Tell me this: If Microsoft hadn't released the details, how on earth would an attacker have known how to write an exploit for the "RPC hole?" If you think full disclosure is a good idea, tell that to the families of the victims in New York, Detroit, and Cleveland. Microsoft has willingly provided the tools necessary to cripple the United States' information infrastructure.
You do not work in the IT / Security field do you?
Microsofts explanations come LONG after the whole blackhat community knows about them. The only people who LEARNED about the RPC whole from MS were the legions of "boot camp MCSEs" that MS turns out. Very similar exploits existed long before MSBlast came out.
Before I write the next paragraph I want to add that I also question MS security practices but not like you. The patch for this as well as protective measures were described in the same release you are speaking of.
Now to get scathing:
First, if a single PC can bring down a power grid that large, many people should be fired (from the power company). Not only computer admins but those who designed the system. Most small businesses can survive a few PCs going down now days.
Second, the patch was available weeks ago. I have over a hundred PCs and a half dozen servers and have not been infected.
Finally, you give no sources. It is an interesting diatribe but it lacks any and all seblance of substance.
I think calling this cognitive computing is a bit of an overstatement. It seems more like a heuristic tool that learns the behavioral patterns of a human and alerts the human when something deviates from the norm.
Exactly, this is nowhere near the level of the current heuristic tool which learns patterns all around it and makes decisions in the best interest of its' supporting system. I refer to the Brain and the body;-) Philosophers still have not agreed that we are cogniscient, they would enjoy this conversation. I myself even send e mail to clippy (and also Santa) so I have to believe/
I listed them as an alternative to SCOs PRIMARY revenue stream which under their current business model is their OS NOT licensing. I buy a licensed copy of AIX and SCO gets NOTHING (comparitively) as IBMs license is ALREADY paid for (and VALID) but if I buy OpenUnix SCO gets the dough. So nice talking semantics with you professor, come down from the tower and smell the flowers:-)
You're uh... not paying attention to this with much detail are you?
HP-UX, Solaris, and AIX are all licensed by SCO. They're each companies individual modifications to the original AT&T/Bell Labs UNIX code, compiled and distributed to the users. They do not provide the source code with these operating systems, as the license of the source code is non-transferable.
You're uh, not reading for comprehension. I said nothing about HP-UX, AIX etc...being open sourced. What the topic is about is wether or not the 'current' incarnation of SCO has any right to yank licensing. The point made by mentioning those other Unices is that by buying them you take away from SCOs current primary revenue stream (OpenUnix) and contribute to those whom SCO is up against (Think SCO won't end up on the wrong side of HP?). I could care less whose source is transferable I am not an open source (or closed source) zealot. I care what works. Oh, and let me add if you use multiple serial devices (laser wands, check readers, terminals, printers etc...) SCO sucks
Does it matter? Red Hat is sticking their neck out into a multi billion dollar lawsuit in the interest of their primary product (which is also a community of developers primary product) that substantial risk is very worthwhile additionally, they are using their clout and name recognition to attract donors. The use of corporate resources, image etc... is a service that even CHARITABLE organizations compensate.
Great. I hope IBM uses some of its Billion dollars on Linux that it had previously pledged. Also, I hope that companies in the market for Unix remember that their is HP-UX, Solaris, AIX and others as well as Linux...no need for SCO (some crappy old) Unix
Next we'll see the 'Super-Final termination notice', to eventually be followed by the 'No-really-we're-serious-this-time-guys-last-ditch -final termination notice'...
Nope. I have a tip that they are selling their stock to finance an army of young people to harass and taunt RS6000 purchasers outside of resellers 'na na you don't have an OS'
By definition, a business model that destroys the business is flawed. It may be a successful get-rich-quick scheme for the key decision makers, but it is not a successful business model.
For a primer on the distinction, go talk to some former Enron employees. (Not senior management. Employees.)
I hate to sound like an ass (but I'm good at it). A businesses success or failure can only truly be known when that business ends (at least in the accounting sense) otherwise success is just a guess based on all data at the moment. When a business ends the amount of money that goes to the stakeholders defines its success. The employees rarely see that as a success, but then they are on the low end of the stakeholder ladder.
I'm a simple guy, without too many expenses, I buy a ton of games, and for me, $20 dollars an hour was great. I got to choose my own hours, and make myself profitable.
At that rate why would you go it alone? Ma and Pa shops pay their techies that much for full time with bennies. When I hire I can't get a tech for that.
The problem I see, is that all the companies may encourage you to do freelance tech support, with your rates a little lower than established firms. Then viciousness ensues, the firms are undercut in price and begin going in death throes so they attempt to function with lower prices. Then unemployed freelancers lower their business. Eventually, you hear "what do you mean you want 7$ an hour for computer support, that's robbery". You need to have a very good reason for going into business for yourself. Unemployment is not a good reason.
Researchers plan to use microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) and nanotechnology to create accurate biological and chemical sensors. Linked in an Internet-like peer-to-peer network spanning wireless, wired and satellite links.
Sadly, though. If ever we are attacked the first thing that will happen is that the creators of these "P2P networks" will be sent to jail as these nanobots illegally load data to the P2P networks.
"Wired news has an article about a new bill that would make it a felony to upload a file to a P2P network."
Re:He's Talking About Who Pays Mozilla's Bills
on
Netscape 7.1 Released
·
· Score: 1
Your comparison of Netscape with SCO is silly. Has Netscape brought suit against IBM for infringement? Is Netscape keeping its PR department busy asserting its primacy in the world of browsers? No, of course not.
You really seem to think I am aiming this at Netscape, I am not. My comparison is that Netscape is as important to the project as SCO is to Unix. Both are conrtibutors, both are 'big' players in that they have name recognition and some degree of resources. However, both Unix and Mozilla could survive without either of them.
As a businessman I am aware that funding is vital to a project. I have personally worked on projects where the 'chief' financier dropped out and I did not shrivel up and die, I found OTHER SOURCES. I do not think that OS developers should work free, I am not that naive. Just wake up, there are lots of sources for capital. My whole point is only that Netscape is just a figurehead at this point, albeit a contributing one. Heck, even Linux could survive if Linus found an island and went native.
BTW, I place no stock in OS ability to go on for free
Re:He's Talking About Who Pays Mozilla's Bills
on
Netscape 7.1 Released
·
· Score: 1
Wrong. He's not talking who uses who's code. He's talking about who pays Mozilla's bills.
Regardless of what he's talking, it's just as relevant. What, no one could make a browser if netscape didn't fund it? Netscape has an inflated importance that everyone gives it which equates PRECISELY to SCOs inflated (self)importance in the Unix world. Which OS sponsor has to 'fund' Linux? Netscape is a big contributor, but NOT the reason that it is able to be produced, do not empower them with that.
If AOL should decide that Netscape isn't worth developing anymore, and decides to pull the plug on the few full-time Netscape/Mozilla developers remaining, as well as the resources dedicated to Netscape/Mozilla (such as the web servers), Mozilla would be in some serious doo-doo.
That point is about as accurate (IMHO) as saying that without Unixware their would be no Linux. Netscape may have played a big part in Mozilla but if it was reliant on it at this point their would be no fork (or is there no spoon)
... you might have noticed this:
LRP == R.I.P. (1997-2002)
5 yrs is his lifes work? LRP was an awesome project no doubt, but I agree with the previous that this guy is whining and immature. I put 5 years into it and I still don't drive a jag....WAA.
Personally I read this stuff while picturing SCO as an enraged Munchkin shouting obscenities, dire threats and ominous proclamations (replete with helium-constricted vocal cords) while hacking at the ankle of Jack's Giant (IBM) with a wooden sword. You just know the big SQUISH! is coming... wait for it... wait for it...
I myself am partial to the image of the Chihuahua attacking a bull.
I hate to sound like a troll, but do we really need this ammount of press time about it? How aobut one giant wrap-up post once this whole business is overwith and SCO is nothing but a faded memeory?
You sound like a troll. There are actually people out there whose livelihood depend on their Linux \ Sco \ or AIX box and are in positions where licensing concerns are imperative. No, we don't know where this is going. We all have really good ideas of it, but unless we are lawyers with inside info from both sides we don't know. So, some of us are anxiously reading all of this.
I am sure if the post was about your favorite open source project or game you would find it useful. Respect those who have other needs than you.
Books are written for specific audiences. Most people interested in getting into computer programming would not pick up a book on Basic (one would hope). As a basic programmer I will tell you most people who would program in basic are business consultants, accountants etc... Basic is a language that makes those things easy for those people that is why it is still popular most of my peers are CPAs and I am learning accounting. I am rare in the basic world as I started on the computer side and moved into basic most start in their fields which are not CS. I have erad qbasic for dummies and found it to be a decent primer. The best basic I ever learned was by downloading code to try.
Slashdot Mirror
This is not quite Iraqi (it had a slight American tilt during the war but only slight):
http://www.foxnews.com/geraldo/
Tell me this: If Microsoft hadn't released the details, how on earth would an attacker have known how to write an exploit for the "RPC hole?" If you think full disclosure is a good idea, tell that to the families of the victims in New York, Detroit, and Cleveland. Microsoft has willingly provided the tools necessary to cripple the United States' information infrastructure.
You do not work in the IT / Security field do you?
Microsofts explanations come LONG after the whole blackhat community knows about them. The only people who LEARNED about the RPC whole from MS were the legions of "boot camp MCSEs" that MS turns out. Very similar exploits existed long before MSBlast came out.
Before I write the next paragraph I want to add that I also question MS security practices but not like you. The patch for this as well as protective measures were described in the same release you are speaking of.
Now to get scathing:
First, if a single PC can bring down a power grid that large, many people should be fired (from the power company). Not only computer admins but those who designed the system. Most small businesses can survive a few PCs going down now days.
Second, the patch was available weeks ago. I have over a hundred PCs and a half dozen servers and have not been infected.
Finally, you give no sources. It is an interesting diatribe but it lacks any and all seblance of substance.
I think calling this cognitive computing is a bit of an overstatement. It seems more like a heuristic tool that learns the behavioral patterns of a human and alerts the human when something deviates from the norm.
;-) Philosophers still have not agreed that we are cogniscient, they would enjoy this conversation. I myself even send e mail to clippy (and also Santa) so I have to believe/
Exactly, this is nowhere near the level of the current heuristic tool which learns patterns all around it and makes decisions in the best interest of its' supporting system.
I refer to the Brain and the body
"I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that"
False fears! These are decision support machines they don't do anything.
"I'm sorry Dave, I don't think you should do that"
I listed them as an alternative to SCOs PRIMARY revenue stream which under their current business model is their OS NOT licensing. I buy a licensed copy of AIX and SCO gets NOTHING (comparitively) as IBMs license is ALREADY paid for (and VALID) but if I buy OpenUnix SCO gets the dough. So nice talking semantics with you professor, come down from the tower and smell the flowers :-)
You're uh... not paying attention to this with much detail are you?
HP-UX, Solaris, and AIX are all licensed by SCO. They're each companies individual modifications to the original AT&T/Bell Labs UNIX code, compiled and distributed to the users. They do not provide the source code with these operating systems, as the license of the source code is non-transferable.
You're uh, not reading for comprehension. I said nothing about HP-UX, AIX etc...being open sourced. What the topic is about is wether or not the 'current' incarnation of SCO has any right to yank licensing. The point made by mentioning those other Unices is that by buying them you take away from SCOs current primary revenue stream (OpenUnix) and contribute to those whom SCO is up against (Think SCO won't end up on the wrong side of HP?). I could care less whose source is transferable I am not an open source (or closed source) zealot. I care what works. Oh, and let me add if you use multiple serial devices (laser wands, check readers, terminals, printers etc...) SCO sucks
who keeps the interest earned from the fund?
Does it matter? Red Hat is sticking their neck out into a multi billion dollar lawsuit in the interest of their primary product (which is also a community of developers primary product) that substantial risk is very worthwhile additionally, they are using their clout and name recognition to attract donors. The use of corporate resources, image etc... is a service that even CHARITABLE organizations compensate.
Great. I hope IBM uses some of its Billion dollars on Linux that it had previously pledged. Also, I hope that companies in the market for Unix remember that their is HP-UX, Solaris, AIX and others as well as Linux...no need for SCO (some crappy old) Unix
Next we'll see the 'Super-Final termination notice', to eventually be followed by the 'No-really-we're-serious-this-time-guys-last-ditch -final termination notice'...
Nope. I have a tip that they are selling their stock to finance an army of young people to harass and taunt RS6000 purchasers outside of resellers 'na na you don't have an OS'
By definition, a business model that destroys the business is flawed. It may be a successful get-rich-quick scheme for the key decision makers, but it is not a successful business model.
For a primer on the distinction, go talk to some former Enron employees. (Not senior management. Employees.)
I hate to sound like an ass (but I'm good at it). A businesses success or failure can only truly be known when that business ends (at least in the accounting sense) otherwise success is just a guess based on all data at the moment. When a business ends the amount of money that goes to the stakeholders defines its success. The employees rarely see that as a success, but then they are on the low end of the stakeholder ladder.
Because when your computer crashes, it doesn't flood your bathroom with shit.
"Welcome to Micro$ofts home of the future. You can see how computers have integrated into everything."
"excuse me why did the bathroom door just turn blue?"
"Ooh, don't go in there."
I'm a simple guy, without too many expenses, I buy a ton of games, and for me, $20 dollars an hour was great. I got to choose my own hours, and make myself profitable.
At that rate why would you go it alone? Ma and Pa shops pay their techies that much for full time with bennies. When I hire I can't get a tech for that.
I once had a story that William Shatner had his 70th birthday.. REJECTED(!)
That is incredibly relevant, I am appalled! They rejected my story on how shellac is made. Is there no end?
Desperate people lack the resources to provide quality service. Service without quality is not a service. So, no it does not.
The problem I see, is that all the companies may encourage you to do freelance tech support, with your rates a little lower than established firms. Then viciousness ensues, the firms are undercut in price and begin going in death throes so they attempt to function with lower prices. Then unemployed freelancers lower their business. Eventually, you hear "what do you mean you want 7$ an hour for computer support, that's robbery". You need to have a very good reason for going into business for yourself. Unemployment is not a good reason.
This book has nothing to do with technology or nerds or anything that nerds care about!
Exactly. Why would engineers care abou humor in the corporate atmosphere.
You should include a link to your resume, since you obviously aren't yet working in the field.
Researchers plan to use microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) and nanotechnology to create accurate biological and chemical sensors. Linked in an Internet-like peer-to-peer network spanning wireless, wired and satellite links.
Sadly, though. If ever we are attacked the first thing that will happen is that the creators of these "P2P networks" will be sent to jail as these nanobots illegally load data to the P2P networks.
"Wired news has an article about a new bill that would make it a felony to upload a file to a P2P network."
Your comparison of Netscape with SCO is silly. Has Netscape brought suit against IBM for infringement? Is Netscape keeping its PR department busy asserting its primacy in the world of browsers? No, of course not.
You really seem to think I am aiming this at Netscape, I am not. My comparison is that Netscape is as important to the project as SCO is to Unix. Both are conrtibutors, both are 'big' players in that they have name recognition and some degree of resources. However, both Unix and Mozilla could survive without either of them.
As a businessman I am aware that funding is vital to a project. I have personally worked on projects where the 'chief' financier dropped out and I did not shrivel up and die, I found OTHER SOURCES. I do not think that OS developers should work free, I am not that naive. Just wake up, there are lots of sources for capital. My whole point is only that Netscape is just a figurehead at this point, albeit a contributing one. Heck, even Linux could survive if Linus found an island and went native.
BTW, I place no stock in OS ability to go on for free
Wrong. He's not talking who uses who's code. He's talking about who pays Mozilla's bills.
Regardless of what he's talking, it's just as relevant. What, no one could make a browser if netscape didn't fund it? Netscape has an inflated importance that everyone gives it which equates PRECISELY to SCOs inflated (self)importance in the Unix world. Which OS sponsor has to 'fund' Linux? Netscape is a big contributor, but NOT the reason that it is able to be produced, do not empower them with that.
If AOL should decide that Netscape isn't worth developing anymore, and decides to pull the plug on the few full-time Netscape/Mozilla developers remaining, as well as the resources dedicated to Netscape/Mozilla (such as the web servers), Mozilla would be in some serious doo-doo.
That point is about as accurate (IMHO) as saying that without Unixware their would be no Linux. Netscape may have played a big part in Mozilla but if it was reliant on it at this point their would be no fork (or is there no spoon)
Enterprise distos are all about clustering and load
....Enterprise distros are all about cluttering the load...
It is early and I actually thought I read the above to say
... you might have noticed this:
LRP == R.I.P. (1997-2002)
5 yrs is his lifes work? LRP was an awesome project no doubt, but I agree with the previous that this guy is whining and immature. I put 5 years into it and I still don't drive a jag....WAA.
Personally I read this stuff while picturing SCO as an enraged Munchkin shouting obscenities, dire threats and ominous proclamations (replete with helium-constricted vocal cords) while hacking at the ankle of Jack's Giant (IBM) with a wooden sword. You just know the big SQUISH! is coming ... wait for it ... wait for it ...
I myself am partial to the image of the Chihuahua attacking a bull.
I hate to sound like a troll, but do we really need this ammount of press time about it? How aobut one giant wrap-up post once this whole business is overwith and SCO is nothing but a faded memeory?
You sound like a troll. There are actually people out there whose livelihood depend on their Linux \ Sco \ or AIX box and are in positions where licensing concerns are imperative. No, we don't know where this is going. We all have really good ideas of it, but unless we are lawyers with inside info from both sides we don't know. So, some of us are anxiously reading all of this.
I am sure if the post was about your favorite open source project or game you would find it useful. Respect those who have other needs than you.
Books are written for specific audiences. Most people interested in getting into computer programming would not pick up a book on Basic (one would hope). As a basic programmer I will tell you most people who would program in basic are business consultants, accountants etc... Basic is a language that makes those things easy for those people that is why it is still popular most of my peers are CPAs and I am learning accounting. I am rare in the basic world as I started on the computer side and moved into basic most start in their fields which are not CS. I have erad qbasic for dummies and found it to be a decent primer. The best basic I ever learned was by downloading code to try.