I just checked this using a PC with linux and clicking the "free scan' prompted me to download a.dmg program. I somehow doubt the dmg could have been executed on a PC...
Either they changed their website, either the article lies on some points.
But flash, beyond being proprietary, is 32bits only, so it does not work on "modern" systems. Furthermore, it only works on some OSes, and has security vulnerabilities. Honestly, flash format is not a bad idea, but adobe should publish open specs for the player so it could become a standard, not some proprietary blob. After all, they only earn something on the "creator" programs, not on the player.
Quantity is not quality. Google has a really good quality webmail with helpful options. It has everything of a true quality mail server. It is probably the best free webmail. Windows live on the other hand provides the worst quality webmail I have ever seen, many (most?) mails are lost, error messages are deleted, help is a pay us $1200 to valid you will have a hope the help services may try to help you. So while they may have more space to offer, it is years behind gmail in terms of quality. Yahoo seems a good quality webmail, but still inferior to gmail.
So, do you prefer having "Open Source" drivers either linked to proprietary code either full of binary magic? Or real free OpenSource drivers? The last one being only available when documentation is available.
Did people read the license that comes with windows and all other licenses that were upgraded after many updates? I suspect somewhere people just clicked on a button where it is stated that by clicking they allowed MS to just do that.
On one hand you want your privacy and security, on the other hand you just click yes on anything that comes with a license without even reading it.
It has been stated at many courts that some arguments in windows licensing are just plain illegal and this is not new. If only people tried to read and understand licenses, they would probably never click on 'I agree' on many of them.
Then there is the configuration and maintenance cost. It costs people more time to install and maintain a Windows OS loaded up with software. Support isn't always free for applications. A lot of Microsoft software I've seen pushes the "Here is the *tool* for big bucks, now pay us more to train you, and/or make it work for you."
They aknowledged the bug and posted a fix in HEAD branch directly. They didn't back release the fix because it was first thought as a reliability issue, not an exploit. When they learned there was a possible exploit, they back released the fix.
How is that news? I mean spyware is a part of windows and is even installed stock from windows 2000 and upwards. This is just yet another spyware company.
Re:Misleading Summary
on
Fedora Linux
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
1. No support. (This matters to some. Not me though)
Indeed. Better support at ubuntu forums. But, I think the support is better at ubuntu forums than at any RHEL forums.
2. Buggier. Look at the distros created with the Enterprise source code. That's a production ready OS. FC is not.
Indeed, FC is buggier than RHEL. But RHEL is buggier than most other distros too. Not a reference in my mind.. Especially in package management. I don't even count the problems in RPM database I have had.
3. (b)leading edge everything where applicable. Comparable to Debian unstable IMHO.
Not really, it's bleeding edge, but bleedier than debian unstable. Debian unstable is stable compared to FC.
4. Red Hat's Management/Sales probably don't like "free as good as paid version" statement either.
It is not "as good" as paid version. Paid version sucks and FC sucks even more, so FC sucks more than the already sucking "paid version". It seems that you have to pay for support in buggy applications, like Oracle or the likes, and you don't have to pay for stable applications like postgresql.
Now honestly, I have had much more issues with RHEL (which is usually more stable than FC) than with debian unstable. I know I will be modded down for this post and I know I will probably be flamed by RH zealots, but FC sucks and is probably one of the worst distros. In my mind FC stability is even worse than windows, sorry for this. That doesn't mean I would use windows, but I certainly wouldn't use FC either in a production environment (or even on any of my desktops).
It's quite funny some people try to write articles on security and speak of "hackers" without even knowing what it means.
HACKER (Originally, someone who makes furniture with an Ax.) n. 1. A person who enjoys learning the details of programming systems and how to stretch their capabilities, as opposed to most users who prefer to learn only the minimum necessary. 2. One who programs enthusiastically, or who enjoys programming rather than just theorizing about programming. 3. A person capable of appreciating hack value (q.v.). 4. A person who is good at programming quickly. Not everything a hacker produces is a hack.
Interviewer: So you are going to help Linux to better interoperate with windows.
S Balmers: Yes, of course... We will ensure Suse linux can run best with Microsoft Virtualisation Technology (R) on Microsoft platforms. This will also allow us to implement DRM for everyone happiness.
Interviewer: And why did you choose Novell over Red Hat for example?
S Balmers: We have already had agreements with Novell in the past when they developped their Netware directory services. So we know them already........
S Balmers: And we know we can rip off their technology like we did in the past with active directory development...... And them let them go down....
S Balmers: OOps, did I say the last sentence loud or did I just think of it?
Microsoft blesses Novell. This is a hard beat at RedHat... Oracle beats on Redhat too, it make some more pain to RH. Now RH falls bankrupt... Now, there is no RH... Novell thinks they won.. Then MS drops Novell support (along with Oracle?)... then Novell goes bankrupt... Then commercial linux is dead....
How would you pay? To pay, you will have to give you CC number or so, that means MS gets your personal data and knows who downloaded it. $1.5 is cheap, but you give them all your data, which is worth much more than $1.5.
Indeed, security through obscurity is bad, but that's how antivirus vendor make their bread. So they are for OSes and apps full of holes and disclosure, but they just cannot tell it as it would make customer afraid.
But anyway, there is no such thing as an encryption scheme that cannot be cracked. It is just a matter on how much time it will take to crack it. Encryption will always be crackable, we are just playing with the fact it would take 512 or so years to crack a particular scheme with the actual technology.
I will probably modded down as troll with this, but..
Now let me be Microsoft. Ok, I have to pay $1.5billion or so + daily fines. Right. Now what does the EU if I don't pay and don't comply? More than probably nothing but more fines which I don't see why I would pay...
Honestly, the only way to make them comply is to declare MS illegal and make illegal the use of their products and fine people who still use it. But I don't think that's possible either.
They do what they want with their product. You didn't buy the OS, you just buy a licence for it in the state you purchased it. So you can still install it in the state you purchased it, but don't beg them for updates. Anyway, if you were stupid enough to buy this stuff, then just ask yourself if you should do it again...
Even the biggest chinese ISP doesn't follow RFC (like accepting bounces). They don't care about how mail works, I would be very curious how they put an end to spam.
Slashdot Mirror
I just checked this using a PC with linux and clicking the "free scan' prompted me to download a .dmg program. I somehow doubt the dmg could have been executed on a PC...
Either they changed their website, either the article lies on some points.
But flash, beyond being proprietary, is 32bits only, so it does not work on "modern" systems. Furthermore, it only works on some OSes, and has security vulnerabilities.
Honestly, flash format is not a bad idea, but adobe should publish open specs for the player so it could become a standard, not some proprietary blob. After all, they only earn something on the "creator" programs, not on the player.
Quantity is not quality.
Google has a really good quality webmail with helpful options. It has everything of a true quality mail server. It is probably the best free webmail.
Windows live on the other hand provides the worst quality webmail I have ever seen, many (most?) mails are lost, error messages are deleted, help is a pay us $1200 to valid you will have a hope the help services may try to help you. So while they may have more space to offer, it is years behind gmail in terms of quality.
Yahoo seems a good quality webmail, but still inferior to gmail.
So, do you prefer having "Open Source" drivers either linked to proprietary code either full of binary magic? Or real free OpenSource drivers? The last one being only available when documentation is available.
Also make sure they disclose documentation so that _all_ free OSes can have free drivers, not just linux.
Did people read the license that comes with windows and all other licenses that were upgraded after many updates?
I suspect somewhere people just clicked on a button where it is stated that by clicking they allowed MS to just do that.
On one hand you want your privacy and security, on the other hand you just click yes on anything that comes with a license without even reading it.
It has been stated at many courts that some arguments in windows licensing are just plain illegal and this is not new. If only people tried to read and understand licenses, they would probably never click on 'I agree' on many of them.
Then there is the configuration and maintenance cost. It costs people more time to install and maintain a Windows OS loaded up with software. Support isn't always free for applications. A lot of Microsoft software I've seen pushes the "Here is the *tool* for big bucks, now pay us more to train you, and/or make it work for you."
They aknowledged the bug and posted a fix in HEAD branch directly. They didn't back release the fix because it was first thought as a reliability issue, not an exploit. When they learned there was a possible exploit, they back released the fix.
How is that news? I mean spyware is a part of windows and is even installed stock from windows 2000 and upwards. This is just yet another spyware company.
1. No support. (This matters to some. Not me though)
Indeed. Better support at ubuntu forums. But, I think the support is better at ubuntu forums than at any RHEL forums.
2. Buggier. Look at the distros created with the Enterprise source code. That's a production ready OS. FC is not.
Indeed, FC is buggier than RHEL. But RHEL is buggier than most other distros too. Not a reference in my mind.. Especially in package management. I don't even count the problems in RPM database I have had.
3. (b)leading edge everything where applicable. Comparable to Debian unstable IMHO.
Not really, it's bleeding edge, but bleedier than debian unstable. Debian unstable is stable compared to FC.
4. Red Hat's Management/Sales probably don't like "free as good as paid version" statement either.
It is not "as good" as paid version. Paid version sucks and FC sucks even more, so FC sucks more than the already sucking "paid version". It seems that you have to pay for support in buggy applications, like Oracle or the likes, and you don't have to pay for stable applications like postgresql.
Now honestly, I have had much more issues with RHEL (which is usually more stable than FC) than with debian unstable. I know I will be modded down for this post and I know I will probably be flamed by RH zealots, but FC sucks and is probably one of the worst distros. In my mind FC stability is even worse than windows, sorry for this. That doesn't mean I would use windows, but I certainly wouldn't use FC either in a production environment (or even on any of my desktops).
Linux is not an Operating System. It is a kernel dot .
It's quite funny some people try to write articles on security and speak of "hackers" without even knowing what it means.
HACKER (Originally, someone who makes furniture with an Ax.) n. 1. A person who enjoys learning the details of programming systems and how to stretch their capabilities, as opposed to most users who prefer to learn only the minimum necessary. 2. One who programs enthusiastically, or who enjoys programming rather than just theorizing about programming. 3. A person capable of appreciating hack value (q.v.). 4. A person who is good at programming quickly. Not everything a hacker produces is a hack.
Interviewer: So you are going to help Linux to better interoperate with windows.
S Balmers: Yes, of course... We will ensure Suse linux can run best with Microsoft Virtualisation Technology (R) on Microsoft platforms. This will also allow us to implement DRM for everyone happiness.
Interviewer: And why did you choose Novell over Red Hat for example?
S Balmers: We have already had agreements with Novell in the past when they developped their Netware directory services. So we know them already........
S Balmers: And we know we can rip off their technology like we did in the past with active directory development...... And them let them go down....
S Balmers: OOps, did I say the last sentence loud or did I just think of it?
Interviewer: You said it loud.
S Balmers: Dooh...
Microsoft blesses Novell. This is a hard beat at RedHat... Oracle beats on Redhat too, it make some more pain to RH. Now RH falls bankrupt... Now, there is no RH... Novell thinks they won.. Then MS drops Novell support (along with Oracle?)... then Novell goes bankrupt... Then commercial linux is dead....
Another MS strategy?
We are in the future. Red Hat is dead. Now how would Oracle provide services for Red Hat?
Where do you see the bug has been fixed in these (unreleased beta) drivers? I don't see this info anywhere.
As probably most of you know, windows is _not the most used OS... Tron IS...
m ID=89&threadID=178306&messageID=1831970
http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?foru
You should read deeper. Theo was focused here in firmwares for wireless chipsets. There are probably other firmwares needed (as for RAID cards)
Does that mean that I should put my desk in the toilets so that I would have less bacterias?
How would you pay? To pay, you will have to give you CC number or so, that means MS gets your personal data and knows who downloaded it.
$1.5 is cheap, but you give them all your data, which is worth much more than $1.5.
Indeed, security through obscurity is bad, but that's how antivirus vendor make their bread. So they are for OSes and apps full of holes and disclosure, but they just cannot tell it as it would make customer afraid.
PRN is not really encryption.
But anyway, there is no such thing as an encryption scheme that cannot be cracked. It is just a matter on how much time it will take to crack it.
Encryption will always be crackable, we are just playing with the fact it would take 512 or so years to crack a particular scheme with the actual technology.
I will probably modded down as troll with this, but..
Now let me be Microsoft. Ok, I have to pay $1.5billion or so + daily fines.
Right. Now what does the EU if I don't pay and don't comply?
More than probably nothing but more fines which I don't see why I would pay...
Honestly, the only way to make them comply is to declare MS illegal and make illegal the use of their products and fine people who still use it. But I don't think that's possible either.
They do what they want with their product. You didn't buy the OS, you just buy a licence for it in the state you purchased it. So you can still install it in the state you purchased it, but don't beg them for updates. Anyway, if you were stupid enough to buy this stuff, then just ask yourself if you should do it again...
Even the biggest chinese ISP doesn't follow RFC (like accepting bounces).
They don't care about how mail works, I would be very curious how they put an end to spam.