What? And not be able to return to the home of the FREEDOM FRIES and the FREEDOM KISS?
Jamais!
Seriously: too bad you were so naive. Or did you think these jerks would react better? Because they don't. They're petty people, and petty people rule the world.
I think perhaps SCO have overextended themselves. Their kamikaze mission, in all likelihood orchestrated by Redmond, has been to attack with all guns blazing. Right now they've got lawsuits in the works with so many corporations, all in different jurisdictions as I understand it too, and the cost of just keeping these lawsuits going is prohibitive for them.
I think they got hoodwinked - by the evil empire to the North. I think they're being suckered by 'that other' corporation. I do not think there is any overall sensible strategy to what they are doing, and I do think they've been given subtle indications of what they are supposed to do, and I think that involves just creating the greatest stir possible, in the hopes of seeing the open source movement - and Linux and Linus - collapse.
I think it's a desperate move - and it's a desperate move on the part of 'that other' corporation too - and I am guessing it's not all that well planned anywhere. I think all these people are as desperate as the Halloween Documents suggest they would have to be.
The Halloween Documents state unequivocally that open source has them beat, especially in terms of quality: that they cannot hope to create anything as stable, or as solid, as for example Linus has been able to do.
Now put yourselves in Bill Gates's and Steve Ballmer's shoes. They've spent a lifetime building up an empire, only to be thwarted by a bunch of unpaid nerds who end up producing something so much better than they've ever been able to do, or wanted to do, and the quality of open source code is giving them nightmares. They're looking around their castle and they see the writing on the wall.
It's desperation. Some of it is clever, the way they tag Darl along, but ultimately it's desperation. ESR put it nicely when he quoted Gandhi.
Which does not mean that it is over - not yet. The fat lady has yet to sing. So we all need to be patient.
It's not right that people should have to speculate in what things would be like without Microsoft. The whole situation is so out of balance, so out of control, that something will have to give or a cataclysm will otherwise force a change. Personally, I think Scott Adams's weasels rule: people are too cowardly to take action. They'll wait until the man (Gates) is down and then they'll pummel him mercilessly, but while he's standing they will not make a move.
It didn't even have overlapping windows, preferring a simpler technique called "tiling"
No. I still have a copy of this somewhere. They don't tile. They come up in a static position. Tiling implies the ability to overlap, and Windows 1.0 windows could definitely not overlap.
Check down the page: it says clearly that 'WS_OVERLAPPED' equates to 'WS_TILE'.
But the joke is even better, for WS_OVERLAPPED is today defined as zero, and with bitwise flags...
Windows 1.0 could not allow windows to overlap at all. To do this, they would have had to master the art of bit block transfers (bit blitting), and we all know things like that go in Redmond...
No matter how good an idea it might sound at first, such a concept just isn't workable.
I disagree. What came first: the automobile, or the traffic safety board and the department of motor vehicles? If this is the answer - and I believe it is - then people will find a way to implement it.
At the end of the day, there is little choice. Someone will have to be a scapegoat here. People won't stand for this forever.
Can the purpose of Witty be to test how successfully one can bring down Internet defences, in the event of a real attack on machines 'behind the lines'?
Goes to show you. I'm thinking that Microsoft's security model in Windows may need to be revised, considering in XP Home at least, all users run as Administrator (root) and system services have way too many privileges.
Oh definitely. I concur. But Lindows and Xandros both start you as root, and that's not smarter there, under Unix.
I think the situation with Windows is so bad it's beyond repair. I remember the US Federal Accounting Office condemned IIS a few years back as also being beyond repair. I think it's as Bill Joy said: 'they took systems meant for isolated use and put them on the Internet.'
The architecture of Windows is wrong. Cutler's NT was good - for what it was supposed to be: a LAN server. But Cutler's years in Redmond pre-date the net revolution, and he was forced to retrofit Prism onto what Gates insisted should remain: basic Windows system architecture. That simply cannot work.
Users don't have any default home directory. They can and do go anywhere. And if they can go anywhere, so can the intruders. And it's so easy to hide stuff on a Windows box. What AOL user regularly goes into the Registry to check the 'run' keys?
Windows is more of a hardware interface than a true and robust operating system, and I don't think it will ever be anything else.
The patch model for Internet security has failed spectacularly.
Replace 'Internet' with 'Microsoft'. Yes, this is not a MS vulnerability, but shit does happen, even to the best of us, and I think we can calmly claim Unix security does in fact work most of the time.
I understand the panic of the authors of this article, but we're all burdened by watching Windows get the shit kicked out of it all the time.
Would that Windows were gone so we could heighten security in general and take a saner approach to things like Witty.
There's an old story oft repeated back home and taken as truth. It's about Comdex 1983. Microsoft were still a small company back then, still in Seattle, and had a minimal representation in Vegas with Gates himself behind the counter.
All of a sudden there was a bit of a stir, and Gates found out it was a demonstration of GEM. He wandered over and pulled one of his big poker bluffs.
Heckling the product demonstrators, he told everyone who he was, what company he represented, claimed his own company had a similar product in the works, far more developed than this beta of GEM, but his company, ethical as it was, would never dream of luring the public with a demonstration of a product what wasn't ready for market.
He then supposedly stalked back to his own exhibit, closed it down demonstratively, and proclaimed that he was leaving Comdex in protest. He traveled immediately back to Seattle.
Where he immediately convened the 'board' of MS and appointed Steve Ballmer manager of the phantom project. Ballmer started getting phone calls from the media who wanted to know what the product would be called (here Ballmer was impressively creative) and also wanted to know why it was taking so long: Gates intimated MS had been working on it for several years already in 1983.
When the 'product' finally surfaced in 1985, and looked (and performed) as poorly as it did, a few people understood: it hadn't taken that long at all.
Oh this is great news. As soon as word of the merger came out, with whispers of yet another unified desktop along with it, die-hard SuSE subscribers started fleeing in droves to Debian.
Novell have been pretty lucky up to now, all things considered. It's time they showed some initiative of their own and really botched things up.
With OSS, an intrusion, even a full bore compromise of the code base is more likely to be caught.
Naive. Cf Ken Thompson, Reflections on Trusting Trust. Unix back in those days was, at least at Bell Labs, about as OSS as it can get, and the body of code was nothing compared to today either.
I represent a security company who were asked to analyse the logs on the compromised system. All the originating IPs point to a place called Lindon, Utah in the US.
I'm from Belgium and am planning to be in Tijuana later this month. I will be there for about four hours.
My employer would very much like it if I could get our company a good grid of either IBM eServes or Apple Xserve RAIDS. The Mexican peseta is cheaper than ever.
I was chosen for this assignment because I speak pretty good Mexican. I've been listening to the US president's speaches in Mexican and I can follow along pretty good.
Anyway, my question is: are there any good/big IBM/Apple outlets in Tijuana? Are there any Apple Stores there? If so, how many?
We'd like to buy somewhere between 64 and 96 units. We run an illegal gambling establishment outside Antwerp. We need to save this money if at all possible.
Last I saw, eWEEK put $400 billion at little Billy's feet. Not for monopoly abuse, but for untrustworthy computing abuse: the sum of all damages caused by the worms hitting his fantastic software for the past four years.
Now $400 billion is ten times what Billy is worth on a good day, and he'd never get it all out anyway, so a fine of $400 billion would hurt - and it would be just.
Slashdot Mirror
This appears to be a great move. And it can save people's lives. Just great. Applause.
SCO are still around? And Darl too?
I had a friend just return from the far east, and she says there is a rumour Darl is holding up in a red light district in Macao.
So this is news to me. What are he and SCO going to do this time?
It's Homer Simpson. I'm sure of it.
Besides, there are no sounds in space. They're always vacuuming up there.
What? And not be able to return to the home of the FREEDOM FRIES and the FREEDOM KISS?
Jamais!
Seriously: too bad you were so naive. Or did you think these jerks would react better? Because they don't. They're petty people, and petty people rule the world.
You have our full support here.
I think perhaps SCO have overextended themselves. Their kamikaze mission, in all likelihood orchestrated by Redmond, has been to attack with all guns blazing. Right now they've got lawsuits in the works with so many corporations, all in different jurisdictions as I understand it too, and the cost of just keeping these lawsuits going is prohibitive for them.
I think they got hoodwinked - by the evil empire to the North. I think they're being suckered by 'that other' corporation. I do not think there is any overall sensible strategy to what they are doing, and I do think they've been given subtle indications of what they are supposed to do, and I think that involves just creating the greatest stir possible, in the hopes of seeing the open source movement - and Linux and Linus - collapse.
I think it's a desperate move - and it's a desperate move on the part of 'that other' corporation too - and I am guessing it's not all that well planned anywhere. I think all these people are as desperate as the Halloween Documents suggest they would have to be.
The Halloween Documents state unequivocally that open source has them beat, especially in terms of quality: that they cannot hope to create anything as stable, or as solid, as for example Linus has been able to do.
Now put yourselves in Bill Gates's and Steve Ballmer's shoes. They've spent a lifetime building up an empire, only to be thwarted by a bunch of unpaid nerds who end up producing something so much better than they've ever been able to do, or wanted to do, and the quality of open source code is giving them nightmares. They're looking around their castle and they see the writing on the wall.
It's desperation. Some of it is clever, the way they tag Darl along, but ultimately it's desperation. ESR put it nicely when he quoted Gandhi.
Which does not mean that it is over - not yet. The fat lady has yet to sing. So we all need to be patient.
But yes, it looks fairly good right now...
seldomly
I don't think there is a word 'seldomly'. My Apple spell checker says there is not.
I think your rhetoricalness is dramatically overexaggerated.
Dan,
I think you forgot this. Here ya go.
#7) Clueless suits
it would just happen to stick it to Microsoft and the Windows Media Format
I'm reminded of what one Linus Torvalds once said in the same vein:
Really, I'm not out to destroy Microsoft. That will just be a completely unintentional side effect.
It's not right that people should have to speculate in what things would be like without Microsoft. The whole situation is so out of balance, so out of control, that something will have to give or a cataclysm will otherwise force a change. Personally, I think Scott Adams's weasels rule: people are too cowardly to take action. They'll wait until the man (Gates) is down and then they'll pummel him mercilessly, but while he's standing they will not make a move.
It didn't even have overlapping windows, preferring a simpler technique called "tiling"
= /library/en-us/winui/WinUI/WindowsUserInterface/Wi ndowing/Windows/WindowReference/WindowStyles.asp
No. I still have a copy of this somewhere. They don't tile. They come up in a static position. Tiling implies the ability to overlap, and Windows 1.0 windows could definitely not overlap.
Check this URL:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url
Check down the page: it says clearly that 'WS_OVERLAPPED' equates to 'WS_TILE'.
But the joke is even better, for WS_OVERLAPPED is today defined as zero, and with bitwise flags...
Windows 1.0 could not allow windows to overlap at all. To do this, they would have had to master the art of bit block transfers (bit blitting), and we all know things like that go in Redmond...
No matter how good an idea it might sound at first, such a concept just isn't workable.
I disagree. What came first: the automobile, or the traffic safety board and the department of motor vehicles? If this is the answer - and I believe it is - then people will find a way to implement it.
At the end of the day, there is little choice. Someone will have to be a scapegoat here. People won't stand for this forever.
Can the purpose of Witty be to test how successfully one can bring down Internet defences, in the event of a real attack on machines 'behind the lines'?
Goes to show you. I'm thinking that Microsoft's security model in Windows may need to be revised, considering in XP Home at least, all users run as Administrator (root) and system services have way too many privileges.
Oh definitely. I concur. But Lindows and Xandros both start you as root, and that's not smarter there, under Unix.
I think the situation with Windows is so bad it's beyond repair. I remember the US Federal Accounting Office condemned IIS a few years back as also being beyond repair. I think it's as Bill Joy said: 'they took systems meant for isolated use and put them on the Internet.'
The architecture of Windows is wrong. Cutler's NT was good - for what it was supposed to be: a LAN server. But Cutler's years in Redmond pre-date the net revolution, and he was forced to retrofit Prism onto what Gates insisted should remain: basic Windows system architecture. That simply cannot work.
Users don't have any default home directory. They can and do go anywhere. And if they can go anywhere, so can the intruders. And it's so easy to hide stuff on a Windows box. What AOL user regularly goes into the Registry to check the 'run' keys?
Windows is more of a hardware interface than a true and robust operating system, and I don't think it will ever be anything else.
Abandon ship. It's sinking fast.
The patch model for Internet security has failed spectacularly.
Replace 'Internet' with 'Microsoft'. Yes, this is not a MS vulnerability, but shit does happen, even to the best of us, and I think we can calmly claim Unix security does in fact work most of the time.
I understand the panic of the authors of this article, but we're all burdened by watching Windows get the shit kicked out of it all the time.
Would that Windows were gone so we could heighten security in general and take a saner approach to things like Witty.
There's an old story oft repeated back home and taken as truth. It's about Comdex 1983. Microsoft were still a small company back then, still in Seattle, and had a minimal representation in Vegas with Gates himself behind the counter.
All of a sudden there was a bit of a stir, and Gates found out it was a demonstration of GEM. He wandered over and pulled one of his big poker bluffs.
Heckling the product demonstrators, he told everyone who he was, what company he represented, claimed his own company had a similar product in the works, far more developed than this beta of GEM, but his company, ethical as it was, would never dream of luring the public with a demonstration of a product what wasn't ready for market.
He then supposedly stalked back to his own exhibit, closed it down demonstratively, and proclaimed that he was leaving Comdex in protest. He traveled immediately back to Seattle.
Where he immediately convened the 'board' of MS and appointed Steve Ballmer manager of the phantom project. Ballmer started getting phone calls from the media who wanted to know what the product would be called (here Ballmer was impressively creative) and also wanted to know why it was taking so long: Gates intimated MS had been working on it for several years already in 1983.
When the 'product' finally surfaced in 1985, and looked (and performed) as poorly as it did, a few people understood: it hadn't taken that long at all.
To think of all the cool shit Bill Gates could do with 50 billion dollars.
Crawl before you run: he could start by making halfway decent software.
I think you'll see some good competition in this area.
- S Ballmer
I think what he means is we can count on bad competition.
She'll actually be sweet sixteen on 12 October.
Oh this is great news. As soon as word of the merger came out, with whispers of yet another unified desktop along with it, die-hard SuSE subscribers started fleeing in droves to Debian.
Novell have been pretty lucky up to now, all things considered. It's time they showed some initiative of their own and really botched things up.
With OSS, an intrusion, even a full bore compromise of the code base is more likely to be caught.
Naive. Cf Ken Thompson, Reflections on Trusting Trust. Unix back in those days was, at least at Bell Labs, about as OSS as it can get, and the body of code was nothing compared to today either.
This is all very intriguing but I have a lot to do. I'll look at it yesterday when I have more time.
Hi,
I represent a security company who were asked to analyse the logs on the compromised system. All the originating IPs point to a place called Lindon, Utah in the US.
Anyone know what that means?
I can't find the link...
Hi,
I'm from Belgium and am planning to be in Tijuana later this month. I will be there for about four hours.
My employer would very much like it if I could get our company a good grid of either IBM eServes or Apple Xserve RAIDS. The Mexican peseta is cheaper than ever.
I was chosen for this assignment because I speak pretty good Mexican. I've been listening to the US president's speaches in Mexican and I can follow along pretty good.
Anyway, my question is: are there any good/big IBM/Apple outlets in Tijuana? Are there any Apple Stores there? If so, how many?
We'd like to buy somewhere between 64 and 96 units. We run an illegal gambling establishment outside Antwerp. We need to save this money if at all possible.
Slashdot, please help!
Last I saw, eWEEK put $400 billion at little Billy's feet. Not for monopoly abuse, but for untrustworthy computing abuse: the sum of all damages caused by the worms hitting his fantastic software for the past four years.
Now $400 billion is ten times what Billy is worth on a good day, and he'd never get it all out anyway, so a fine of $400 billion would hurt - and it would be just.