I don't think people on dial up ever patch.. because downloading the 100 megs of updates that both Jaguar, Panther, and XP require has got to be hell.
Well, I can't comment on Mac, but on 2k/XP patches are downloaded by a service called Background Intelligent Transfer Service (cute, eh?). It DLs using bandwidth not used by the system or apps (so everything else has priority and goes on uninterrupted) and gracefully handles transfer resuming. Basically, it's invisible to the system, and when it's done, it notifies the user.
So, even being on dialup is no excuse for not updating and patching on time.
Yes, there are automatic updates if you know enough to turn them on.
Which is probably why they are turned on by default (at least with the latest service pack).:-)
no substitute for a qualified engineer because the engineer can check the patch hasn't broken anything else.
Well, if you think that out for a second, you'll notice that it's simply not possible. Even if they decided to go broke by hiring a million 'patch install engineers' and having them sent out to inspect each and every OS installation out there, do you think that they will have the time or knowledge to test everything installed on said machines? How about custom applications running on company servers, something they haven't even seen before? Maybe they should stay for a couple of weeks to learn how and what it does? Isn't that something companies pay their IT staff for?
Besides, if you're a major customer, you probably will get a personal visit whenever you need one.
There is such a thing as a 'resonable effort'. Providing automatic patch updating and thoroughly testing the patch before the release would be it. People who refuse to take responsiblity for their computers shouldn't be using them, for the sake of the rest of us.
If there were another platform with an even remotely significant percentage of the user base, no customer in their right mind would swallow Janus; they would gravitate toward the inevitable alternative.
Unfortunately, it's not that simple. It's not MS that's pushing for this, it's the media companies. They would outright refuse to release content for your imaginary alternative solution, unless it too guaranteed that anything and everything is locked down, tight.
*This* is the reason why we need open standards and, apparently, open source.
Sorry, open source won't help this situation a bit, I'm afraid...
Maybe people need to take a test before operating a computer/getting on the web, then.
Yes, I'm strongly in favor of that also. A computer connected to the net (especially over broadband) is a device capable of potentially inflicting harm on numerous other computers/individuals/organizations. A basic education in operating such a device really seems like a good idea. Because, the situation will only get worse than it is now.
Microsoft, on the other hand (or indeed any software vendor) don't mail you, they post a note on their website (how many people regularly check the MS website?) and let you download a patch which you have to install yourself.
Hello? Automatic updates? You haven't been paying attention, have you?
I (almost) never visit their web site, and all my machines are patched regularly. When a new patch is out, I get an e-mail from MS (yes, incredibly, they do have a mailing list for exactly such purpose, who would have thought). You can even have a flashing icon in system tray, if you'd like it that way. I download and install the patches at my convenience, with a couple of clicks. But, you can avoid even that much work and make patching fully automatic if you choose to do so.
Welchia, Slammer, Blaster, Swen, Sobig... I found out about all of those by reading slashdot, not one affected any of my machines, ever. And I have a windows box on gateway machine connected to the net, 24/7.
if you've downloaded a free OS like Linux then you should expect to have to apply the patches yourself, or pay for an engineer to apply them
I believe you can automate patching for most if not all of Linux flavors also.
Microsoft has to take part of the responsibility and offer to send consultants out for free to patch and fix the servers.
Or, even better, ship Windows with a piece of software that does that automatically? Oh, wait, they already do that...
It needs to be said again: YOUR COMPUTER IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY! The patch for this one was available for some time (a month or so). You can't pin this one on Microsoft any more than you can blame the car manufacturer for car breakdown after you missed your scheduled service.
Isn't it about time to start introducing fines for people who propagate worms and viruses? Yes, fines for getting your machine infected. It's illegal to drive a malfunctioning car, why should it be legal to operate a malfunctioning computer? Both are a danger to the public.
Yup, there is definitely a certain amount of stupid going on. Now, is it the software, or the user who told it to automatically install the patches instead of asking for confirmation? I'm not sure...
This was as much a drug-related death as a drunk driver who rams a telephone pole, or a junkie who gets shot to death trying to break into someone's home.
Very true. But, for every teenager who forgets to drink water while high on E, you have 20 drunks wrapped around a telephone pole. And drunk drivers have a nasty tendency to take out innocent people with them. So why on earth would E consumption be a bigger problem?
Oh, I get it, ecstasy is _illegal_...
I'd rather have people think illicit drugs are more dangerous than they actually are than to have them think that a substance cooked up in some stranger's kitchen chemistry lab is SAFE to ingest.
This is a very dangerous notion. If you lie to people (especially teenagers) you lose credibility and any shred of authority you might have. If you tell to your kids 'drop one tablet, your brain turns to mush' and that same kid goes to school with dozens of kids who did it, and didn't turn to zombies, they just conclude that you're full of BS and ignore everything you say. Even any valid points you might have.
Makes me think about those stupid consumer warning labels, and how dumb someone must have been to actually do something that stupid.
The warning labels are not put for the benefit of stupid people. They are put so stupid people don't sue them after doing the exact stupid thing that the label describes.
Setting up a printer in Linux was one of the first things I did after I figured out how to install it, and surprise surprise all i had to do to get it working was, wait for it, READ THE MANUAL.
And in the Windows, installing a network printer goes like this: Select 'add new printer', click next, check 'network printer', click next, click next, select the printer from the list, click next, click finish, admire the test page printed out on the remote printer. Windows user is done before Linux user read the first page of the manual.
Do you for a second believe that Linux way is better in this respect?
Is it really so much to ask that people learn how to use the tool they choose to use properly? Is it so much to ask that people know how to read?
Joe Q. User (you know, the one Linux needs to win over in order to establish world domination) answers: Yes, and yes. I want to install a printer, not read something. If I wanted to read something, I'd go to the library.
NOT EVERYBODY IN MARKETING/ADVERTISING IS DUMB/UNETHICAL/EVIL!
He himself may not be. But, he still is a Satan's little helper. I don't think that you can deny with a straight face that advertising is an industry which is solely focused on finding ways of deceiving people into buying stuff.
Some days, I have no problems. Other days, the problems just stack up. I occasionally have the machine lock up on shut down. I used to have the machine crash 2 or 3 times a week, but I stopped playing Diablo II so much.
I'd seriously consider the hardware as the culprit. Heating problems? Flakey memory chips?
I really don't remember when was the last time one of our W2k or XP machines went down involuntarily. And we develop software. Our w2k office server stays up for 30-40 days between reboots (which are usually patch mandated).
Sure, noone will argue that Unix is more stable, but Windows have gone a long way from the crahs/reboot/crash/reboot days of win95/98...
If this had been a bug in MS, we may might not have heard about it for months or years unless someone on the outside published it. The crackers would have still had a good chance to have known about it.
So, it's better, more secure when the said bug was sitting in plain sight, in publicly accessible source code, for 5 years, than locked tight, somewhere in Microsofts fallout shelter, and available only in binary? Crackers have a better chance of reverse engineering binaries, than simply reading the source?
It's so much fun when a Linux vulnerability is discovered. It amuses me to no end to see Linux zealots try to spin it as another victory and proof that Linux is more secure.:-)
name one successful law suit against MS for the failure of their software to function as advertised
Dude? Hello? Does _any_ software vendor anywhere guarantee anything regarding their products? I am yet to come across a piece of software that doesn't say 'if this SW burns down your house, kills your dog and rapes your sister, well, we didn't do it, nobody saw us do it, can't prove anything'.
Ok, it's known that spam/spyware/viruses will never go away, but because of the permission stucture in linux, they just won't be as bad. It's that simple.
Which permission structure is that? NTFS supports full file permissions. NT derived krenels (w2k, xp) support per process permissions.
Still most users find it more convenient to run the system under one account no limitations. Do you really think that they will suddenly wise up when they switch to Linux?
Plus, installing a package in linux doesn't use a 3rd party executable (your package manager does everything), which means you system can keep better track of what's installed.
You mean, something like... MS Installer? Windows also keeps tracks of installed software, even SW installed by those dreaded 3rd party installers. Which still doesn't help when user clicks through the installer which says 'We own your computer. Do you agree?'.
By contrast, with Linux, if you set the nodev,noexec,nosuid flags on/home and you're not running as root, you are already orders of magnitudes more secure than with any version of Windows.
But there's nothing that prevents you from doing exactly that on Windows also. The point is people don't. People click on attachments in mails. Even if the mail program tells them not to.
Windows has all the bugs, bloatware etc. because Microsoft is focused on making a profit of its monopoly position, not providing a valuable product to its customers.
IMHO, wrong. Any company is focused on making profit. Linux isn't, because it's not a company, but any company using Linux on it's way to profit definitely is. Look up IBM, for example. The higher the market share the company has, the nastier the politics. What makes you think that Linux companies holding high market percentages will behave differently? Because the group of people that produced the OS have different ideas?
Big money is big money, and when it arrives on Linux, don't expect it to change its manners.
In fact, if Linux does reach 50% of the desktop:
1. Windows will become a far better product
Well, I'm sorry if you're out of the loop, but it has. Windows 2000 and onward are really miles ahead of what Windows 95 & 98 have been. Other replies on my comment pointed varous 'windows suxx0rz' arguments that simply have no more basis in reality. You can make a Windows box as tight as necessary and with as much (or even less) jumping through hoops as on Linux.
2. Linux would still have the modularity and diversity it has now, ensuring that at least those who use the Debian distro (for example) will continue to have a fine, reliable product.
But that's not the point. You can roll your own Windows distribution if you wish (tools for that are available), but that doesn't change the fact that the majority of users, those that make those 50% of the market don't. And they are the ones that will click on an executable. Even if the mail program says they probably shouldn't. That won't change. If, after Macromedia, Real decides to release a Linux version of RealPlayer, do you think they won't make it every bit as nasty and intrusive as their Windows version?
My point is: major market share brings with it a major share of problems. So, enjoy the age of Linux innocence, you might miss it.
How much better could Linux get if it were that popular?
Seems like you don't realise that the only real edge Linux has over Windows is the fact that it's not popular, Joe Average OS.
When Linux get as popular as Windows, you'll also get all the bugs, all the bloatware, all the spyware, all the idiots, all the exploits and all the garbage you get with Windows. Getting Flash ported is an obvious step in that direction...
Be careful what you wish for, you probably won't like it when you get it.
but Acrobat Reader sucks on Windows too, especially the latest one (6) which takes twice as long to load (cf 5), offers no improvments, adds some new buttons to make the interface more cluttered, and displays a list of 100 patents while loading to piss me off.
Funny. I use version 4.05 and simply cannot think of a reason to upgrade. Loads instantly, displays PDFs, doesn't crash.
So all the Guard troops in Iraq are "avoiding" service?
Of course not. They are in Iraq, not in Texas, as Bush was. AFAIK, National Guard was never deployed in Vietnam. Guarding Texas against invasion sure sounds like avoiding military, when the alternative was going head to head with the vietnamese. Not many chances of getting killed serving in Texas, is there? Except maybe, for flying a plane while drunk, but that's another story...
Bush is a pilot. He flew jets.
He flew jets over Texas. Until he got his licence revoked, for not passing his physical (apparently, he didn't feel the need to take it). Doesn't quite compare with flying combat missions over Vietnam, does it?
What do you do?
Software developer. In Croatia. Served in the military, if that's what you're asking.
Do what I did. Open the task manager and do a Google search for each of the processes.
Which works well if the nasty is listed as a separate process. Which is not always the case. For example, all services go under a couple of master-processes (svchost.exe, services.exe). Furthermore, nasties don't need to be resident, they can be invoked when an activity of interest takes place. So you may miss it, except for a couple of seconds they do their bussiness.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think people on dial up ever patch.. because downloading the 100 megs of updates that both Jaguar, Panther, and XP require has got to be hell.
Well, I can't comment on Mac, but on 2k/XP patches are downloaded by a service called Background Intelligent Transfer Service (cute, eh?). It DLs using bandwidth not used by the system or apps (so everything else has priority and goes on uninterrupted) and gracefully handles transfer resuming. Basically, it's invisible to the system, and when it's done, it notifies the user.
So, even being on dialup is no excuse for not updating and patching on time.
Yes, there are automatic updates if you know enough to turn them on.
:-)
Which is probably why they are turned on by default (at least with the latest service pack).
no substitute for a qualified engineer because the engineer can check the patch hasn't broken anything else.
Well, if you think that out for a second, you'll notice that it's simply not possible. Even if they decided to go broke by hiring a million 'patch install engineers' and having them sent out to inspect each and every OS installation out there, do you think that they will have the time or knowledge to test everything installed on said machines? How about custom applications running on company servers, something they haven't even seen before? Maybe they should stay for a couple of weeks to learn how and what it does? Isn't that something companies pay their IT staff for?
Besides, if you're a major customer, you probably will get a personal visit whenever you need one.
There is such a thing as a 'resonable effort'. Providing automatic patch updating and thoroughly testing the patch before the release would be it. People who refuse to take responsiblity for their computers shouldn't be using them, for the sake of the rest of us.
If there were another platform with an even remotely significant percentage of the user base, no customer in their right mind would swallow Janus; they would gravitate toward the inevitable alternative.
Unfortunately, it's not that simple. It's not MS that's pushing for this, it's the media companies. They would outright refuse to release content for your imaginary alternative solution, unless it too guaranteed that anything and everything is locked down, tight.
*This* is the reason why we need open standards and, apparently, open source.
Sorry, open source won't help this situation a bit, I'm afraid...
Maybe people need to take a test before operating a computer/getting on the web, then.
Yes, I'm strongly in favor of that also. A computer connected to the net (especially over broadband) is a device capable of potentially inflicting harm on numerous other computers/individuals/organizations. A basic education in operating such a device really seems like a good idea. Because, the situation will only get worse than it is now.
Microsoft, on the other hand (or indeed any software vendor) don't mail you, they post a note on their website (how many people regularly check the MS website?) and let you download a patch which you have to install yourself.
Hello? Automatic updates? You haven't been paying attention, have you?
I (almost) never visit their web site, and all my machines are patched regularly. When a new patch is out, I get an e-mail from MS (yes, incredibly, they do have a mailing list for exactly such purpose, who would have thought). You can even have a flashing icon in system tray, if you'd like it that way. I download and install the patches at my convenience, with a couple of clicks. But, you can avoid even that much work and make patching fully automatic if you choose to do so.
Welchia, Slammer, Blaster, Swen, Sobig... I found out about all of those by reading slashdot, not one affected any of my machines, ever. And I have a windows box on gateway machine connected to the net, 24/7.
if you've downloaded a free OS like Linux then you should expect to have to apply the patches yourself, or pay for an engineer to apply them
I believe you can automate patching for most if not all of Linux flavors also.
So, do you have any valid points to offer?
Microsoft has to take part of the responsibility and offer to send consultants out for free to patch and fix the servers.
Or, even better, ship Windows with a piece of software that does that automatically? Oh, wait, they already do that...
It needs to be said again: YOUR COMPUTER IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY! The patch for this one was available for some time (a month or so). You can't pin this one on Microsoft any more than you can blame the car manufacturer for car breakdown after you missed your scheduled service.
Isn't it about time to start introducing fines for people who propagate worms and viruses? Yes, fines for getting your machine infected. It's illegal to drive a malfunctioning car, why should it be legal to operate a malfunctioning computer? Both are a danger to the public.
but I ask, what novel piece of software was invented in a developing country?
Kazaa, Skype? Developed in Estonia, IIRC.
Stupid feature.
Yup, there is definitely a certain amount of stupid going on. Now, is it the software, or the user who told it to automatically install the patches instead of asking for confirmation? I'm not sure...
This was as much a drug-related death as a drunk driver who rams a telephone pole, or a junkie who gets shot to death trying to break into someone's home.
Very true. But, for every teenager who forgets to drink water while high on E, you have 20 drunks wrapped around a telephone pole. And drunk drivers have a nasty tendency to take out innocent people with them. So why on earth would E consumption be a bigger problem?
Oh, I get it, ecstasy is _illegal_...
I'd rather have people think illicit drugs are more dangerous than they actually are than to have them think that a substance cooked up in some stranger's kitchen chemistry lab is SAFE to ingest.
This is a very dangerous notion. If you lie to people (especially teenagers) you lose credibility and any shred of authority you might have. If you tell to your kids 'drop one tablet, your brain turns to mush' and that same kid goes to school with dozens of kids who did it, and didn't turn to zombies, they just conclude that you're full of BS and ignore everything you say. Even any valid points you might have.
Makes me think about those stupid consumer warning labels, and how dumb someone must have been to actually do something that stupid.
The warning labels are not put for the benefit of stupid people. They are put so stupid people don't sue them after doing the exact stupid thing that the label describes.
I shall patent the method of respiration, and all shall pay me a $.07 license fee with every breath they take!!
Clever, but can be taken further. How about getting a patent on every move you make, every bond you break and every step you take?
Although, somehow I sense that there's a prior art somewhere...
What, were you afraid it might be a picture of Bill Goatse?
:-))
So, that was Bill G. on that picture? Ooh...
(and another internet legend is born
Setting up a printer in Linux was one of the first things I did after I figured out how to install it, and surprise surprise all i had to do to get it working was, wait for it, READ THE MANUAL.
And in the Windows, installing a network printer goes like this: Select 'add new printer', click next, check 'network printer', click next, click next, select the printer from the list, click next, click finish, admire the test page printed out on the remote printer. Windows user is done before Linux user read the first page of the manual.
Do you for a second believe that Linux way is better in this respect?
Is it really so much to ask that people learn how to use the tool they choose to use properly? Is it so much to ask that people know how to read?
Joe Q. User (you know, the one Linux needs to win over in order to establish world domination) answers: Yes, and yes. I want to install a printer, not read something. If I wanted to read something, I'd go to the library.
However, why should there even be "new cool Skins" for a little application that removes spyware from your computer?
/me hopes noone notices his rgb-light-emitting power supply ;-)
Why? How else can you post screenshots of your kewl desktop for all the world to admire and respect your 133t sk1llz?
Application skins for SW go to the same category as translucent cases, LEDs and neon tubes for HW.
Kids love them.
When we got the targets back, and the scores were compared, I was significantly below average.
What happened, your aimbot was malfunctioning?
NOT EVERYBODY IN MARKETING/ADVERTISING IS DUMB/UNETHICAL/EVIL!
He himself may not be. But, he still is a Satan's little helper. I don't think that you can deny with a straight face that advertising is an industry which is solely focused on finding ways of deceiving people into buying stuff.
Some days, I have no problems. Other days, the problems just stack up. I occasionally have the machine lock up on shut down. I used to have the machine crash 2 or 3 times a week, but I stopped playing Diablo II so much.
I'd seriously consider the hardware as the culprit. Heating problems? Flakey memory chips?
I really don't remember when was the last time one of our W2k or XP machines went down involuntarily. And we develop software. Our w2k office server stays up for 30-40 days between reboots (which are usually patch mandated).
Sure, noone will argue that Unix is more stable, but Windows have gone a long way from the crahs/reboot/crash/reboot days of win95/98...
If this had been a bug in MS, we may might not have heard about it for months or years unless someone on the outside published it. The crackers would have still had a good chance to have known about it.
:-)
So, it's better, more secure when the said bug was sitting in plain sight, in publicly accessible source code, for 5 years, than locked tight, somewhere in Microsofts fallout shelter, and available only in binary? Crackers have a better chance of reverse engineering binaries, than simply reading the source?
It's so much fun when a Linux vulnerability is discovered. It amuses me to no end to see Linux zealots try to spin it as another victory and proof that Linux is more secure.
name one successful law suit against MS for the failure of their software to function as advertised
Dude? Hello? Does _any_ software vendor anywhere guarantee anything regarding their products? I am yet to come across a piece of software that doesn't say 'if this SW burns down your house, kills your dog and rapes your sister, well, we didn't do it, nobody saw us do it, can't prove anything'.
Ok, it's known that spam/spyware/viruses will never go away, but because of the permission stucture in linux, they just won't be as bad. It's that simple.
Which permission structure is that? NTFS supports full file permissions. NT derived krenels (w2k, xp) support per process permissions.
Still most users find it more convenient to run the system under one account no limitations. Do you really think that they will suddenly wise up when they switch to Linux?
Plus, installing a package in linux doesn't use a 3rd party executable (your package manager does everything), which means you system can keep better track of what's installed.
You mean, something like... MS Installer? Windows also keeps tracks of installed software, even SW installed by those dreaded 3rd party installers. Which still doesn't help when user clicks through the installer which says 'We own your computer. Do you agree?'.
By contrast, with Linux, if you set the nodev,noexec,nosuid flags on /home and you're not running as root, you are already orders of magnitudes more secure than with any version of Windows.
But there's nothing that prevents you from doing exactly that on Windows also. The point is people don't. People click on attachments in mails. Even if the mail program tells them not to.
Windows has all the bugs, bloatware etc. because Microsoft is focused on making a profit of its monopoly position, not providing a valuable product to its customers.
IMHO, wrong. Any company is focused on making profit. Linux isn't, because it's not a company, but any company using Linux on it's way to profit definitely is. Look up IBM, for example. The higher the market share the company has, the nastier the politics. What makes you think that Linux companies holding high market percentages will behave differently? Because the group of people that produced the OS have different ideas?
Big money is big money, and when it arrives on Linux, don't expect it to change its manners.
In fact, if Linux does reach 50% of the desktop:
1. Windows will become a far better product
Well, I'm sorry if you're out of the loop, but it has. Windows 2000 and onward are really miles ahead of what Windows 95 & 98 have been. Other replies on my comment pointed varous 'windows suxx0rz' arguments that simply have no more basis in reality. You can make a Windows box as tight as necessary and with as much (or even less) jumping through hoops as on Linux.
2. Linux would still have the modularity and diversity it has now, ensuring that at least those who use the Debian distro (for example) will continue to have a fine, reliable product.
But that's not the point. You can roll your own Windows distribution if you wish (tools for that are available), but that doesn't change the fact that the majority of users, those that make those 50% of the market don't. And they are the ones that will click on an executable. Even if the mail program says they probably shouldn't. That won't change. If, after Macromedia, Real decides to release a Linux version of RealPlayer, do you think they won't make it every bit as nasty and intrusive as their Windows version?
My point is: major market share brings with it a major share of problems. So, enjoy the age of Linux innocence, you might miss it.
How much better could Linux get if it were that popular?
Seems like you don't realise that the only real edge Linux has over Windows is the fact that it's not popular, Joe Average OS.
When Linux get as popular as Windows, you'll also get all the bugs, all the bloatware, all the spyware, all the idiots, all the exploits and all the garbage you get with Windows. Getting Flash ported is an obvious step in that direction...
Be careful what you wish for, you probably won't like it when you get it.
but Acrobat Reader sucks on Windows too, especially the latest one (6) which takes twice as long to load (cf 5), offers no improvments, adds some new buttons to make the interface more cluttered, and displays a list of 100 patents while loading to piss me off.
Funny. I use version 4.05 and simply cannot think of a reason to upgrade. Loads instantly, displays PDFs, doesn't crash.
So all the Guard troops in Iraq are "avoiding" service?
Of course not. They are in Iraq, not in Texas, as Bush was. AFAIK, National Guard was never deployed in Vietnam. Guarding Texas against invasion sure sounds like avoiding military, when the alternative was going head to head with the vietnamese. Not many chances of getting killed serving in Texas, is there? Except maybe, for flying a plane while drunk, but that's another story...
Bush is a pilot. He flew jets.
He flew jets over Texas. Until he got his licence revoked, for not passing his physical (apparently, he didn't feel the need to take it). Doesn't quite compare with flying combat missions over Vietnam, does it?
What do you do?
Software developer. In Croatia. Served in the military, if that's what you're asking.
Do what I did. Open the task manager and do a Google search for each of the processes.
Which works well if the nasty is listed as a separate process. Which is not always the case. For example, all services go under a couple of master-processes (svchost.exe, services.exe). Furthermore, nasties don't need to be resident, they can be invoked when an activity of interest takes place. So you may miss it, except for a couple of seconds they do their bussiness.