I don't think Netscape died purely because of lack of innovation although they did nothing to help themselves, I agree on that.
Microsoft's strategy with IE was very cunning:
- Firstly, they made it part of Windows which meant it was "in your face" to every Windows user even though it was the inferior browser. With a whole lot of home users still on modems, why should they continue to bother with downloading large Netscape installation files with a browser already there?
- Secondly, they added their own proprietary extensions to HTML and handed out FrontPage like it was water. Netscape could not cope with MS's extensions or the mangled code that FrontPage deliberately churned out (around about FrontPage 98).
- Thirdly, they did their own thing with JavaVM, eventually bundling that in with IE also.
The result? Netscape couldn't render HTML (with MS extensions) properly, developing sites in Frontpage for Netscape was a nightmare (I know, I was there developing corporate websites using the "company standard" of Frontpage) and a whole heap of Java apps built on the MS JavaVM no longer worked.
To give Microsoft their credit, it was one helluva an attack on Netscape on virtually all fronts at once and I doubt anything Netscape could've done at the time would have made any difference.
That's why I'm a little puzzled with Microsoft's current lack of interest with developing IE any further. I guess there's no more money to be made from IE so the focus is now getting DRM through the back door in Windows Media Player.
I'm just hoping that, through Mozilla, Opera, etc. we get a return to the HTML open standard and can stop worrying about browser specifics when developing web stuff.
Will the same happen with Windows Media Player? I don't know but I think there's a lot more risk in it this time for Microsoft because many more people now have the faster connectivity and interest in downloading stuff from the Internet. They're already not too happy about buying DRM CDs that don't play in cars and CD-Rom drives and Microsoft knows that if they have to remove WMP from Windows, that will be it for their DRM plans because users will have to go find free media players to download - that's why their trying desperately to get away with bundling in competitor software in Windows instead.
If nothing else, it's going to get very interesting watching the MS vs EU battle...
If you're going to say that then we have win95, win98, win2k, winnt, winxp.
Yes, and there are thousands of utilities that run on all those versions of Windows as a few binaries and libraries that are put on the PC at installation time.
Try finding a single compiled binary or library that runs on all UNIXes across all the hardware that UNIX runs on. (Surely someone with 20 years UNIX experience would know this?)
I'm tired of all this let's kill windows bullshit.
Fine, in which case you've responded to the wrong posting - I implied "let's kill those Windows users who are too lazy to learn how their PCs work", a big difference.
I've been a unix and now linux person for almost 20 years.
...and presumably your shell-scripts are also filled with profanities also...
I'm tired of the elitist shit that goes on in our community.
So you have a problem with people learning to better themselves, do you? Then you're no different to those lazy users that cause these problems in the first place.
Anyone who has decided to use Linux, OS X, OpenBSD, etc is hopefully sensible enough to know that security is a process not a goal.
Anyone doing stupid enough to do so on an Internet forum would be just asking for trouble so I don't know who it is you think actually believes this - I certainly know of no-one.
I agree that encryption is a part of the problem but basic stuff like not running the (clear text) services you don't need, using inetd type restrictions and a reasonably configured firewall / NAT router goes a long way towards good security.
No disrespect to the knowledgeable Windows people on Slashdot (or anywhere else) but the fact of the matter is that the Windows community is rife with stupid, lazy users who are the biggest cause of the whole problem.
I think the issue with Linux is that the developer community should not listen to the people calling out for "ease of use" anyway, at least from the point of view of trying to get Windows users to migrate over.
People need to understand that you cannot decide to use Linux purely because of a fashion statement or an anti-Microsoft feeling. Sure, a lot of people have come into Linux in that way but they've also taken the time to learn about Linux in the process to the point where it becomes "easy to use" to them.
The issue of companies developing for Linux is different entirely. If we accept that the Open Source movement is still growing, then do we need to worry about commercial software being ported over to Linux? I do everything I need to in Linux these days and I always compile from source anyway (via Gentoo Linux). It would be nice to have a few more games brought over from Windows but other than that, I accept that there will be more and more Open Source software available to me as time goes on.
I think a little perspective is needed here as I don't recall any of the important players & programmers in the Open Source movement ever making a statement about wanting to bring users in from the Windows community. They're just writing good software that's free to use to all & sometimes needs some effort to get working.
It's wrong treating the whole thing as a "Linux vs Windows" war because it's just about having an alternative, free way of doing things.
The fact that not everyone has the exact same operating system nor the exact same component and software configuration tends to undermine the argument of 'monoculture' somewhat more.
I'm no Windows programming guru but even I know that certain elements of Windows have existed right from Windows 9x through to XP - sure, MSDOS disappeared but much of the GUI and Win32 bits remains the same.
Then add Outlook or Outlook Express with the same core mail engine and I reckon you can capture 95% of the Windows user base with "similar" setups.
People want to learn as much as they need to - and not have to constantly relearn it - in order to do the things they want to do with the computer.
Most people are too damn lazy to want to learn anything (as I said in my earlier post). Isn't it self evident that they need to know more or just take their virus-ridden PCs off of the Internet... end of story.
We take drunk drivers off the road because they cannot act responsibly for other users, what's the difference?
I'd REALLY like to see Linux be available to anyone without having to have any knowledge of Unix protocols, have the same driver support and always be able to run ANY program regardless of the original OS requirements without having to constantly tweak everything into compliance.
I most certainly would not. Microsoft have always sold their products in exactly the same way and everyone here would agree that viruses spread because people simply do not know what they are doing with their PCs - if they took the time to learn a bit more, they wouldn't be so stupid as to open every email attachment they receive...
Solaris, AIX, HP-UX, BSD, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, SCO Unixware, Tru64, Linux etc. running on PCs, SPARCS, DEC PDPs and other vendor-specific server hardware...
Still looking for that "UNIX monoculture" in there...
Is it just me or do all these pro- and anti-Microsoft "prophets" seem to be missing the point entirely?
The Internet is created on a suite of open protocols that were originally designed for academics & research people to use. Go back 20-odd years and there were no issues of security because only a select few had access to computer networks. Consequently, there was no security built into TCP/IP because there was no need for them.
Now we have a situation whereby if you are a sensible & knowledgeable computer type, whether you use open or closed source software, you can make a pretty good job of securing computers for the Internet - sure, you probably have a reliance on getting the latest patches, putting in a firewall or two but you can do it. No computer is ever fully secure but you can make it enough of a challenge so that the 99.9% of script kiddies give up trying to crack it and the other 0.1% of knoweledgeable crackers probably don't want to waste time with your little box anyway.
Then onto email viruses... Knowledgeable computer users don't suffer from email viruses because they either use email clients that can't execute attachments or they set their machines up so that they know when and when not to run attachments - probably by simply looking at whether or not the sender of the email is to be trusted.
So, in summary, I see this as two core issues, nothing more:
1. Hype and marketing - Microsoft and other software vendors need to step away from the "sales speak" and simply not be allowed to tell Joe Public that PCs are "easy to use" or "secure". It's no different to reminding people to watch their speed and check their tyre treads on a new car, after all... Where are all these "advertising standards" groups that are supposed to ensure adverts convey truth, not lies?
2. User laziness - Joe Public needs to get off his backside and learn how to use the Internet properly and how to secure his PC - again, no different to spending time and money in learning to drive. Far too many people, taken in by the glossy adverts and hype, just sit back and expect software vendors to take away all their responsibility away from them because they themselves simply cannot be bothered.
What really annoys me about this whole issue is that software (and hardware) companies are only going to react to security issues in their products in a way that makes them more money. If the vendor already has his boxed software on the store shelves, he really has no incentive to employ people to work on further security for his products unless his reputation is so bad that he is forced to improve his software at the risk of losing sales - and you only have to look at Microsoft's currently poor reputation and their actual focus on security to see how far down that reputation must go before any action is taken...
However, on the other hand, DRM can be sold as a security-improving product on the back of peoples' fears of Internet viruses while allowing the Microsoft and others to make money licensing DRM.
I wish people like Dan Greer would focus more on the ultimate impact of letting Microsoft "take the blame" only to have Microsoft respond with a technology that will make them more money and cut off our freedoms in the process.
I'm all for the "Douglas Adams" approach to the Mars colonization issue...
Convince all the young talentless people that everyone on Earth is going to die from a nasty virus and pack Brittney Spears, Justin Timberlake, Busted and all the Pop Idols on the first colonization ship...
Then the rest of us can enjoy proper music in the mainstream again!
If the source code got leaked, Win2k will get exploited by...
Apparently the leak has been confirmed but it's some of the source code, not all of it. Only time will tell whether it's an important bit of source code.
I mean, with linux there's a temptation but nobody runs it.
You cannot think of Linux in the same way that you are thinking of Windows.
Two people who use a Linux system could be running entirely different systems with few or no common applications across the systems - this is why it is unlikely that something like a worm virus would propagate through the Linux community in the same way it would through the Windows community.
Linux is by no means immune from attack, but if one comes, it will be a particular application (e.g. Apache) that will get attacked and whether a specific Apache system is affected will depend on the version, what modules are loaded to allow things like CGI scripts, etc.
When you say nobody runs it, I agree it's a minority on the desktop but the applications that run on Linux (and the likes of BSD, Solaris, etc.) like sendmail, BIND, Apache, etc. are very widespread and a lot more so than IIS or Exchange in many cases.
MS leaked it intentionally so they can get everyone to patch with their DRM system.
Microsoft are an arrogant company and have no doubts about getting DRM through the door with the way they do things currently - DRM's success or failure is now simply based on the level of it's acceptance in the user base, nothing more.
If anything, a source code leakage would allow everyone access to how MS's DRM technology works.
Whatever the extent of the leak, MS will downplay it because to not do so will affect the share prices. There is no conspiracy theory here...
I mean, I like linux and all but this isn't the way to win at all.
There is no battle here. Linux exists despite Microsoft and offers an alternative way of doing things to Windows.
Microsoft may attack Open Source on a regular basis but the Open Source community does not care - it is just creating good quality, free software and defending it's right to do so. This will happen no differently with or without competition from Microsoft.
I thought we were going to slowly beat them back into submission and competition, not completly screw them and quite a few million over.
You're now implying that a member of the Linux / Open Source community stole the source code and I resent that.
No Open Source programmer cares about seeing MS proprietary code. To do so would run the strong risk of inadvertently incorporating MS code into an application and nothing would please MS more as it would allow them to send the copyright lawyers in.
The only thing the Open Source community will care about is if MS's code contains GPL code but I doubt even MS would be stupid enough to do something like that.
Well, time to begin caching DNS entries to websites I use the most, and it may be high time to backup some of this data and close all the nat ports on my router just to be extra safe.
Perhaps you'd also like to stock up your kitchen cupboard with canned food and make yourself up a tin foil helmet also...
If you haven't secured your router then I'm surprised you haven't been attacked already. Also, the core DNS system mainly runs on BIND & Solaris (so I'm led to believe) so it's unlikely that this would be affected.
In all honesty, you are being far too sensationalist at this stage and my advice is simply to wait and see what happens. I doubt it will be very much...
In other news, trainee plumber G.P. License has announced that after 10 years of hard work, he has finally fixed the leakage of the Open Source operating system, Lunix, onto the Internet by replacing a small, worn-out plastic washer in the BSD IP stack.
Mr License was unwilling to make much comment to our reporter - upon packing his toolbag up and phoning his wife to get the dinner in the oven, Mr License said "Move along folks. All done here now, nothing else to see."
Amongst their other technological feats, Microsoft have now invented the time machine and have succeeded in travelling to the future, getting hold of the Samba source code and travelling back to the early development days of Windows 2000 to incorporate future Samba source code within Windows 2000. So now that the source code to Windows 2000 is released, MS can now sue the Samba team for copying their code.
(1) Now that the source code is leaked, more virus developers can write more viruses, making it dangerous to use Windows.
Windows viruses affect everyone. We all use the same Internet that slows down when the latest worm hits. Virus writers are scum, kill them all.
(2) Concerned individuals and companies can learn from those who look at the code just how BAD the vulnerabilities ARE.
Probably, but what can they do about it? It's Microsoft's IP, they can't fix it and just hand it back. Virus writers will probably write more worms, the Internet slows down, we all suffer (see 1).
This could very well accelerate migration away from Windows and towards other OS's which are secure despite having available source code.
Erm, Open Source software is quite happily gaining market share without the need for this, thank you very much. Up to now it's being doing so on the basis of being software that's as good as, or better than, what MS write. It has not needed any visibility of MS IP to do this.
I am certainly no MS fan but this theft is nothing more than someone somewhere wanting some kudos.
C'mon, people! The real fight is not having DRM pushed down our throats, not tearing apart MS's source code...
Before now, it could be assumed that Samba developers were working from scratch- clean room implementations, because it wouldn't be possible for them to have the source code.
Oh, come on, get real! You miss one very important point in your comment...
The source code to SAMBA is Open Source!
This means that MS have probably got a few copies of Samba themselves already and were there any licensed MS code in it, you can rest assured the Microsoft would have sent their lawyers over long before now.
Just accept that the Samba guys are a pretty neat bunch of programmers that have genuinely backwards engineered Samba from the word go - it's the likeliest and most realistic conclusion to draw.
I'm sure that (if and) when my missus starts using Linux, it'll still be my fault when her PC falls over...
"You didn't compile my kernel properly and now my kernel has panicked and I can't boot my PC and my mother said I should never have got together with a geek like you and you never buy me any nice presents and..."
I hope that you are in the minority of open source advocates that share this opinion.
What? The opinion that you take control & responsibility for your PC and the data on it rather than letting a money-hungry corporation take control of it and imposing their restrictive methods on you to limit your access to your data? I hope not...
If you aren't, open source software will never leave the stage that it's currently in.
And what state do you consider it to be in? I see Open Source software being adopted more widely by more people as time goes on - sounds like a pretty successful state to me...
If you look around at all consumer products, the thing you should notice is that "some assembly required" doesn't sell more units (unless weren't talking about Legos). You don't need to buy tires for your new car or heating coils for your brand new toaster.
Just because consumer products are designed as pre-packaged and throwaway, does not mean that some people do not enjoy taking things apart, whether that's software or a toaster.
But, again, like the other replies to my original post, you've not fully understood what I said.
I would be a hypocrite and a zealot forcing you to use software that was more difficult to use than what you are accustomed to using currently & that is not my intention.
What I am saying is that continuing to have a reliance on certain proprietary software products (not just those made by Microsoft) forces you to adopt proprietary methods which, ultimately, will limit what you can and currently do in a computer environment. For example, putting the piracy argument entirely to one side, most people consider it perfectly reasonable to pay for an audio CD or DVD once and to have the ability to make MP3s or MPEG movies for their own personal use. If Microsoft and others have their way, you will pay a charge each time you do that - that limits your freedoms.
This is not simply an argument of Windows v Linux or Mozilla v Internet Explorer - it is about how much you value your freedom and what sort of effort you will put in to maintaining those freedoms.
Remember that you can, for example, refuse to accept proprietary document standards simply by substituting MS Office for Open Office and still run Windows. Likewise, run Mozilla instead of IE and you help to maintain the open standards of HTML.
I see what you are trying to say, but the point is that you can not expect users to understand that: "It doesn't work because it's open source".
I'm not saying that at all because then I would be implying that Open Source software is always of inferior quality to commercial software. The fact is, there is good and rubbish Open Source Software and commercial software...
Linux is a frustrating systems to use. I've been using it for a few years and I have seen things improve dramatically but there are several things that piss me off regularly.
It's a case of "You get out what you put in." It's not for me to enforce on you whether you use Linux or Windows, only you can decide that. But I personally respect anyone who has "tried it and not liked it" - unfortunately, many contributors on here take an immediate "anti-Linux" stance but their arguments always show that they've based them on rumour and speculation, rather than personal experience.
What I will say is that if you want Linux to be easier to use, you should make those feelings known to the maker of the distro you used or to the application developers.
When was the last time you tried to upgrade to a newer version of Mozilla?
About 2 weeks ago, actually. I use Gentoo Linux, did "emerge sync" and "emerge mozilla", went to bed leaving it compiling and in the morning it was done. Okay, it tool a couple of hours to compile but it worked.
Have you ever tried it on Windows?
Yes, and it's easy to install there also.
What do you tell your friend who just recently switched to Suse from Windows and wants to upgrade? "OK, just DL the tarball and untar, then./configure..." He said "boot Windows and just click setup.
I'd say "Why do you need to upgrade?" firstly. That's not a facetious answer but there's no real need to upgrade Linux purely for the sake of it. (Why upgrade to Windows XP if Windows 98 does all that you need to?) If there's a need to fix a security exploit, then SuSE probably have an RPM for it on their web site. If there's a need to upgrade the kernel, say, to support some new hardware, I'd show him how to look for a kernel RPM and if there wasn't one, I'd assist him in compiling one from source.
Mindset is good until you try to talk about reaching users who don't care and don't have the time or patience to deal with the hassle.
Yes, but I am saying that those users will care when they can no longer burn MP3s from their CDs, not run DRM'ed documents on certain PCs and have to pay on a regular basis for the right to do less with their data than they could before.
I want them to know enough to realise that proprietary protocols may be being stated as a combat to piracy but are in fact just there to make some corporation(s) a lot more money and to introduce a "rental" policy for items that were previously "owned".
No amount of "you need a different mindset" is going to help that. The system needs to be easier to use for the novice user.
I agree but the system will not get easier until you speak up and tell people why it's not easy enough...
If the Open Source community wants general public acceptance, then it must change the way it works to suit the general public. Period.
It doesn't necessarily want general public acceptance, you're missing the point entirely! It just wants to create good free software that people use and get enthusiastic about. Ask yourself the motivations behind an Open Source programmer doing the job he/she does. Money? Obviously not? Fame? Possibly. A "job well done"? Definitely.
For all of its bitching and grousing, it is plainly evident that the overwhelming majority of the general public is either happy with Microsoft's way of doing things, or at least not sufficiently unhappy with it to switch to F/OSS products.
I agree entirely - use the software that does the job best for what you want to do, whether it's made by Microsoft or A.N. Other. I don't believe I implied anything otherwise in my original post. That's why I always mention the wealth of free software on Windows too.
Folks like you and I, who are happy (or at least willing) to tinker with sloppily packaged applications and able to dig into makefiles and source code are and will always be a tiny minority.
I agree that is something Joe Public isn't want to go and do but I think you're painting an extreme picture. Package management isn't perfect but it works most of the time - no different to MS or any other commercial software.
People want ease of use. And they want it ahead of technical superiority. They don't care about standards compliance, and most of them aren't even aware that there are standards. Moreover, that isn't going to change soon or in two thousand years.
"Technical superiority" is a personal viewpoint - I believe Linux is "technically superior" to Windows, an ace VB programmer will consider MS Office technically superior to Open Office, neither's right or wrong.
Standards compliance is a completely separate issue particularly when closed standards start costing "Joe Public" in his wallet over free open standards - e.g. DRM.
That's why the message needs to be spread now that although you consider closed source software to fit your requirements, just be aware that you run the risk of being locked into proprietary standards and a "rental" model that will expect you to pay regularly for the loss of your freedoms in the future.
F/OSS isn't a business as such, but we are selling product. We may not be after money as an end product in most cases, but we are after widespread user acceptance. To get that, we must give people what they want. It's just that simple. It boggles my mind that marketroids with room-temperature IQs can grasp this concept as the inalterable law of economics that it is, but screamingly brilliant programmers often have trouble understanding it or its paramount importance.
Yes, you are after acceptance and want to give people what they want. For that, you are reliant on user feedback because you don't have the money to spend on market research & pretty coloured packaging.
That's not mindset change; that's just a recipe for being one of those annoying technology advocacy twerps who turn people off to otherwise worthwhile products. Outside of their dwindling fan bases, the only thing people remember about heavily-advocated products like OS/2 and the Amiga is how annoying their advocates were.
Hang on... you're saying that you consider public acceptance as a motivation for being an Open Source programmer yet, on the other hand, you object to someone trying to publicise your work and make its existence known? I don't follow the logic.
I wish you'd distinguish what I'm trying to say in my post from what might be said by a complete zealot. I'm asking people to be aware that they have a choice - if they stay with proprietary software at that point, that's up to them. But what I am doing is surely no different to my handing a friend a music CD I like and saying "Here, give this a try, you might
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft's strategy with IE was very cunning:
- Firstly, they made it part of Windows which meant it was "in your face" to every Windows user even though it was the inferior browser. With a whole lot of home users still on modems, why should they continue to bother with downloading large Netscape installation files with a browser already there?
- Secondly, they added their own proprietary extensions to HTML and handed out FrontPage like it was water. Netscape could not cope with MS's extensions or the mangled code that FrontPage deliberately churned out (around about FrontPage 98).
- Thirdly, they did their own thing with JavaVM, eventually bundling that in with IE also.
The result? Netscape couldn't render HTML (with MS extensions) properly, developing sites in Frontpage for Netscape was a nightmare (I know, I was there developing corporate websites using the "company standard" of Frontpage) and a whole heap of Java apps built on the MS JavaVM no longer worked.
To give Microsoft their credit, it was one helluva an attack on Netscape on virtually all fronts at once and I doubt anything Netscape could've done at the time would have made any difference.
That's why I'm a little puzzled with Microsoft's current lack of interest with developing IE any further. I guess there's no more money to be made from IE so the focus is now getting DRM through the back door in Windows Media Player.
I'm just hoping that, through Mozilla, Opera, etc. we get a return to the HTML open standard and can stop worrying about browser specifics when developing web stuff.
Will the same happen with Windows Media Player? I don't know but I think there's a lot more risk in it this time for Microsoft because many more people now have the faster connectivity and interest in downloading stuff from the Internet. They're already not too happy about buying DRM CDs that don't play in cars and CD-Rom drives and Microsoft knows that if they have to remove WMP from Windows, that will be it for their DRM plans because users will have to go find free media players to download - that's why their trying desperately to get away with bundling in competitor software in Windows instead.
If nothing else, it's going to get very interesting watching the MS vs EU battle...
This is almost exactly the same way that Captain Scarlet woke up the Mysterons...
Yes, and there are thousands of utilities that run on all those versions of Windows as a few binaries and libraries that are put on the PC at installation time.
Try finding a single compiled binary or library that runs on all UNIXes across all the hardware that UNIX runs on. (Surely someone with 20 years UNIX experience would know this?)
I'm tired of all this let's kill windows bullshit.
Fine, in which case you've responded to the wrong posting - I implied "let's kill those Windows users who are too lazy to learn how their PCs work", a big difference.
I've been a unix and now linux person for almost 20 years.
I'm tired of the elitist shit that goes on in our community.
So you have a problem with people learning to better themselves, do you? Then you're no different to those lazy users that cause these problems in the first place.
Anyone doing stupid enough to do so on an Internet forum would be just asking for trouble so I don't know who it is you think actually believes this - I certainly know of no-one.
No disrespect to the knowledgeable Windows people on Slashdot (or anywhere else) but the fact of the matter is that the Windows community is rife with stupid, lazy users who are the biggest cause of the whole problem.
People need to understand that you cannot decide to use Linux purely because of a fashion statement or an anti-Microsoft feeling. Sure, a lot of people have come into Linux in that way but they've also taken the time to learn about Linux in the process to the point where it becomes "easy to use" to them.
The issue of companies developing for Linux is different entirely. If we accept that the Open Source movement is still growing, then do we need to worry about commercial software being ported over to Linux? I do everything I need to in Linux these days and I always compile from source anyway (via Gentoo Linux). It would be nice to have a few more games brought over from Windows but other than that, I accept that there will be more and more Open Source software available to me as time goes on.
I think a little perspective is needed here as I don't recall any of the important players & programmers in the Open Source movement ever making a statement about wanting to bring users in from the Windows community. They're just writing good software that's free to use to all & sometimes needs some effort to get working.
It's wrong treating the whole thing as a "Linux vs Windows" war because it's just about having an alternative, free way of doing things.
"Telephone sanitisers" - presumably another "R&B" band...
I'm no Windows programming guru but even I know that certain elements of Windows have existed right from Windows 9x through to XP - sure, MSDOS disappeared but much of the GUI and Win32 bits remains the same.
Then add Outlook or Outlook Express with the same core mail engine and I reckon you can capture 95% of the Windows user base with "similar" setups.
People want to learn as much as they need to - and not have to constantly relearn it - in order to do the things they want to do with the computer.
Most people are too damn lazy to want to learn anything (as I said in my earlier post). Isn't it self evident that they need to know more or just take their virus-ridden PCs off of the Internet... end of story.
We take drunk drivers off the road because they cannot act responsibly for other users, what's the difference?
I'd REALLY like to see Linux be available to anyone without having to have any knowledge of Unix protocols, have the same driver support and always be able to run ANY program regardless of the original OS requirements without having to constantly tweak everything into compliance.
I most certainly would not. Microsoft have always sold their products in exactly the same way and everyone here would agree that viruses spread because people simply do not know what they are doing with their PCs - if they took the time to learn a bit more, they wouldn't be so stupid as to open every email attachment they receive...
Solaris, AIX, HP-UX, BSD, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, SCO Unixware, Tru64, Linux etc. running on PCs, SPARCS, DEC PDPs and other vendor-specific server hardware...
Still looking for that "UNIX monoculture" in there...
The Internet is created on a suite of open protocols that were originally designed for academics & research people to use. Go back 20-odd years and there were no issues of security because only a select few had access to computer networks. Consequently, there was no security built into TCP/IP because there was no need for them.
Now we have a situation whereby if you are a sensible & knowledgeable computer type, whether you use open or closed source software, you can make a pretty good job of securing computers for the Internet - sure, you probably have a reliance on getting the latest patches, putting in a firewall or two but you can do it. No computer is ever fully secure but you can make it enough of a challenge so that the 99.9% of script kiddies give up trying to crack it and the other 0.1% of knoweledgeable crackers probably don't want to waste time with your little box anyway.
Then onto email viruses... Knowledgeable computer users don't suffer from email viruses because they either use email clients that can't execute attachments or they set their machines up so that they know when and when not to run attachments - probably by simply looking at whether or not the sender of the email is to be trusted.
So, in summary, I see this as two core issues, nothing more:
1. Hype and marketing - Microsoft and other software vendors need to step away from the "sales speak" and simply not be allowed to tell Joe Public that PCs are "easy to use" or "secure". It's no different to reminding people to watch their speed and check their tyre treads on a new car, after all... Where are all these "advertising standards" groups that are supposed to ensure adverts convey truth, not lies?
2. User laziness - Joe Public needs to get off his backside and learn how to use the Internet properly and how to secure his PC - again, no different to spending time and money in learning to drive. Far too many people, taken in by the glossy adverts and hype, just sit back and expect software vendors to take away all their responsibility away from them because they themselves simply cannot be bothered.
What really annoys me about this whole issue is that software (and hardware) companies are only going to react to security issues in their products in a way that makes them more money. If the vendor already has his boxed software on the store shelves, he really has no incentive to employ people to work on further security for his products unless his reputation is so bad that he is forced to improve his software at the risk of losing sales - and you only have to look at Microsoft's currently poor reputation and their actual focus on security to see how far down that reputation must go before any action is taken...
However, on the other hand, DRM can be sold as a security-improving product on the back of peoples' fears of Internet viruses while allowing the Microsoft and others to make money licensing DRM.
I wish people like Dan Greer would focus more on the ultimate impact of letting Microsoft "take the blame" only to have Microsoft respond with a technology that will make them more money and cut off our freedoms in the process.
Convince all the young talentless people that everyone on Earth is going to die from a nasty virus and pack Brittney Spears, Justin Timberlake, Busted and all the Pop Idols on the first colonization ship...
Then the rest of us can enjoy proper music in the mainstream again!
Hmmm, so Microsoft now believe they control the freedom of the press also?
If the source code got leaked, Win2k will get exploited by...
Apparently the leak has been confirmed but it's some of the source code, not all of it. Only time will tell whether it's an important bit of source code.
I mean, with linux there's a temptation but nobody runs it.
You cannot think of Linux in the same way that you are thinking of Windows.
Two people who use a Linux system could be running entirely different systems with few or no common applications across the systems - this is why it is unlikely that something like a worm virus would propagate through the Linux community in the same way it would through the Windows community.
Linux is by no means immune from attack, but if one comes, it will be a particular application (e.g. Apache) that will get attacked and whether a specific Apache system is affected will depend on the version, what modules are loaded to allow things like CGI scripts, etc.
When you say nobody runs it, I agree it's a minority on the desktop but the applications that run on Linux (and the likes of BSD, Solaris, etc.) like sendmail, BIND, Apache, etc. are very widespread and a lot more so than IIS or Exchange in many cases.
MS leaked it intentionally so they can get everyone to patch with their DRM system.
Microsoft are an arrogant company and have no doubts about getting DRM through the door with the way they do things currently - DRM's success or failure is now simply based on the level of it's acceptance in the user base, nothing more.
If anything, a source code leakage would allow everyone access to how MS's DRM technology works.
Whatever the extent of the leak, MS will downplay it because to not do so will affect the share prices. There is no conspiracy theory here...
I mean, I like linux and all but this isn't the way to win at all.
There is no battle here. Linux exists despite Microsoft and offers an alternative way of doing things to Windows.
Microsoft may attack Open Source on a regular basis but the Open Source community does not care - it is just creating good quality, free software and defending it's right to do so. This will happen no differently with or without competition from Microsoft.
I thought we were going to slowly beat them back into submission and competition, not completly screw them and quite a few million over.
You're now implying that a member of the Linux / Open Source community stole the source code and I resent that.
No Open Source programmer cares about seeing MS proprietary code. To do so would run the strong risk of inadvertently incorporating MS code into an application and nothing would please MS more as it would allow them to send the copyright lawyers in.
The only thing the Open Source community will care about is if MS's code contains GPL code but I doubt even MS would be stupid enough to do something like that.
Well, time to begin caching DNS entries to websites I use the most, and it may be high time to backup some of this data and close all the nat ports on my router just to be extra safe.
Perhaps you'd also like to stock up your kitchen cupboard with canned food and make yourself up a tin foil helmet also...
If you haven't secured your router then I'm surprised you haven't been attacked already. Also, the core DNS system mainly runs on BIND & Solaris (so I'm led to believe) so it's unlikely that this would be affected.
In all honesty, you are being far too sensationalist at this stage and my advice is simply to wait and see what happens. I doubt it will be very much...
...before investigating security weakness that allowed Windows source code to leak to the Internet.
Mr License was unwilling to make much comment to our reporter - upon packing his toolbag up and phoning his wife to get the dinner in the oven, Mr License said "Move along folks. All done here now, nothing else to see."
Amongst their other technological feats, Microsoft have now invented the time machine and have succeeded in travelling to the future, getting hold of the Samba source code and travelling back to the early development days of Windows 2000 to incorporate future Samba source code within Windows 2000. So now that the source code to Windows 2000 is released, MS can now sue the Samba team for copying their code.
Fiendish...
Windows viruses affect everyone. We all use the same Internet that slows down when the latest worm hits. Virus writers are scum, kill them all.
(2) Concerned individuals and companies can learn from those who look at the code just how BAD the vulnerabilities ARE.
Probably, but what can they do about it? It's Microsoft's IP, they can't fix it and just hand it back. Virus writers will probably write more worms, the Internet slows down, we all suffer (see 1).
This could very well accelerate migration away from Windows and towards other OS's which are secure despite having available source code.
Erm, Open Source software is quite happily gaining market share without the need for this, thank you very much. Up to now it's being doing so on the basis of being software that's as good as, or better than, what MS write. It has not needed any visibility of MS IP to do this.
I am certainly no MS fan but this theft is nothing more than someone somewhere wanting some kudos.
C'mon, people! The real fight is not having DRM pushed down our throats, not tearing apart MS's source code...
Oh, come on, get real! You miss one very important point in your comment...
The source code to SAMBA is Open Source!
This means that MS have probably got a few copies of Samba themselves already and were there any licensed MS code in it, you can rest assured the Microsoft would have sent their lawyers over long before now.
Just accept that the Samba guys are a pretty neat bunch of programmers that have genuinely backwards engineered Samba from the word go - it's the likeliest and most realistic conclusion to draw.
So how long before the "Why sentences in English start with capital letters" lesson were you thrown out of school?
Has anyone else noticed the paradox? "Micro" and "soft" vs "long" and "horn".
"You didn't compile my kernel properly and now my kernel has panicked and I can't boot my PC and my mother said I should never have got together with a geek like you and you never buy me any nice presents and..."
What? The opinion that you take control & responsibility for your PC and the data on it rather than letting a money-hungry corporation take control of it and imposing their restrictive methods on you to limit your access to your data? I hope not...
If you aren't, open source software will never leave the stage that it's currently in.
And what state do you consider it to be in? I see Open Source software being adopted more widely by more people as time goes on - sounds like a pretty successful state to me...
If you look around at all consumer products, the thing you should notice is that "some assembly required" doesn't sell more units (unless weren't talking about Legos). You don't need to buy tires for your new car or heating coils for your brand new toaster.
Just because consumer products are designed as pre-packaged and throwaway, does not mean that some people do not enjoy taking things apart, whether that's software or a toaster.
But, again, like the other replies to my original post, you've not fully understood what I said.
I would be a hypocrite and a zealot forcing you to use software that was more difficult to use than what you are accustomed to using currently & that is not my intention.
What I am saying is that continuing to have a reliance on certain proprietary software products (not just those made by Microsoft) forces you to adopt proprietary methods which, ultimately, will limit what you can and currently do in a computer environment. For example, putting the piracy argument entirely to one side, most people consider it perfectly reasonable to pay for an audio CD or DVD once and to have the ability to make MP3s or MPEG movies for their own personal use. If Microsoft and others have their way, you will pay a charge each time you do that - that limits your freedoms.
This is not simply an argument of Windows v Linux or Mozilla v Internet Explorer - it is about how much you value your freedom and what sort of effort you will put in to maintaining those freedoms.
Remember that you can, for example, refuse to accept proprietary document standards simply by substituting MS Office for Open Office and still run Windows. Likewise, run Mozilla instead of IE and you help to maintain the open standards of HTML.
I'm not saying that at all because then I would be implying that Open Source software is always of inferior quality to commercial software. The fact is, there is good and rubbish Open Source Software and commercial software...
Linux is a frustrating systems to use. I've been using it for a few years and I have seen things improve dramatically but there are several things that piss me off regularly.
It's a case of "You get out what you put in." It's not for me to enforce on you whether you use Linux or Windows, only you can decide that. But I personally respect anyone who has "tried it and not liked it" - unfortunately, many contributors on here take an immediate "anti-Linux" stance but their arguments always show that they've based them on rumour and speculation, rather than personal experience.
What I will say is that if you want Linux to be easier to use, you should make those feelings known to the maker of the distro you used or to the application developers.
When was the last time you tried to upgrade to a newer version of Mozilla?
About 2 weeks ago, actually. I use Gentoo Linux, did "emerge sync" and "emerge mozilla", went to bed leaving it compiling and in the morning it was done. Okay, it tool a couple of hours to compile but it worked.
Have you ever tried it on Windows?
Yes, and it's easy to install there also.
What do you tell your friend who just recently switched to Suse from Windows and wants to upgrade? "OK, just DL the tarball and untar, then ./configure ..." He said "boot Windows and just click setup.
I'd say "Why do you need to upgrade?" firstly. That's not a facetious answer but there's no real need to upgrade Linux purely for the sake of it. (Why upgrade to Windows XP if Windows 98 does all that you need to?) If there's a need to fix a security exploit, then SuSE probably have an RPM for it on their web site. If there's a need to upgrade the kernel, say, to support some new hardware, I'd show him how to look for a kernel RPM and if there wasn't one, I'd assist him in compiling one from source.
Mindset is good until you try to talk about reaching users who don't care and don't have the time or patience to deal with the hassle.
Yes, but I am saying that those users will care when they can no longer burn MP3s from their CDs, not run DRM'ed documents on certain PCs and have to pay on a regular basis for the right to do less with their data than they could before.
I want them to know enough to realise that proprietary protocols may be being stated as a combat to piracy but are in fact just there to make some corporation(s) a lot more money and to introduce a "rental" policy for items that were previously "owned".
No amount of "you need a different mindset" is going to help that. The system needs to be easier to use for the novice user.
I agree but the system will not get easier until you speak up and tell people why it's not easy enough...
It doesn't necessarily want general public acceptance, you're missing the point entirely! It just wants to create good free software that people use and get enthusiastic about. Ask yourself the motivations behind an Open Source programmer doing the job he/she does. Money? Obviously not? Fame? Possibly. A "job well done"? Definitely.
For all of its bitching and grousing, it is plainly evident that the overwhelming majority of the general public is either happy with Microsoft's way of doing things, or at least not sufficiently unhappy with it to switch to F/OSS products.
I agree entirely - use the software that does the job best for what you want to do, whether it's made by Microsoft or A.N. Other. I don't believe I implied anything otherwise in my original post. That's why I always mention the wealth of free software on Windows too.
Folks like you and I, who are happy (or at least willing) to tinker with sloppily packaged applications and able to dig into makefiles and source code are and will always be a tiny minority.
I agree that is something Joe Public isn't want to go and do but I think you're painting an extreme picture. Package management isn't perfect but it works most of the time - no different to MS or any other commercial software.
People want ease of use. And they want it ahead of technical superiority. They don't care about standards compliance, and most of them aren't even aware that there are standards. Moreover, that isn't going to change soon or in two thousand years.
"Technical superiority" is a personal viewpoint - I believe Linux is "technically superior" to Windows, an ace VB programmer will consider MS Office technically superior to Open Office, neither's right or wrong.
Standards compliance is a completely separate issue particularly when closed standards start costing "Joe Public" in his wallet over free open standards - e.g. DRM.
That's why the message needs to be spread now that although you consider closed source software to fit your requirements, just be aware that you run the risk of being locked into proprietary standards and a "rental" model that will expect you to pay regularly for the loss of your freedoms in the future.
F/OSS isn't a business as such, but we are selling product. We may not be after money as an end product in most cases, but we are after widespread user acceptance. To get that, we must give people what they want. It's just that simple. It boggles my mind that marketroids with room-temperature IQs can grasp this concept as the inalterable law of economics that it is, but screamingly brilliant programmers often have trouble understanding it or its paramount importance.
Yes, you are after acceptance and want to give people what they want. For that, you are reliant on user feedback because you don't have the money to spend on market research & pretty coloured packaging.
That's not mindset change; that's just a recipe for being one of those annoying technology advocacy twerps who turn people off to otherwise worthwhile products. Outside of their dwindling fan bases, the only thing people remember about heavily-advocated products like OS/2 and the Amiga is how annoying their advocates were.
Hang on... you're saying that you consider public acceptance as a motivation for being an Open Source programmer yet, on the other hand, you object to someone trying to publicise your work and make its existence known? I don't follow the logic.
I wish you'd distinguish what I'm trying to say in my post from what might be said by a complete zealot. I'm asking people to be aware that they have a choice - if they stay with proprietary software at that point, that's up to them. But what I am doing is surely no different to my handing a friend a music CD I like and saying "Here, give this a try, you might