Ha...this will be interesting I bet most of you are thinking that not we might be able to "catch" up with to Ms and be able to add better suppert for Ms Office in Open Office and/or others. The question is if it's XML in text or in binary. Also, with Ms' drm, everything will start to be encrypted soon. So...they might have opened the XML but legaly you might not be able to open the document.
How can you simulate the universe without knowing enought about it. There's still undiscovored planets and other objects which could change significantly the simulation. These unknown variables will cause inaccurate results.
All the points made here are very true, even the greatest coppy protection will be broken in time. Some people will know how to get around it sooner then others, some may never findout that there's a way around it. People already know how to get around it and i think that less complicated way to get around it.
I think the point here is to reduce the ammount of copies, they know they can't stop them completely. and this should work for a little while with the average user.
You might say that there's a way now, it easy! But, you are a slashdotter who was a backbround in either electronics or/and computer. What would the average user say if they couldn't copy the cd??? Would they know what to do?
That all depends really. The best tool always changes depending on the job that needs to be done. I would like to know some other veriables used in this study in additionto "250-seat".
Someone does a study and, Windows people clap... Someone else does a study and, Gnu people brag...
What's with the inconsistencies? Is it because we don't know all the veriables? Or is it because the people who study this cannot be trusted for one reason or another?
Anyway, i don't think that any results of this kind are to be trusted. The results will not always be thesome. I suggest that everyone who's about to choose an operating system to really look at when their needs are and work from there. Because those results aren't doing anyone any good.
All that means is that we will move to another digest algorithm when this one will become too easy to tamper with. A lot of people already provide sha-1 or a signiture of the files they provide. And that will be our solution until it fails. Just like cryptography.
Strong -> stong -> weaker -> weak -> time to move on
"it's increasingly evident the OS wars are down to three - Microsoft Windows, Sun's Solaris, and Red Hat's Linux."
It could be taken that way...But did anyone for a second stopped and thought that that just means that redhut is considered as the only major player that is worth considering, the biggest most commercial distribution?
That statement doesn't immediately mean that redhut owns linux. They just own hajority of the of the linux market share.
What makes windows so easy to attack? I have been running varients of windows and linux for years. I know a bit about windows but not so much about linux. And yet windows on average gets infected once every month. Linux however, never. Don't get my wrong, this is not a pro linux post. I just think it's strange.
The x86 still dominates and other architectures are not that often being used for anything other then specialised jobs. When an average joe needs a new computer, he goes an consults the "experts" at a near by electronics store and ends up buying a P4 HP or a Dell.
Most people where I live see IBM and Apple as companies with potentian but still on the sidelines as compared to the x86 where Indel and AMD dominate. And I don't think IBM wants to compete for the x86, they have been there before...
An Apple and IBM marriager would make things interesting. One the one side, they have been dealing with eachother for quite some time now. And on the other they are not really compeating with eachother as both compete for different market shares.
I think that they are already working closely. Would it really make a difference? I don't think it would.
Im not quite sure what's the bug deal about the cell. It doesn't sound all that different to what we have now. A few proccesors and a couple of specialized processors for other things. What am i missing?
Don't you think i know that? I just don't think that 2.6 is ready yet. Each time a new kernel tree is started, it get's all the developers. Then you have to worry about shit like backporting because there's no point writing the code again!
My point is to modify the way the kernel is structured so it's more modular so that code can be used in either kernel tree without modifications. None of this backport shit and then fix bugs because it's not compatible with the older structure.
Im not sure if i like the idea. Developers have have lives, that's why the developement is moving at the pace it is. And i like the pace the developement is at. Forking another kernel tree will split the developers apart and slow down the developement of the 2.6 kernel.
What seems to me like a good idea is to modularize the code so that you can just plug things in and out. That way, if the kernel got forked it wouldn't be much work to remove and add support. I would also like to see projects dedicated to only certain parts of the kernel. For exampmle, one group does networking and another does video and maybe one that check and approves the code. From then on the code would be piecet together in whatever way it suits people and because there's ony one group working on a particular part of the kernel, there would be no repetition. "One fit's all" sort of spreak. One "driver" or piece of code to support some hardware would work an all forks. Then each fork would be kind of like a distribution of pieced together code.
It's been said before that the best security works by using something people have and something people know. So what's the deal here? What's something they know if it's not a password?
Unless it's a trick. They'll use a passcpde or passphrase instead...
I do see your point. But like previous member replyd, what's wrong with usb to serial converter to keep your expensive hardware running.
It shouldn't affect the performance of serial port by running it throught usb.
Also, like it or not, boards with ports like serial will become increasingly harder to come across. So you will have o get used to looking for alternatives.
It's a pain really... Need a new pc now? Yes: Pay up for a pc that almost outdated as soon at you use it. No: No old pc is running ok, i'll get one later...."Later" on Need a new pc now? Yes: Pay up for a pc WITHOUT the old ports (or a shit loads more for a board with them) and try to look for hard to get converters.
My thero, get it not and adjust. The converters won't always be around either. But when you can't get them, will be the time you won't be able to get expensive boards with legacy ports either.
Less complexity and clutter. Thus things are less likely the brake.
Besides, why have 5 different interfaces for different things that you can have 1 for everything? And if it performs just as well or better in some cases, what's the drawback?
Security & usability opposites? No, an application can be secure and just as usefull.
Security & ease of use on the otherhand. Security is an inconvinience when it comes to ease of use.
Look at automatic login (In Windows XP or Linux) for example. Convinient? Yes. Easy? Reasonable easy to setup. Secure? Unless the console is in a bunker bunker with you and no one else. Not really.
The size will be an issue. It's a big enough pain to work on a standerd ATX machine let alone micro or picoBTX.
It is however a good idea that all the old connections are gone. Pci, Isa, Parallal and Serial. The only problem is that one now has to seriously think before buying BTX machine if they want their old mice and printer to work.
The key to manipulating anything is to understand how it works. Since viruses and worms are just "bad" programs or pieces of code that manipulate other programs (eg. MS Outlook), there should be no reason why you couldn't reverse engineer then. Assuming they can be found.
I thought those methods were already used? What to companies making anti-virus applications to to understand viruses?
Slashdot Mirror
Ha...this will be interesting
I bet most of you are thinking that not we might be able to "catch" up with to Ms and be able to add better suppert for Ms Office in Open Office and/or others.
The question is if it's XML in text or in binary.
Also, with Ms' drm, everything will start to be encrypted soon. So...they might have opened the XML but legaly you might not be able to open the document.
How can you simulate the universe without knowing enought about it. There's still undiscovored planets and other objects which could change significantly the simulation. These unknown variables will cause inaccurate results.
This doesn't yet mean much but, at least it's a step in the right direction.
If governments continue to promote open source, i don't know who this would be a bigger victory. Open source? Standards?...
For example like the once set by World Wide Web Consortium that Microsoft never really bothered to comply with.
I'll support that!
All the points made here are very true, even the greatest coppy protection will be broken in time. Some people will know how to get around it sooner then others, some may never findout that there's a way around it. People already know how to get around it and i think that less complicated way to get around it.
I think the point here is to reduce the ammount of copies, they know they can't stop them completely. and this should work for a little while with the average user.
You might say that there's a way now, it easy! But, you are a slashdotter who was a backbround in either electronics or/and computer. What would the average user say if they couldn't copy the cd??? Would they know what to do?
I wonder if this has anything to do with Microsoft buying out that Spyware Removal Company?
Slashdot post here
Giant Company Software In. site here
That all depends really. The best tool always changes depending on the job that needs to be done. I would like to know some other veriables used in this study in additionto "250-seat".
Someone does a study and, Windows people clap...
Someone else does a study and, Gnu people brag...
What's with the inconsistencies?
Is it because we don't know all the veriables?
Or is it because the people who study this cannot be trusted for one reason or another?
Anyway, i don't think that any results of this kind are to be trusted. The results will not always be thesome. I suggest that everyone who's about to choose an operating system to really look at when their needs are and work from there.
Because those results aren't doing anyone any good.
Much more? 36% is a lot of money in the corporate world. Speacialy when it comes to spending it. Companies want to make money, not spend it.
Well...at leasn now we know that the recordings are realistic!
I don't see the big deal. What happened to CRC?
All that means is that we will move to another digest algorithm when this one will become too easy to tamper with. A lot of people already provide sha-1 or a signiture of the files they provide. And that will be our solution until it fails. Just like cryptography.
Strong -> stong -> weaker -> weak -> time to move on
"it's increasingly evident the OS wars are down to three - Microsoft Windows, Sun's Solaris, and Red Hat's Linux."
It could be taken that way...But did anyone for a second stopped and thought that that just means that redhut is considered as the only major player that is worth considering, the biggest most commercial distribution?
That statement doesn't immediately mean that redhut owns linux. They just own hajority of the of the linux market share.
What makes windows so easy to attack?
I have been running varients of windows and linux for years. I know a bit about windows but not so much about linux. And yet windows on average gets infected once every month. Linux however, never.
Don't get my wrong, this is not a pro linux post. I just think it's strange.
The x86 still dominates and other architectures are not that often being used for anything other then specialised jobs. When an average joe needs a new computer, he goes an consults the "experts" at a near by electronics store and ends up buying a P4 HP or a Dell.
Most people where I live see IBM and Apple as companies with potentian but still on the sidelines as compared to the x86 where Indel and AMD dominate. And I don't think IBM wants to compete for the x86, they have been there before...
An Apple and IBM marriager would make things interesting. One the one side, they have been dealing with eachother for quite some time now. And on the other they are not really compeating with eachother as both compete for different market shares.
I think that they are already working closely.
Would it really make a difference? I don't think it would.
Im not quite sure what's the bug deal about the cell. It doesn't sound all that different to what we have now. A few proccesors and a couple of specialized processors for other things. What am i missing?
Ok...what if or when they fail? What if the sensors fail? Changing them would be a pain and the road would become patchy from changing the sensors.
Next they'll want to read my mind...How does one stay private these days?
Don't you think i know that? I just don't think that 2.6 is ready yet. Each time a new kernel tree is started, it get's all the developers. Then you have to worry about shit like backporting because there's no point writing the code again!
My point is to modify the way the kernel is structured so it's more modular so that code can be used in either kernel tree without modifications. None of this backport shit and then fix bugs because it's not compatible with the older structure.
Im not sure if i like the idea. Developers have have lives, that's why the developement is moving at the pace it is. And i like the pace the developement is at. Forking another kernel tree will split the developers apart and slow down the developement of the 2.6 kernel.
What seems to me like a good idea is to modularize the code so that you can just plug things in and out. That way, if the kernel got forked it wouldn't be much work to remove and add support. I would also like to see projects dedicated to only certain parts of the kernel. For exampmle, one group does networking and another does video and maybe one that check and approves the code. From then on the code would be piecet together in whatever way it suits people and because there's ony one group working on a particular part of the kernel, there would be no repetition. "One fit's all" sort of spreak. One "driver" or piece of code to support some hardware would work an all forks. Then each fork would be kind of like a distribution of pieced together code.
It's been said before that the best security works by using something people have and something people know. So what's the deal here? What's something they know if it's not a password?
Unless it's a trick. They'll use a passcpde or passphrase instead...
I do see your point. But like previous member replyd, what's wrong with usb to serial converter to keep your expensive hardware running.
..."Later" on
It shouldn't affect the performance of serial port by running it throught usb.
Also, like it or not, boards with ports like serial will become increasingly harder to come across. So you will have o get used to looking for alternatives.
It's a pain really...
Need a new pc now?
Yes: Pay up for a pc that almost outdated as soon at you use it.
No: No old pc is running ok, i'll get one later.
Need a new pc now?
Yes: Pay up for a pc WITHOUT the old ports (or a shit loads more for a board with them) and try to look for hard to get converters.
My thero, get it not and adjust. The converters won't always be around either. But when you can't get them, will be the time you won't be able to get expensive boards with legacy ports either.
Less complexity and clutter. Thus things are less likely the brake.
Besides, why have 5 different interfaces for different things that you can have 1 for everything? And if it performs just as well or better in some cases, what's the drawback?
Security & usability opposites? No, an application can be secure and just as usefull.
Security & ease of use on the otherhand. Security is an inconvinience when it comes to ease of use.
Look at automatic login (In Windows XP or Linux) for example. Convinient? Yes. Easy? Reasonable easy to setup. Secure? Unless the console is in a bunker bunker with you and no one else. Not really.
The size will be an issue. It's a big enough pain to work on a standerd ATX machine let alone micro or picoBTX.
It is however a good idea that all the old connections are gone. Pci, Isa, Parallal and Serial. The only problem is that one now has to seriously think before buying BTX machine if they want their old mice and printer to work.
Why not use ssh or ssl to encrypt all communication? Or maybe public/private key encryption?
The key to manipulating anything is to understand how it works. Since viruses and worms are just "bad" programs or pieces of code that manipulate other programs (eg. MS Outlook), there should be no reason why you couldn't reverse engineer then. Assuming they can be found.
I thought those methods were already used? What to companies making anti-virus applications to to understand viruses?