This issue came up in a similiar form a while ago, and I think its still being litigated.
The estate of the guy that composed the music in Disney's Jungle Book sued Disney for not paying out royalties on the VHS, DVDs, CDs, etc, which were put out with that music. Disney's stance is that, since the contract did not specify VHS, DVD, CDs, etc, they are not obligated to pay royalties on anything but the film itself.
Somebody can score some easy karma by providing a link- Im to lazy to use google at the moment.
Not only that, but to address this poor analysis...
Baloney. IIS comes on every Windows CD-ROM and is used by lots of Microsoft apps. And there's plenty of bugs that cross boundaries thanks to Microsoft's blurring the distinction between OS and application...like that WebDAV bug in ntdll.dll that was exploitable via IIS [microsoft.com].
Where to begin?
1. Just because it comes on the CD-Rom does not make it any less of an optional component. If I started ranking on security flaws on some of the obscure, minor, optional programs what come with the varios Linux distros, you would just change song and say "hey, nobody uses that" or "its just optional, nobody is forcing them to use it". Just a tip- pick one story, and stay with it. It makes you look less hypocritical.
2. Used by other apps- MS cannot be held responsible for non-MS apps causing holes in the security. To claim otherwise is lunacy, and throws the whole issue of personal responsibility out the windows. I am responsible for what *I* do, but to hold me responsible for what people I work with do? Thats absurd.
3. You mentioning the WebDAV exploit demonstrates your lack of knowledge in how Windows uses DLLs. I try to always get my expert opinions from experts, so please stop spewing nonsense about things you dont really understand. Just because you are on a mailing list doesnt make you knowledgeable, or an expert.
Also, your former gripe regarding no kernel exploits, of which there were some, is just as valid if you want to talk about Windows. So why dont YOU stop talking about apples and oranges? You cant have it both ways.
Some article I read (sorry, dont have any idea where or else I would link it) was discussing Nintendo's plans for their next console.
One point which was discussed was internet multiplayer. The gist of their response was they would rather do it right, than just hammer something together.
Also, Nintendo is very sensitive about piracy. And what is used to circumvent their controls? The broadband adapter...
Apparently you missed that story last month regarding the hack which exploited a Kernel bug. This effected ALL distros, since it was a kernel exploit.
Also, the page for Windows doesnt just list OS components either. So, as far as security tracker goes, it IS apples to apples. One can also argue that IIS is not really a Windows component, since it is an optional service. But thats the way they organize their site. If you dont like it, talk to Security Tracker; Im sure they would be happy to hear from you!
From the looks of things, they still have a while to go. IMO, Linux people talking about security is like that saying about people who live in glass houses.
Who was it at MS who basically made that statement that regarding security, they ALL suck? What Linux really needs is somebody to tell their community the same thing, instead of continuing to burry their heads in the sand.
No, this is Slashdot. So we must all continue to maintain that this is yet another satanic pitch to rule the world (especially when the evidence is otherwise).
If there is any real 'chill', it is because the tech people most likely wanted to get away from Linux for whatever reason, rather than having their decision influenced my SCO. The move would just be explained to the pointy-haired boss as a potential liability reason, just so he gets a reason he can digest.
If somebody is using Linux for a reason, and/or prefers to work with it, I can hardly see them doing a massive conversion to another OS they arent so familiar with.
If I can go to almost any bank machine in the world and be able to use it without needing to sign up for a new account, why can't I do the same with hot spots?
Because the organization providing support on that machine is allowed to charge a fee to out-of-network users. Is there a mechanism in place to charge you $1 if you roam into another ISP's area? No, there is not.
If this were allowed, you could just have crappy ISPs who dont support their equipment make all the money, while their users roam into networks with higher costs and maintenance, but a strangely shrinking customer base...
Besides the workaround suggested below, Roblimo has a good suggestion on avoiding the first-day-of-Windows altogether.
Cool, this guy wrote a whole article about how he encourages his kids to use Linux, and thus be completely unprepared for getting jobs in corporate America! Bravo! Now he can complete the job of declining education standards in this country, and make sure that his kids learn absolutely NOTHING of value in college (well, aside from the how various liquors taste, and how to hold your alchohol).
Not every parent gives their kids free beer for a gift!
If you have a uranium source nearby, you could relatively easily make a nuclear power generator. Once you decide whether you want a Boiling Water Reactor or a Pressurized Water Reactor, run these into a UPS (or 2), and you should have power as long as
* there isnt a meltdown
* the EPA doesnt shut you down
* terrorists dont blow it up
If all the above fail, you have 2-8 hours of UPS power (depending on how big and how many UPSs you get), and 2-3 hours of battery in the laptop (make that 4-6 if you get a spare battery). You can hopefully complete your program long before you die of nuclear exposure.
except the poster wanted to know about problems in December. To which I replied that Linux had more security problems in December than WinXP did, which is true, and is moreover not limited to the distrobution.
December totals- Linux (50), Windows (41). Linux wins the unsecurity bowl by nine discovered flaws.
So, as usual, I get modded as a troll for posting both the answer to the question that was asked, and bluntly stating facts which run counter to what people around here desperately need to hear.
Im sorry that Linux isnt as secure as you guys think it is. But I have no control over that. I just call it like I see it. If the marketplace, the vast majority of MIS departments, and the majority of the consumers in the world are trying to tell you something, who's fault is it when you dont listen? They can all tell you guys that Windows isnt anywhere near as bad as you make it out to be. Sorry, but its true; you are insecure about your OS being unsecure.
So let me get this straight. You cant use any derivative of myth in a product name anymore, nor can you use mythology, especially Norse mythology,(of which Mythic apparently owns the rights to...).
I say the estate of JRR Tolkein gets their lawyers to draw up papers against Mythic, since their Dark Age of Camelot has elves, dwarves, hobbits (which they call "Lurikeen", which are *supposedly* leprichauns, but we all know they are hobbits), swords, archers, axes, orcs, trolls, magic, etc.
After they sue the pants off Mythic, they can go after almost every other fantasy work since then as being highly derivative.
As you can see, WinXP has far less problems than Linux. Its just that Linux users want the sizzle, not the steak, so they just keep sizzling about how secure their OS is. Instead of bragging about how secure they are compared to MS, they need to start tightening up their code. But I suppose that isnt as much fun as creating yet another web browser.
When I sit down at my XP machine at work, I deal with random shutdowns and freezing programs that screw the whole system and force me to reboot.
The problem is either with a bad program which is running in the background, a hardware problem, or more specifically a memory problem. The problem is NOT, however, Windows XP itself. How can I say this? Because my Windows 2000 machines machines never lock up, and my friends who use Windows XP never have lockups. Therefore, if they can do it, and you cant, their is something wrong with your computer (if it were Windows, everyone would have the same problems).
On my Linux machine at home, I only have to start it once. If a program freezes, it doesn't take the whole system with it.
And I bet if you put XP on that machine, it would perform just as well.
I don't know how many times I've pulled my company laptop (WinXP) out of the case and had a dead battery because it froze during the shutdown procedure and hung until the battery died.
I have had almost ten years of Windows laptops, from Win95 to Win2k, and have never had that problem. But then again, we generally make sure we are getting quality hardware. I have had two Dell laptops, four Compaq, and a Micron. Of these, they probably match that order in terms of best to worse; the Micron was ok, but kind of whacky. So, as I stated above, your problem is the hardware, not the OS.
I speak from experience, and as an expert supporting desktops for ten years and servers and networks for seven. I have had my hands on hundreds of computers, fixing problems and issues. From all that I have come to the conclusion that if the computer is using good hardware, and is set up by somebody who knows what they are doing, it will be stable. Now with Win95 sr2 it is possible to make a pretty stable system, and to a lesser extent Win92SE, but other than that I discourage the use of the whole Win9x line. WinNT/2000/XP, however, have no stability issues (except for those due to bad hardware, misconfiguration, or buggy 3rd party programs, all of which arent MS's fault).
Too bad they didnt "upgrade" the trailers to using a good program, like WMP or DivX. If something requires me to install an abomination of an OS-killer like QuickTime, I'd rather just skip it.
Except that you actually have control over which worms you do and dont install, and a good admin will filter them out before they even get to an end user. So I really cant see why Slashdot whines so much about all the Windows-targetting worms. My networks are never effected, but I suppose thats only because I know what Im doing...
Also, I think the thing MS is making different would be at the client level, rather than changing the structure of email itself. Meaning, Outlook would display your email like a forum, rather than changing the email servers from SMTP to NNTP.
So its an interface redesign more than anything, but a good one.
Re:Market forces that be, please start working
on
The Return of S3
·
· Score: 1
But thats only if you are using an Intel chipset. There are other companies making chipsets for Intel processors, and Intel doesnt make *any* chipsets for AMD processors.
S3 still targets the bottom of the barrel computers, just like they always have. There is no quality coming out of that company, thats for sure.
Personally, I was shocked that ATI started making good GPUs, but its only because they grabbed designers from other, better, companies.
MS has a lot of money and they can buy-out smaller competition. This would give them more dominance since they have bought what they would have had to compete with. This would also help them out with their market share wouldn't it.
This arguement, which is quite common, is contradictory. First, the 'buy-out': a smaller company isnt going to be serious competition to MS, since they obviously do not have the resources that MS does. So even if they did have a superior product, which I cant think of a single example (Netscape, as an example, was far inferior to IE), would still not be *serious* competition to MS.
Second, companies have a preference for MS branded products just because of my afformentioned "one-stop-shopping" reason. You cannot imagine how easy it is to manage products when there is only one number to call, one tech support database to access, etc. You also know that a company with enormous resources is behind that product.
People who knock MS on their products, I have found, really dont work with them, or if they do they just dont really understand the concepts. One guy a few months ago got into a huge arguement with me because he said MS products had a design flaw and couldnt do something, and I kept telling him it was misconfigured (because I had already done what he was trying to do). MS doesnt exist to fix his mistakes; that is his job. He was just too lazy to troubleshoot, or too stubborn to admit he messed up.
Almost all software I've ever bought has to be run on windows. This restricts my options (although that wasn't the point you were trying to argue i know).
That has to be the lamest thing I ever heard. You are saying MS is restricting your options, because 3rd party companies would rather write their programs for Windows? They arent removing your choice- use whatever you want! If you need an application which is Windows only, then thats market forces at work: its not some grand conspiracy.
Also, I dont know what you are talking about with 'I like to know what Im installing". Nobody forces ME to install something I dont know about. Now, if there are installs with *add-along* installs (like Apple software, or Real, or whatever), I just dont install them. If I want Real Player, I dont want Real Jukebox, or Real Audio, etc. Just like if I want iTunes, Im not wanting Quicktime, etc.
But MS products dont do that, which is another reason I generally stick with MS-branded software. If I install IE6, Media Player is still only an option. I can also be assured that MS branded products arent going to break Windows, which I cannot with products like QuickTime (which has a tendency to kill computers; many a friend's computer has met its demise at Apple's hands).
This is not a smart thing to say. It shuts out other peoples opinions.
It is, however, true. Opinions, especially here, are generally foolish and not well thought out. Educated opinions, on the other hand, are the only ones with any value; when some guy who "only uses linux" starts ranting about what Windows can and cannot do, how on earth can anybody with half a brain give any credibility to what he says? He isnt an expert on Windows; these guys are always wrong, and when an actual Windows expert like myself tells them they are wrong, we just get modded down as a troll.
Hence, my statement that people here only want to hear the same old tired rhetoric, rather than the actual truth. If I want to know something about a car, I dont ask a motorcycle mechanic. Likewise, somebody who knows Linux shouldnt act like they know anything about Microsoft products they dont, and wont, ever use.
I dislike people presenting an opinion as fact and saying anyone who disagrees is stupid and ignorant
Actually, I was just making a comment about what would happen to my post. And I was correct, because it got modded down as a troll, even though it was quite factual. These guys are just dreaming about Linux bein
Slashdot Mirror
The estate of the guy that composed the music in Disney's Jungle Book sued Disney for not paying out royalties on the VHS, DVDs, CDs, etc, which were put out with that music. Disney's stance is that, since the contract did not specify VHS, DVD, CDs, etc, they are not obligated to pay royalties on anything but the film itself.
Somebody can score some easy karma by providing a link- Im to lazy to use google at the moment.
is that the beauty of unemployment?
Baloney. IIS comes on every Windows CD-ROM and is used by lots of Microsoft apps. And there's plenty of bugs that cross boundaries thanks to Microsoft's blurring the distinction between OS and application...like that WebDAV bug in ntdll.dll that was exploitable via IIS [microsoft.com].
Where to begin?
1. Just because it comes on the CD-Rom does not make it any less of an optional component. If I started ranking on security flaws on some of the obscure, minor, optional programs what come with the varios Linux distros, you would just change song and say "hey, nobody uses that" or "its just optional, nobody is forcing them to use it". Just a tip- pick one story, and stay with it. It makes you look less hypocritical.
2. Used by other apps- MS cannot be held responsible for non-MS apps causing holes in the security. To claim otherwise is lunacy, and throws the whole issue of personal responsibility out the windows. I am responsible for what *I* do, but to hold me responsible for what people I work with do? Thats absurd.
3. You mentioning the WebDAV exploit demonstrates your lack of knowledge in how Windows uses DLLs. I try to always get my expert opinions from experts, so please stop spewing nonsense about things you dont really understand. Just because you are on a mailing list doesnt make you knowledgeable, or an expert.
Also, your former gripe regarding no kernel exploits, of which there were some, is just as valid if you want to talk about Windows. So why dont YOU stop talking about apples and oranges? You cant have it both ways.
One point which was discussed was internet multiplayer. The gist of their response was they would rather do it right, than just hammer something together.
Also, Nintendo is very sensitive about piracy. And what is used to circumvent their controls? The broadband adapter...
Also, the page for Windows doesnt just list OS components either. So, as far as security tracker goes, it IS apples to apples. One can also argue that IIS is not really a Windows component, since it is an optional service. But thats the way they organize their site. If you dont like it, talk to Security Tracker; Im sure they would be happy to hear from you!
After a little bit of work, they make great drink coasters.
Who was it at MS who basically made that statement that regarding security, they ALL suck? What Linux really needs is somebody to tell their community the same thing, instead of continuing to burry their heads in the sand.
No, this is Slashdot. So we must all continue to maintain that this is yet another satanic pitch to rule the world (especially when the evidence is otherwise).
Hell, I get less bias in MCSE Magazine.
One of my friends gave me Mandrake Linux for Christmas. Cheap bastard.
If somebody is using Linux for a reason, and/or prefers to work with it, I can hardly see them doing a massive conversion to another OS they arent so familiar with.
Because the organization providing support on that machine is allowed to charge a fee to out-of-network users. Is there a mechanism in place to charge you $1 if you roam into another ISP's area? No, there is not.
If this were allowed, you could just have crappy ISPs who dont support their equipment make all the money, while their users roam into networks with higher costs and maintenance, but a strangely shrinking customer base...
Cool, this guy wrote a whole article about how he encourages his kids to use Linux, and thus be completely unprepared for getting jobs in corporate America! Bravo! Now he can complete the job of declining education standards in this country, and make sure that his kids learn absolutely NOTHING of value in college (well, aside from the how various liquors taste, and how to hold your alchohol).
Not every parent gives their kids free beer for a gift!
* there isnt a meltdown
* the EPA doesnt shut you down
* terrorists dont blow it up
If all the above fail, you have 2-8 hours of UPS power (depending on how big and how many UPSs you get), and 2-3 hours of battery in the laptop (make that 4-6 if you get a spare battery). You can hopefully complete your program long before you die of nuclear exposure.
I think it would make him a warm Danish, despite his belief that there is no oven.
December totals- Linux (50), Windows (41). Linux wins the unsecurity bowl by nine discovered flaws.
So, as usual, I get modded as a troll for posting both the answer to the question that was asked, and bluntly stating facts which run counter to what people around here desperately need to hear.
Im sorry that Linux isnt as secure as you guys think it is. But I have no control over that. I just call it like I see it. If the marketplace, the vast majority of MIS departments, and the majority of the consumers in the world are trying to tell you something, who's fault is it when you dont listen? They can all tell you guys that Windows isnt anywhere near as bad as you make it out to be. Sorry, but its true; you are insecure about your OS being unsecure.
I say the estate of JRR Tolkein gets their lawyers to draw up papers against Mythic, since their Dark Age of Camelot has elves, dwarves, hobbits (which they call "Lurikeen", which are *supposedly* leprichauns, but we all know they are hobbits), swords, archers, axes, orcs, trolls, magic, etc.
After they sue the pants off Mythic, they can go after almost every other fantasy work since then as being highly derivative.
hey man, isnt December pretty much effectively over? You know, what with that little obscure Christmas/New Year thing going on?
Here is Windows XP
Here is Linux
As you can see, WinXP has far less problems than Linux. Its just that Linux users want the sizzle, not the steak, so they just keep sizzling about how secure their OS is. Instead of bragging about how secure they are compared to MS, they need to start tightening up their code. But I suppose that isnt as much fun as creating yet another web browser.
Ya, I mean, look at all these! What a frickin' insecure P.O.S. it is! Oh wait, thats not Windows...
The problem is either with a bad program which is running in the background, a hardware problem, or more specifically a memory problem. The problem is NOT, however, Windows XP itself. How can I say this? Because my Windows 2000 machines machines never lock up, and my friends who use Windows XP never have lockups. Therefore, if they can do it, and you cant, their is something wrong with your computer (if it were Windows, everyone would have the same problems).
On my Linux machine at home, I only have to start it once. If a program freezes, it doesn't take the whole system with it.
And I bet if you put XP on that machine, it would perform just as well.
I don't know how many times I've pulled my company laptop (WinXP) out of the case and had a dead battery because it froze during the shutdown procedure and hung until the battery died.
I have had almost ten years of Windows laptops, from Win95 to Win2k, and have never had that problem. But then again, we generally make sure we are getting quality hardware. I have had two Dell laptops, four Compaq, and a Micron. Of these, they probably match that order in terms of best to worse; the Micron was ok, but kind of whacky. So, as I stated above, your problem is the hardware, not the OS.
I speak from experience, and as an expert supporting desktops for ten years and servers and networks for seven. I have had my hands on hundreds of computers, fixing problems and issues. From all that I have come to the conclusion that if the computer is using good hardware, and is set up by somebody who knows what they are doing, it will be stable. Now with Win95 sr2 it is possible to make a pretty stable system, and to a lesser extent Win92SE, but other than that I discourage the use of the whole Win9x line. WinNT/2000/XP, however, have no stability issues (except for those due to bad hardware, misconfiguration, or buggy 3rd party programs, all of which arent MS's fault).
Too bad they didnt "upgrade" the trailers to using a good program, like WMP or DivX. If something requires me to install an abomination of an OS-killer like QuickTime, I'd rather just skip it.
Also, I think the thing MS is making different would be at the client level, rather than changing the structure of email itself. Meaning, Outlook would display your email like a forum, rather than changing the email servers from SMTP to NNTP.
So its an interface redesign more than anything, but a good one.
S3 still targets the bottom of the barrel computers, just like they always have. There is no quality coming out of that company, thats for sure.
Personally, I was shocked that ATI started making good GPUs, but its only because they grabbed designers from other, better, companies.
This arguement, which is quite common, is contradictory. First, the 'buy-out': a smaller company isnt going to be serious competition to MS, since they obviously do not have the resources that MS does. So even if they did have a superior product, which I cant think of a single example (Netscape, as an example, was far inferior to IE), would still not be *serious* competition to MS.
Second, companies have a preference for MS branded products just because of my afformentioned "one-stop-shopping" reason. You cannot imagine how easy it is to manage products when there is only one number to call, one tech support database to access, etc. You also know that a company with enormous resources is behind that product.
People who knock MS on their products, I have found, really dont work with them, or if they do they just dont really understand the concepts. One guy a few months ago got into a huge arguement with me because he said MS products had a design flaw and couldnt do something, and I kept telling him it was misconfigured (because I had already done what he was trying to do). MS doesnt exist to fix his mistakes; that is his job. He was just too lazy to troubleshoot, or too stubborn to admit he messed up.
Almost all software I've ever bought has to be run on windows. This restricts my options (although that wasn't the point you were trying to argue i know).
That has to be the lamest thing I ever heard. You are saying MS is restricting your options, because 3rd party companies would rather write their programs for Windows? They arent removing your choice- use whatever you want! If you need an application which is Windows only, then thats market forces at work: its not some grand conspiracy.
Also, I dont know what you are talking about with 'I like to know what Im installing". Nobody forces ME to install something I dont know about. Now, if there are installs with *add-along* installs (like Apple software, or Real, or whatever), I just dont install them. If I want Real Player, I dont want Real Jukebox, or Real Audio, etc. Just like if I want iTunes, Im not wanting Quicktime, etc.
But MS products dont do that, which is another reason I generally stick with MS-branded software. If I install IE6, Media Player is still only an option. I can also be assured that MS branded products arent going to break Windows, which I cannot with products like QuickTime (which has a tendency to kill computers; many a friend's computer has met its demise at Apple's hands).
This is not a smart thing to say. It shuts out other peoples opinions.
It is, however, true. Opinions, especially here, are generally foolish and not well thought out. Educated opinions, on the other hand, are the only ones with any value; when some guy who "only uses linux" starts ranting about what Windows can and cannot do, how on earth can anybody with half a brain give any credibility to what he says? He isnt an expert on Windows; these guys are always wrong, and when an actual Windows expert like myself tells them they are wrong, we just get modded down as a troll.
Hence, my statement that people here only want to hear the same old tired rhetoric, rather than the actual truth. If I want to know something about a car, I dont ask a motorcycle mechanic. Likewise, somebody who knows Linux shouldnt act like they know anything about Microsoft products they dont, and wont, ever use.
I dislike people presenting an opinion as fact and saying anyone who disagrees is stupid and ignorant
Actually, I was just making a comment about what would happen to my post. And I was correct, because it got modded down as a troll, even though it was quite factual. These guys are just dreaming about Linux bein