Isn't anybody worried about exposing themselves to the wrath of M$. Anybody who has this code is doing something illegal. Is it really intelligent to state that you have it on a public board or post security flaws and the source code you used to find it.
What can M$ really do to people who have the code or spread the code farther?
Are you sure?
Typically you must use the login command to sign in as any other normal user. Of course, I'm only using a Linux box. So I'm not sure if this is exactly Mac specific. I think I will try it next time i'm no a Mac though.
The end users and administrators have less control over what's on the PC. What files are on the HD, and what code is executed is not at all under control? It's the original owner's call on what runs on your computer. This can include a hacker's malicious code, hidden on your system. It would suck if you were unable to delete b/c u didn't have your own permissions on your own damn computer.
It is not more secure. There will always be work arounds and there will always be hackers tampering w/ the hardware and the chipsets. It only give more people control over your PC and takes it away from you.
How the heck could IBM have donated hundreds of thousands of lines of code. IBM hasn't helped us out THAT much. SCO has yet to produce one shred of evidence. I know they're still in "discovery phase," and in that case they should shut the hell up about it.
what "thousands lines of code?" I thought it was 80!!!
I'm only saying that there is nobody to sue, b/c the code in question is in 2.5 and most production systems use 2.4. If the "illegal" code isn't in there, SCO can't sue them for using 2.4. It puts a damper on their plans to continue suits into the Linux community.
If the changes were allegedly made into the 2.5 series of the kernel, then SCO has no legal ground against end users or corporations for using Linux. 2.5 is the development version and is not stable enough for everyday use in production systems. So nobody but perhaps testers and developers should be using it.
Where did this guy get his info on which kernel it went into? B/c if they're right and it was 2.5, it should put distros and corporate users at ease b/c they don't use 2.5. SCO will have no legal ground to sue future companies
It's good that Houston turned away from the brute tactics of M$, but why didn't they choose an open source alternative like OpenOffice.org or a more well-known alternative like StarOffice that does have good presentation software.
Slashdot Mirror
Windows Service Packsy
AVG Anti-Virus
BlackICE Firewall
GAIM
Winzip
Firefox
OpenOffice
Putt
eMule
Sun Java 2 SDK
Isn't anybody worried about exposing themselves to the wrath of M$. Anybody who has this code is doing something illegal. Is it really intelligent to state that you have it on a public board or post security flaws and the source code you used to find it.
What can M$ really do to people who have the code or spread the code farther?
Does this mean that other drivers used for hardware (i.e. WinModems) might also be able to be emulated via this method?
Wow "su" is a fairly simple command, and I never knew that. Learn something new everyday don't we :-D
Are you sure? Typically you must use the login command to sign in as any other normal user. Of course, I'm only using a Linux box. So I'm not sure if this is exactly Mac specific. I think I will try it next time i'm no a Mac though.
Actually it is the means by which to log in as the super user "root" in the console.
The end users and administrators have less control over what's on the PC. What files are on the HD, and what code is executed is not at all under control? It's the original owner's call on what runs on your computer. This can include a hacker's malicious code, hidden on your system. It would suck if you were unable to delete b/c u didn't have your own permissions on your own damn computer. It is not more secure. There will always be work arounds and there will always be hackers tampering w/ the hardware and the chipsets. It only give more people control over your PC and takes it away from you.
This doesn't mean that ATI has stopped Linux support have they?
How the heck could IBM have donated hundreds of thousands of lines of code. IBM hasn't helped us out THAT much. SCO has yet to produce one shred of evidence. I know they're still in "discovery phase," and in that case they should shut the hell up about it.
SCO..."Shit or get off the Pot."
what "thousands lines of code?" I thought it was 80!!! I'm only saying that there is nobody to sue, b/c the code in question is in 2.5 and most production systems use 2.4. If the "illegal" code isn't in there, SCO can't sue them for using 2.4. It puts a damper on their plans to continue suits into the Linux community.
If the changes were allegedly made into the 2.5 series of the kernel, then SCO has no legal ground against end users or corporations for using Linux. 2.5 is the development version and is not stable enough for everyday use in production systems. So nobody but perhaps testers and developers should be using it. Where did this guy get his info on which kernel it went into? B/c if they're right and it was 2.5, it should put distros and corporate users at ease b/c they don't use 2.5. SCO will have no legal ground to sue future companies
It's good that Houston turned away from the brute tactics of M$, but why didn't they choose an open source alternative like OpenOffice.org or a more well-known alternative like StarOffice that does have good presentation software.