I took the Pepsi bottle cap, inserted it into my PC CD drive, and could read nothing.
But I forgot to hold down Shift - that may be why.
I just wish people would document these hacks properly before publishing them. I'm pretty computer-savvy, so I don't think it was a mistake on my part.
Voluntarily bringing this to court would be nothing short of suicidal.
Exactly. That would spell the end of the fun times.
There's a certain devious bastard in the Pacific Northwest who is desperate and can't think of anything else to do. He's beat and he's starting to scrap like a loser.
Darl went after IBM because it was the most outrageous thing to do.
Every move SCO has made has been made to be more outrageous than the one before. They're stirring the pot. They want dissension in the open source camp. They want distraction. They want to rattle people. The more preposterous the claims, the better. They want to kill open source - destroy Linux and Linus both. This is straight by the book Halloween Documents. It's so bloody obvious.
And they're doing it because somebody's told them to. They have absolutely nothing to lose, and a promise that if they keep it up just a little bit longer...
Somebody is already planning their early retirement...
But there are MORE SECURE operating systems than Microsoft's various Windows versions.
OK, I seriously doubt this is possible - I mean how can you improve on perfection - but if it should, against all odds, be true - why are you holding us in suspense?
Why are all our systems built on such a foundation of instability?
Gee, I don't know - why don't you try getting a degree in programming, and then you can tell us?
Seriously: if C is at fault, then assembler must be too. But you can't mean C, because you can't know what you're talking about. It's zero-terminated strings, perhaps. Forbidding pointers might just as well send you back to school in Switzerland (but I doubt you will get the reference).
It's not the language at fault - go that far, and the next thing, you'll be forbidding von Neumann instruction oriented machines.
No, it's the programmers. Who evidently can't program a damn.
The same C and C++ are used in Unix. Where it all started. BWK still says to this day that C is his favourite language. Unix is considered very stable and secure. Now why is that, if it uses the same language as Microsoft?
And KDE is built up on C++. Found any holes in that lately?
And please, please, please do not tell people or even suggest that a programming language 'developed' by Microsoft would be an improvement in any kind of context - if you find that urge persisting, see your family physician.
while M$ tries to give you a big bloated piece of software with OS and THEIR apps tightly integrated. look at what the people doing micro-kernels are doing.
Apple use a micro-kernel, of course, and Prism started as micro-kernel. While Steve Jobs got Avie Tevanian, MS got Rick Rashid.
But Cutler abandoned the micro-kernel idea after a while, especially when he was 'gradually' made to understand that he wasn't making a cute console-mode LAN server to be locked good and proper in a vault, but a wiz-bang server with a GUI (Cutler hates GUIs) and with WIZARDS so terminally clueless people could configure his OS.
Faced with the unavoidable slow-down which all this traditional 'Microsoft technology' meant, he started moving things back in. win32k.sys turned out to be one of the hugest files in the system. That's the Win32 subsystem. Prior to NT4, it ran outside the kernel - where it should. Because the idiots making Windows Explorer were idiots, Cutler had to move it back in, or lose the 10/1 speed ratio he had held.
The beginning of the end. BSODs due to bad drivers became common under NT4. They'd been seldom seen on prior versions.
And then Cutler had had enough, and left town.
And that's when things really started to go bad...
1. Both Unix and Linux came out of unstressed environments.
2. The PC market has led to hysterical commercialism.
Today we see a planned obsolescence that even the US automotive industry would be ashamed of. As Mark Minasi found when interviewing marketing suits for his book 'The Software Conspiracy', the suits know about security and bugs, but they deliberately prioritise them down.
They need to get to market instead.
Unix had its exploits in the beginning. It was dead easy to install a trojan at the login screen. Heck, I devised a hack that worked on all SVR4 machines to take over root. It's just that Unix and Linux have both had a chance to mature without all this hysterical going-on plaguing the market Microsoft is in.
Plus, and this is a no-brainer: there are a lot more talented people working at Bell Labs and with Linus.
Yup. When they were getting ready to release Chicago, the legacy 16-bit system stayed 'as is', because a lot of the people who had worked on it were no longer around, and no one wanted to touch it with a barge pole - no one knew how it ran.
Now when they're picking up the pieces after Cutler, it's much the same thing.
They're not so clueful, these guys, anyway...
Windows is a hot-wired system. Well-organised it ain't. But it will have taken the source code leak to make it possible for everyone to get a clue just how bad things are under the bonnet.
'I find Windows of absolutely no technical interest. They took systems designed for isolated desktop systems and put them on the net without thinking about evildoers, as our president would say.'
- Bill Joy
Realistically, this is only true if the stupid windows user adds himself to the admins group (or signs in as administrator) and the linux user does not.
But you're only scratching the surface, and you know it. Security is a lot more than access to the root account. No point in going into detail, as it's bloody obvious.
A stupid windows user will be an even more stupid linux user
No. Totally wrong. Explain why OS X is so 'out of the box secure' that even the FBI recommend them.
Linux _can_ be insecure, but a few config changes can remedy that easily, and then your stupid Windows users can be as stupid as they want and it won't matter.
The stupidity to focus on here is not end-user stupidity, but Microsoft stupidity.
If they get knocked back to 50% marketshare then their quality will improve
That is definitely not a given. And the web is growing up. It's perfectly possible for MS to implode, and for the web to leave MS behind. Big ships take a long time to turn.
Everyone's got good advice. Here organised crime makes an inroad into flaky MS technologies and to avoid a panic, people here and elsewhere advise turning off HTML, turning off JavaScript, turning off VBScript, abandoning LookOut, abandoning Internet Exploder...
It's all good advice, but it's pretty damned late. The writing was on the wall way back in May 2000, when ILOVEYOU hit. It was obvious even then that the entire world was sleeping. And although suspicions are still high that ILOVEYOU was actually an accident, the damage was real.
Half a year after ILOVEYOU, a concerned programmer decided to release a similar program into the wild, just to shake people up, and remind them that they hadn't learned a thing from the trauma half a year earlier.
And it didn't help a bit.
Today, with more holes in MS technology than openings in a fish net, the advice is still to turn off HTML, turn off JavaScript, turn off VBScript, abandon LookOut, abandon Internet Exploder...
Will no one realise that something is very very wrong when a technology such as MS's can allow arbitrary execution of code through a layer that by definition is supposed to not be able to do this? Will no one realise that the error is not in activating bells and whistles, but in the design itself?
MS is not going to survive. Only the criminals want this. Without millions of unprotected PCs out there, run by people who have no clue and can't be expected to, they're out of money.
This Internet used to be a cool thing. When was the last time any of you could concentrate on that, and not on all these MS-inflicted woes?
It's true, more than anyone can fully appreciate: the mongrels Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer ruined the neighbourhood.
Slashdot Mirror
This didn't work for me.
I took the Pepsi bottle cap, inserted it into my PC CD drive, and could read nothing.
But I forgot to hold down Shift - that may be why.
I just wish people would document these hacks properly before publishing them. I'm pretty computer-savvy, so I don't think it was a mistake on my part.
Voluntarily bringing this to court would be nothing short of suicidal.
Exactly. That would spell the end of the fun times.
There's a certain devious bastard in the Pacific Northwest who is desperate and can't think of anything else to do. He's beat and he's starting to scrap like a loser.
SCO is just a Microsoft puppet being used to do the nasty things M$ can't do in public.
Aw, do you really think so lowly of Darl and Bill?
Gosh.
Darl went after IBM because it was the most outrageous thing to do.
Every move SCO has made has been made to be more outrageous than the one before. They're stirring the pot. They want dissension in the open source camp. They want distraction. They want to rattle people. The more preposterous the claims, the better. They want to kill open source - destroy Linux and Linus both. This is straight by the book Halloween Documents. It's so bloody obvious.
And they're doing it because somebody's told them to. They have absolutely nothing to lose, and a promise that if they keep it up just a little bit longer...
Somebody is already planning their early retirement...
What's Google's URL please.
I can't find it on Google.
Well, considering the Amsterdam ruling, surely lin# should be pronounced lin-hash?
Nope. They've already copyrighted hash in the Netherlands.
Lin_ _ _ s might be a better way to put it
OK, we give up: how do you pronounce THAT?
I hope someone named Linda sues them :)
Better yet, everyone named --- could start a class action.
Well, a California court said Micro---- can't use Win---- in a proprietary way anymore, so...
Pixar render farm uses Linux computers
True, but they use Macs and iChat AV to report to their leader.
eWEEK has a hack for CS. Just import at another size, then restore. Don't have the link, but it's there.
Then there's the rest of us.
That says it all.
But there are MORE SECURE operating systems than Microsoft's various Windows versions.
OK, I seriously doubt this is possible - I mean how can you improve on perfection - but if it should, against all odds, be true - why are you holding us in suspense?
Why are all our systems built on such a foundation of instability?
Gee, I don't know - why don't you try getting a degree in programming, and then you can tell us?
Seriously: if C is at fault, then assembler must be too. But you can't mean C, because you can't know what you're talking about. It's zero-terminated strings, perhaps. Forbidding pointers might just as well send you back to school in Switzerland (but I doubt you will get the reference).
It's not the language at fault - go that far, and the next thing, you'll be forbidding von Neumann instruction oriented machines.
No, it's the programmers. Who evidently can't program a damn.
The same C and C++ are used in Unix. Where it all started. BWK still says to this day that C is his favourite language. Unix is considered very stable and secure. Now why is that, if it uses the same language as Microsoft?
And KDE is built up on C++. Found any holes in that lately?
And please, please, please do not tell people or even suggest that a programming language 'developed' by Microsoft would be an improvement in any kind of context - if you find that urge persisting, see your family physician.
it's the fault of the programmer who made a bad choice of the embedded system
You mean the suit. Suits make choices, and suits make bad choices. Programmers keep their noses clean and try to get home early for dinner.
Now, that didn't happen in this case, as the story was already on the front page before Slashdot linked it. But it could happen, no?
/. is exempt from the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
No. By contract with the OSDN,
while M$ tries to give you a big bloated piece of software with OS and THEIR apps tightly integrated. look at what the people doing micro-kernels are doing.
Apple use a micro-kernel, of course, and Prism started as micro-kernel. While Steve Jobs got Avie Tevanian, MS got Rick Rashid.
But Cutler abandoned the micro-kernel idea after a while, especially when he was 'gradually' made to understand that he wasn't making a cute console-mode LAN server to be locked good and proper in a vault, but a wiz-bang server with a GUI (Cutler hates GUIs) and with WIZARDS so terminally clueless people could configure his OS.
Faced with the unavoidable slow-down which all this traditional 'Microsoft technology' meant, he started moving things back in. win32k.sys turned out to be one of the hugest files in the system. That's the Win32 subsystem. Prior to NT4, it ran outside the kernel - where it should. Because the idiots making Windows Explorer were idiots, Cutler had to move it back in, or lose the 10/1 speed ratio he had held.
The beginning of the end. BSODs due to bad drivers became common under NT4. They'd been seldom seen on prior versions.
And then Cutler had had enough, and left town.
And that's when things really started to go bad...
Good stuff, but remember:
1. Both Unix and Linux came out of unstressed environments.
2. The PC market has led to hysterical commercialism.
Today we see a planned obsolescence that even the US automotive industry would be ashamed of. As Mark Minasi found when interviewing marketing suits for his book 'The Software Conspiracy', the suits know about security and bugs, but they deliberately prioritise them down.
They need to get to market instead.
Unix had its exploits in the beginning. It was dead easy to install a trojan at the login screen. Heck, I devised a hack that worked on all SVR4 machines to take over root. It's just that Unix and Linux have both had a chance to mature without all this hysterical going-on plaguing the market Microsoft is in.
Plus, and this is a no-brainer: there are a lot more talented people working at Bell Labs and with Linus.
Their OS is full of this cruft
Yup. When they were getting ready to release Chicago, the legacy 16-bit system stayed 'as is', because a lot of the people who had worked on it were no longer around, and no one wanted to touch it with a barge pole - no one knew how it ran.
Now when they're picking up the pieces after Cutler, it's much the same thing.
They're not so clueful, these guys, anyway...
Windows is a hot-wired system. Well-organised it ain't. But it will have taken the source code leak to make it possible for everyone to get a clue just how bad things are under the bonnet.
'I find Windows of absolutely no technical interest. They took systems designed for isolated desktop systems and put them on the net without thinking about evildoers, as our president would say.'
- Bill Joy
Uh - so people are safe from Internet attacks, even when running Windows, as long as they vary their diet?
And does this make sense? Think of the Italians: has anything ever wiped out their spaghetti crop? No. The argument is full of holes.
Realistically, this is only true if the stupid windows user adds himself to the admins group (or signs in as administrator) and the linux user does not.
But you're only scratching the surface, and you know it. Security is a lot more than access to the root account. No point in going into detail, as it's bloody obvious.
A stupid windows user will be an even more stupid linux user
No. Totally wrong. Explain why OS X is so 'out of the box secure' that even the FBI recommend them.
Linux _can_ be insecure, but a few config changes can remedy that easily, and then your stupid Windows users can be as stupid as they want and it won't matter.
The stupidity to focus on here is not end-user stupidity, but Microsoft stupidity.
If they get knocked back to 50% marketshare then their quality will improve
That is definitely not a given. And the web is growing up. It's perfectly possible for MS to implode, and for the web to leave MS behind. Big ships take a long time to turn.
Everyone's got good advice. Here organised crime makes an inroad into flaky MS technologies and to avoid a panic, people here and elsewhere advise turning off HTML, turning off JavaScript, turning off VBScript, abandoning LookOut, abandoning Internet Exploder...
It's all good advice, but it's pretty damned late. The writing was on the wall way back in May 2000, when ILOVEYOU hit. It was obvious even then that the entire world was sleeping. And although suspicions are still high that ILOVEYOU was actually an accident, the damage was real.
Half a year after ILOVEYOU, a concerned programmer decided to release a similar program into the wild, just to shake people up, and remind them that they hadn't learned a thing from the trauma half a year earlier.
And it didn't help a bit.
Today, with more holes in MS technology than openings in a fish net, the advice is still to turn off HTML, turn off JavaScript, turn off VBScript, abandon LookOut, abandon Internet Exploder...
Will no one realise that something is very very wrong when a technology such as MS's can allow arbitrary execution of code through a layer that by definition is supposed to not be able to do this? Will no one realise that the error is not in activating bells and whistles, but in the design itself?
MS is not going to survive. Only the criminals want this. Without millions of unprotected PCs out there, run by people who have no clue and can't be expected to, they're out of money.
This Internet used to be a cool thing. When was the last time any of you could concentrate on that, and not on all these MS-inflicted woes?
It's true, more than anyone can fully appreciate: the mongrels Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer ruined the neighbourhood.