Unix does not normally need root to install stuff.
Hence user will not *normally* be running with root permissions.
Hence spyware will have limited damage and can be easily spotted and removed.
Just how hard is this concept to understand? Seems to me you just want to make out that unix has the same foibles as windows. Clue: It doesn't. Maybe if you'd ever used it (which you obviously haven't) you'd know this. End.
"yes, you need to be root to install stuff, or have a user with more priviledges."
I'm sorry, when was the last time you used unix? 1970? You do NOT need to be root to install stuff unless you wish to install it to one of the standard public bin directories. I've downloaded countless apps into some dir in my home directory and run then under my own user id. The only apps that need root are the ones that need setuid root permissions or they won't work or where you need to install a new version of a library. Try getting a clue before you post.
Can someone explain to me what is funny and/or interesting about that flash film he's linked to. I watched for a while and almost fell asleep it was so boring.
First you say: "apache has fewer problems than IIS and has a larger market"
Then you say: "apache's market share is not really dominating the market like windows and IE do."
I'm sorry , am I missing something or is that a complete contradiction?
"linux or firefox had that much, we'd see viruses and spyware written for it. "
Perhaps we would , but you're forgetting that to install spyware in unix you either need a process running all the time (easy to spot) or you need it to add itself into.profile or.kshrc or similar so its kicked off each time the user logs in. Also easy to spot and remove. Obviously if the user logs in as root all the time then anything is possible but unlike Windows you don't usually need to , even to install apps if you're installing them locally. A virus/trojan/spyware that is limited to running with normal user account privs has very limited scope in which to operate and can easily be tracked down. Sorry , but thats just the way it is.
Yes there have been a few nix viruses , but given the different versions of unix and the different architectures they run on their scope is limited. Plus in most unixes you can install and run most apps WITHOUT being root so if a virus did sneak in via a user account the worst it could (ok , should) be able to do is mess up thats users files , it wouldn't be able to mess up the whole system.
I'm sure most spyware is nothing more than some greedy company wanting to find out what you like to buy and then send off the data to their warehouse to help in decision making or something similar. HOwever , these programs could do anything which is the worrying part. 99% of them may just be Gary Grocer trying to make some extra money , but 1% may have more nefarious intentions and thats the worrying part. Once you can install a program on someone elses machine without their knowledge you can do anything with that machine that the user permissions allow.
This isn't a standard issue MS bashing troll but you do have to question whether given the ease at which programs (which is what spyware is) can install themselves on someone elses computer with little or no user intervention , Windows is fit to be allowed on the internet. If all windows systems were taken offline then almost all viruses and the like would disappear almost immediately along with spambots and other unpleasent creations of the black hat fraternity. I'm not pretending this is feasible but you have to wonder what the net would be like if only relatively secure OS's were allowed to use it.
THats fair enough , but my point (which no one seemed to get) is that UNTIL google write an OS themselves they're still going to have to rely on MS or Apple or Linus or the *BSD teams to provide one. And if the users go for Windows then MS is still going to get the cash whether google provides the desktop or not. You could argue that if google is all users ever see then the OS becomes interchangable and Windows could be replaced with Linux. Perhaps this will happen , but its a way off yet and don't forget that there will always be apps users wish to load themselves that will REQUIRE a specific OS and don't care about what desktop is in use.
Its built by specialists in the Landshut Plant for a small selling and expensive model. Its not quite the same as an automated press forming hundreds or even thousands of entire bodyshells a day out of it. Anyway , if this company manage to build this wonder car for a reasonable price then I'll be happy to be proved wrong , until then....
"Please remember: an OS is just another application as well."
Oh please do expand on that point , I'd love to know your, um , unique take on what an OS is;)
"As an off shoot look at any browser today, they all support "file:".
OOooooo , you mean you can view a file in a browser? OOOoooo. Wow , yeah , thats means is a Almost Like An OS. Bit like Notepad too eh?
"it was also a corner stone to why M$ IE is part of the OS"
Hardly. Modifying browser code to read a file rather than a socket is a no brainer. IE was embedded for somewhat dubious technical and political reasons.
... then get back to me. Until then , plu-lease, the're just another application , albeit online.
Re:Wrong path in my opinion....
on
230mph Electric Car
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Lighweight composites - ie carbon fibre or kevlar type materials. Like i said - $$$$$$ plus also they're almost impossible to make on an automated production line unlike steel (which is part of the reason they cost so much) - the stuff has to be layered on manually. Do they seriously think that no one has ever thought of using composites in mass production cars before?
Hmm. "Ultralight construction". Hmm. That either means a plastic body (fragile, nasty looking and sounding), glassfibre (smells, bitch to repair) or kevlar ($$$$$$$$ * 1000). Its easy to put ideas on a webpage. Lets see how much it weighs and how fuel efficient it is when (if) they build one.
Re:Wrong path in my opinion....
on
230mph Electric Car
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
If manufacturers could get a car down to 300kg today then they would. But its not possible with all the equipment people want and with safety requirements. The average family car these days weighs 1.5 tons, take out the weight of the engine (say 200kg), transmission (200kg) and fuel (say 50kg) and you're still looking at over a ton and most of that is down to the bodyshell, suspension, air con systems, comfy seats, electric windows etc etc. Now add back in a large battery and electric motor(s) and the weight goes off into the stratosphere. Sure , a 300kg car *could* be built but I can guaruntee that 99.9% of drivers wouldn't touch it with a bargepole because it would be like driving a go-cart (and not a very safe one either).
"And just how many times do you start your car at zero MPH with an RPM above idling speed?"
All the time if you use a manual transmission. If you don't rev the engine before you drop the clutch you'll stall it unless you have some monster V8 or diesel with buckets of torque at idle rpm.
I've never noticed bad pixels on a CRT. SOmething I'm endlessly getting with LCD displays especially the larger ones. Personally I prefer LCD but CRTs do win on certain issues.
Don't be an ass. If we're causing the change (and most of the evidence says we are) then it CAN be avoided, or at least mitigated. Your "manyana" attitude won't help anyone. Its all very well for people like yourself in rich western countries to dish out the its-not-our-fault-business-as-usual routine and get on with your cosy life , but try plying that line with people being flooded out in bangladesh or some pacific islands and so forth.
Thank you. I get tired of the "its all natural, not our fault" head-in-the-sand brigade who convenietly ignore all the data and just go by vague evidence for past climates. Its like saying that because most car accidents are caused by driver error then ALL accidents have the same cause simply because the car ends up dented at the end. Its child like logic and very dangerous.
The climate is changing NOW. We need to use an alternative to fossil fuels NOW. Wind power, solar power etc arn't up to the job , only nuclear is. Theres no point worrying about what will happen in milennia if we screw up the climate in this century since if that happens there might not be anyone around in 102,004 AD to have to worry about nuclear waste!
Slashdot Mirror
Unix does not normally need root to install stuff.
Hence user will not *normally* be running with root permissions.
Hence spyware will have limited damage and can be easily spotted and removed.
Just how hard is this concept to understand? Seems to me you just want to make out that unix has the same foibles as windows. Clue: It doesn't. Maybe if you'd ever used it (which you obviously haven't) you'd know this. End.
"yes, you need to be root to install stuff, or have a user with more priviledges."
I'm sorry, when was the last time you used unix? 1970? You do NOT need to be root to install stuff unless you wish to install it to one of the standard public bin directories. I've downloaded countless apps into some dir in my home directory and run then under my own user id. The only apps that need root are the ones that need setuid root permissions or they won't work or where you need to install a new version of a library. Try getting a clue before you post.
Sounds like something an aussie girl would put on before going clubbing.
Can someone explain to me what is funny and/or interesting about that flash film he's linked to. I watched for a while and almost fell asleep it was so boring.
"People *used to* record TV. Now they watch canned content."
Speak for yourself pal. I use my video almost every night to do exactly that as I usually get home late and miss most of the good stuff on TV.
First you say: "apache has fewer problems than IIS and has a larger market"
.profile or .kshrc or similar so its kicked off each time the user logs in. Also easy to spot and remove. Obviously if the user logs in as root all the time then anything is possible but unlike Windows you don't usually need to , even to install apps if you're installing them locally. A virus/trojan/spyware that is limited to running with normal user account privs has very limited scope in which to operate and can easily be tracked down. Sorry , but thats just the way it is.
Then you say: "apache's market share is not really dominating the market like windows and IE do."
I'm sorry , am I missing something or is that a complete contradiction?
"linux or firefox had that much, we'd see viruses and spyware written for it. "
Perhaps we would , but you're forgetting that to install spyware in unix you either need a process running all the time (easy to spot) or you need it to add itself into
Yes there have been a few nix viruses , but given the different versions of unix and the different architectures they run on their scope is limited. Plus in most unixes you can install and run most apps WITHOUT being root so if a virus did sneak in via a user account the worst it could (ok , should) be able to do is mess up thats users files , it wouldn't be able to mess up the whole system.
I'm sure most spyware is nothing more than some greedy company wanting to find out what you like to buy and then send off the data to their warehouse to help in decision making or something similar. HOwever , these programs could do anything which is the worrying part. 99% of them may just be Gary Grocer trying to make some extra money , but 1% may have more nefarious intentions and thats the worrying part. Once you can install a program on someone elses machine without their knowledge you can do anything with that machine that the user permissions allow.
This isn't a standard issue MS bashing troll but you do have to question whether given the ease at which programs (which is what spyware is) can install themselves on someone elses computer with little or no user intervention , Windows is fit to be allowed on the internet. If all windows systems were taken offline then almost all viruses and the like would disappear almost immediately along with spambots and other unpleasent creations of the black hat fraternity. I'm not pretending this is feasible but you have to wonder what the net would be like if only relatively secure OS's were allowed to use it.
THats fair enough , but my point (which no one seemed to get) is that UNTIL google write an OS themselves they're still going to have to rely on MS or Apple or Linus or the *BSD teams to provide one. And if the users go for Windows then MS is still going to get the cash whether google provides the desktop or not. You could argue that if google is all users ever see then the OS becomes interchangable and Windows could be replaced with Linux. Perhaps this will happen , but its a way off yet and don't forget that there will always be apps users wish to load themselves that will REQUIRE a specific OS and don't care about what desktop is in use.
"I can't think of a single OS that was actually written from scratch."
Then you're not thinking very hard. Most of the earlier ones were or did you think there was a kind of adam & eve OS?
So what? Is that the same as writing an OS from scratch? No. Stop karma whoring (not that you got anything).
Its built by specialists in the Landshut Plant for a small selling and expensive model. Its not quite the same as an automated press forming hundreds or even thousands of entire bodyshells a day out of it. Anyway , if this company manage to build this wonder car for a reasonable price then I'll be happy to be proved wrong , until then....
"Please remember: an OS is just another application as well."
;)
Oh please do expand on that point , I'd love to know your, um , unique take on what an OS is
"As an off shoot look at any browser today, they all support "file:".
OOooooo , you mean you can view a file in a browser? OOOoooo. Wow , yeah , thats means is a Almost Like An OS. Bit like Notepad too eh?
"it was also a corner stone to why M$ IE is part of the OS"
Hardly. Modifying browser code to read a file rather than a socket is a no brainer. IE was embedded for somewhat dubious technical and political reasons.
"their backend systems arn't exactly off the shelf components"
Really? Guess its so secret their own staff don't know it:
http://www.google.com/technology/
... then get back to me. Until then , plu-lease, the're just another application , albeit online.
Lighweight composites - ie carbon fibre or kevlar type materials. Like i said - $$$$$$ plus also they're almost impossible to make on an automated production line unlike steel (which is part of the reason they cost so much) - the stuff has to be layered on manually. Do they seriously think that no one has ever thought of using composites in mass production cars before?
Hmm. "Ultralight construction". Hmm. That either means a plastic body (fragile, nasty looking and sounding), glassfibre (smells, bitch to repair) or kevlar ($$$$$$$$ * 1000). Its easy to put ideas on a webpage. Lets see how much it weighs and how fuel efficient it is when (if) they build one.
If manufacturers could get a car down to 300kg today then they would. But its not possible with all the equipment people want and with safety requirements. The average family car these days weighs 1.5 tons, take out the weight of the engine (say 200kg), transmission (200kg) and fuel (say 50kg) and you're still looking at over a ton and most of that is down to the bodyshell, suspension, air con systems, comfy seats, electric windows etc etc. Now add back in a large battery and electric motor(s) and the weight goes off into the stratosphere. Sure , a 300kg car *could* be built but I can guaruntee that 99.9% of drivers wouldn't touch it with a bargepole because it would be like driving a go-cart (and not a very safe one either).
"And just how many times do you start your car at zero MPH with an RPM above idling speed?"
All the time if you use a manual transmission. If you don't rev the engine before you drop the clutch you'll stall it unless you have some monster V8 or diesel with buckets of torque at idle rpm.
Some other drivers fault.
Tyre blow out.
Debris in the highway.
etc
How hard is this concept to understand? The same end result does not mean the same initial cause.
I've never noticed bad pixels on a CRT. SOmething I'm endlessly getting with LCD displays especially the larger ones. Personally I prefer LCD but CRTs do win on certain issues.
Don't be an ass. If we're causing the change (and most of the evidence says we are) then it CAN be avoided, or at least mitigated. Your "manyana" attitude won't help anyone. Its all very well for people like yourself in rich western countries to dish out the its-not-our-fault-business-as-usual routine and get on with your cosy life , but try plying that line with people being flooded out in bangladesh or some pacific islands and so forth.
Thank you. I get tired of the "its all natural, not our fault" head-in-the-sand brigade who convenietly ignore all the data and just go by vague evidence for past climates. Its like saying that because most car accidents are caused by driver error then ALL accidents have the same cause simply because the car ends up dented at the end. Its child like logic and very dangerous.
The climate is changing NOW. We need to use an alternative to fossil fuels NOW. Wind power, solar power etc arn't up to the job , only nuclear is. Theres no point worrying about what will happen in milennia if we screw up the climate in this century since if that happens there might not be anyone around in 102,004 AD to have to worry about nuclear waste!