is the facts!
With Microsoft, it seems as though every time you patch, something else gets broken.Sure, dependencies can be an issue. But saying that upgrading and patching *nix platforms does not produce any mind-numbing dependency issues is simply a self delusion.
Problem is, this is meaningless. It will almost certainly be suspended while it goes through the court system, to it's ultimate death at the hands of people who have much more money than you or I to pay off the lawyers, courts, politicos. This bill is meaningless.
I have no need for Potable OpenSSH, since I only drink alcohol.
HOW DARE you bring up flaws in Open Source software. But on a more serious note, the items discussed yesterday were either no longer being supported by their keepers, or damn close to it.... Not sure that using obsolete projects to make a point is valid...
Sorry, should have used the tags. My point is, everytime Microsoft / Big Business has a security issue (and there are LOTS), they get just a little different treatment verses security issues with "open source". Please don't try to go down the road that "open source" has less security issues / patches, statistacally, that's a load of shit.
But, like you said, good programming habbits are not exclusive.
OpenSSH... A Microsoft product, right? Oppss... Forgot, one can not criticize open source on the same standards we hold "M$" to...
I'm thinking, get rid of the central gas fired heater I have, and just build a couple cheap AMD 64 boxes and leave the case open. Lord knows AMDs burn hot enough!
People have been talking about this for quite some time, but the paper-pushers in the elections offices don't really care, because no one who matters (and, no, you and I *do not* matter) gives a shit. Probably also, they are quite fine with the ability to clean up their fuck-ups without leaving a trace (especially here in King County, Washington).
The sad thing is... *there is NO shortage of bandwidth* If comcast or DSL providers didn't over-charge and limit download, their profit would dry up.
Slashdot finally achieves total irrelevancy...
A Google search for "Apple MacIntoshes" produces nothing for several pages except computer.
ICANN has no teeth. VeriSign is a 12,000,000 pound garilla, and might just take the TLD away from ICANN, not the other way around.
I would fully expect ICANN to release some sort of order or advisory telling Verisign to stop this practice or lose their contract to run the .com and .net registries.
And then VeriSign will sue. In "Today's" business world, they might just win.
Remember, MSN Search is not Microsoft, it's Inktomi
To be more "SPACIFIC" (sic), my search results from MSN tend to include dozens (if not more) of "search" sites - pages set up with hundreds of keywords or squatted domain names designed to get hits and redirect you to some type of SPAM site. Yahoo! is starting to get this way as well, although the problem is not as prevalent as it is with MSN.com. I rarely see this happen in a Google-found site.
There ya go. Facts.
Ahhhh yes. When all else fails, make fun of spelling, using the "[sic]" to highlight your brain power. Whatever. But the paragraph above is hardly "facts", it's just another statement.
Interestingly, another follow-up points out the MSN result to the search for "tits". That's a fact.
The search capabilities are horrible; Google is much better...
It's easy to just rattle off the standard anti-M$ line (and get "insightful"), few people here would require you back it up with (gasp) facts. So, can you be more SPACIFIC? Exactly *how* is the MSN search flaky?
Please quit your sputtering.
Not only that, but if someone had a domain, but didn't have a host in the domain, they're claiming that as theirs, too.
What about this? Not just squating on unregistered domains, but also squating on domains that *ARE* owned but not hosted or otherwise pointed at anything?
I wonder if I can send them a bill for using my domain name?
Don't sweat it, it's just a PC.
It's just a PC. What's the big news here? Jesus.
It's just a big Flashed-out web site, and their address in Longboat Key is a residence, not a business address. Their domain is using Register.com's DNS server which means they are probibly hosting this pig on a broadband connection from some box in the guys basement. All Flash, no substance.