Forgot to mention one thing: though it mentions they were "on the moon for a few days", it doesn't talk about the travel there - which was under "partial gravity" for the entire trip, and took a substantial amount of time, each time they went.
Gosh, I guess I was wrong. You are a troll. How unfortunate. It might assist you in the future if you learn to comprehend english, since you seem to be seeing contradictions in statements that are completely clear to those who have a modicum of intellegence. I apologize for attempting to defend you. It won't happen again. By the way, good luck finding a job. I hear McDonald's is hiring.
Okay, well, I guess you are still pissed off or something. As for the DR-DOS thing, well, comparing it to knowing say, about the American Revolution, pretty much tells me your perspective is shot. The DR-DOS thing, which I didn't know about (though I've heard of similar issues), is hardly important enough to be known by "anyone in the industry". Again, I didn't ask for citation on the Netscape thing, at least on purpose. Try reading my posts. I've taken the time and courtesy to read and respond to your diatribes. I've even attempted to understand what you've written and why. I asked for further information on DR-DOS. Someone else gave it. What's the big deal.
As an aside, as EVERYONE knows in THE WHOLE WORLD, IQ has absolutely no relation with how much someone knows, or whether someone knows about a particular thing. Perhaps you should come up with a better way to attack people for lacking the knowledge of a relatively useful peice of trivia? Ignorant is my favorite tact, but feel free to pick your own.
It's unfortunate that this was marked as a troll - I almost missed it. I was working for Netscape during that lawsuit, and I didn't ask for a resource on that topic (or at least mean to) - I just hadn't heard the whole story on DR DOS, and figured it'd be nice to know. As for me googling for it myself - sure, I could do that. But why force everyone else to do your research for you? If you want to make a point, then it's pretty much your responsibility to support it, not mine. As for the rest, I think that the rest of the posters did a nice job covering the subject, so I'll leave it where it lies. Just some advice - I think you got trolled because you were attacking me personally, in a bit of a nasty way. Better luck next time.
It's not a question of whether Linux vs. Windows on security is arguable or not, just whether it can be proven. And I say it can't, IMHO. Your arguement not withstanding...
This just isn't true. The majority of worms that have effected users in the past year have been executables that are distributed over email. It isn't that Outlook is the mail reader, it's that the executable is being run on the system, which allows executables to DO THINGS to a computer. Same thing can happen to Linux, it is just much more difficult to execute the file, etc.
Sorry to be all RAH-RAH!, but this damn post is the most useful one I've seen so far. Look, the point is, especially with genetic diversity, is not that each thing isn't vulnerable, it is that they are not vulnerable to the same damn thing. And that is good. Again, however, I have to ask: why can't there be middle ground? I fight for that middle ground: I want interoperability and resistence to attack. Let's find a way to have both, as much as we can. We shouldn't ignore either, and we are.
Yes, it is all black and white. There are simple causes for every outcome. Because of this, THIS happens. Oh, and capitalization makes things more true. REALLY!
A couple things:
On point #1:
1. DOS does not equal windows
2. MacOS, UNIX, AmigaOS, BeOS, Solaris, etc. Operating systems have competed, and lost (so far). Is it because Microsoft practices illegal monopolistic crap? That certainly is likely to be a contributing factor. But so do other businesses that fail.
On #2: Want to help us out and provide a link? I don't think this proves anything about monoculture in software, but it might be interesting.
On #3: see the above.
Okay, so fewer vulnerabilities? Prove it. Don't state it, prove it. And the Apache vs. IIS argument is a bit silly - Apache isn't Linux, and IIS isn't Windows. Linux owes its ability to be secure to the experiences of the marketplace, many of which comes from experiences with Windows. So no, there is no way to prove that Linux would be more secure. Open your eyes, and take a look around. Linux is probably more secure RIGHT NOW than Windows, but who the hell knows what it'd be if not for Windows?
Since this has gotten all point to point, one last thing. Writing an exploit for both is too hard for these script kiddies - there are two pieces to the puzzle - easiest screw with the most effect. That's Windows right now.
on whether you believe this tripe or not. Is there a monoculture in the software industry? Are standards bad? Is it bad that my desktop is the same operating system as the guy in the next cube? That I use the same tools as the guy down the street? Is the world ending because I use TCP/IP to communicate over this horrible Internet thing? Does everything have to be black and white? Isn't it POSSIBLE that there are a FEW advantages to my father using the same operating system, etc. that I am? Isn't it POSSIBLE that those advantages contributed to the fact that it is true?
It all makes sense now. Article was written by a web DEVELOPER. Some of it came close to making sense, I can certainly see why new APIs can be frustrating, and the point is valid in certain cases, but I didn't see any in the article. The point for me isn't that rebuilding is bad, just that it isn't always good - making the choice is the right tact, not "don't do it". Have fun with your HTML programming!
Okay, well, I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. Please look up the words hyperbole, overstatement, irony, and rhetoric. If you STILL have a problem with what I said, then I guess I can't help you. I'm not denying what the guy said. I'm not saying that there are not documented cases (the guy actually posted some references in answer to my post, duh). I'm saying that what he said is overstated, and done using rhetoric, which is bad form if you are trying to actually prove a point, not just win an arguement. Anyway, get yourself some education, if you have the time. Till then, I'll try not to hold it against you.
Please reread my comment. I'm not saying you are making anything up. Check the dictionary. I'm saying that you are not stating any facts or information - just making an emotional arguement devoid of comment. I'm not even saying I disagree with your point, just with the way you are making it.
This is one of the stupidest things I've ever read there. Unless you meant this as irony, since this is rhetoric and exaggeration at its worst. Please tell me you are trying to be funny, and restore my faith in humanity. Okay, maybe that's not possible, but please, again, tell me you are joking.
You misread me. I was just basically saying thank you to the previous author for actually having some information in their posting. I LIKE the fact there is a book reference there.
Why in all hell would "highly educated workers" want to work for "minimum wage or less"? If the industry requires that, then I guess we won't have anyone in that industry here. I mean, I've spent many many thousands of dollars for my education, and continue to have to do so every year. And the technology industry wants me to (a) work at minimum wage; (b) break the law and work at under minimum wage. No thanks. Good luck with that. And we thought that the products going to market right now sucked!
Guess I'll go find another job that doesn't require any investment in time or education, like, perhaps, CEO of a technology company.
Aha! Reward this man for having CONTENT in his post. Even if I don't agree, CONTENT! What a joy! (yes, I notice the irony that this post has very little content).
Interesting enough - there was a four hour documentary on the history channel in the last year or so that specifically covered this guy, and mentioned, in part, what you just said. So perhaps it isn't so taboo?
That's why the coroner's report includes the direct cause of death, not the hypothetical or "connected" reasons for death. So, for asthma, it won't even say "asthma" - it'll say respiratory failure due to constriction of the throat or somesuch.
Slashdot Mirror
Forgot to mention one thing: though it mentions they were "on the moon for a few days", it doesn't talk about the travel there - which was under "partial gravity" for the entire trip, and took a substantial amount of time, each time they went.
So, for those of us who believe the moon mission(s) actually happened, why doesn't this qualify?
What do you think is the best for the end-user: legislation or competition? Or is there an even better alternative?
Legislation would mean we pass a law that basically says that this type of advertising is no longer legal.
Competition would basically mean that we keep writing software to block this stuff, and we also keep writing software to defect the blockers.
What are your thoughts on this?
Warning: this child likes to TROLL. Try not to feed the trolls!
Gosh, I guess I was wrong. You are a troll. How unfortunate. It might assist you in the future if you learn to comprehend english, since you seem to be seeing contradictions in statements that are completely clear to those who have a modicum of intellegence. I apologize for attempting to defend you. It won't happen again. By the way, good luck finding a job. I hear McDonald's is hiring.
Okay, well, I guess you are still pissed off or something. As for the DR-DOS thing, well, comparing it to knowing say, about the American Revolution, pretty much tells me your perspective is shot. The DR-DOS thing, which I didn't know about (though I've heard of similar issues), is hardly important enough to be known by "anyone in the industry". Again, I didn't ask for citation on the Netscape thing, at least on purpose. Try reading my posts. I've taken the time and courtesy to read and respond to your diatribes. I've even attempted to understand what you've written and why. I asked for further information on DR-DOS. Someone else gave it. What's the big deal.
As an aside, as EVERYONE knows in THE WHOLE WORLD, IQ has absolutely no relation with how much someone knows, or whether someone knows about a particular thing. Perhaps you should come up with a better way to attack people for lacking the knowledge of a relatively useful peice of trivia? Ignorant is my favorite tact, but feel free to pick your own.
It's unfortunate that this was marked as a troll - I almost missed it. I was working for Netscape during that lawsuit, and I didn't ask for a resource on that topic (or at least mean to) - I just hadn't heard the whole story on DR DOS, and figured it'd be nice to know. As for me googling for it myself - sure, I could do that. But why force everyone else to do your research for you? If you want to make a point, then it's pretty much your responsibility to support it, not mine. As for the rest, I think that the rest of the posters did a nice job covering the subject, so I'll leave it where it lies. Just some advice - I think you got trolled because you were attacking me personally, in a bit of a nasty way. Better luck next time.
It's not a question of whether Linux vs. Windows on security is arguable or not, just whether it can be proven. And I say it can't, IMHO. Your arguement not withstanding...
You don't understand that there is no difference (in many cases), do you?
This just isn't true. The majority of worms that have effected users in the past year have been executables that are distributed over email. It isn't that Outlook is the mail reader, it's that the executable is being run on the system, which allows executables to DO THINGS to a computer. Same thing can happen to Linux, it is just much more difficult to execute the file, etc.
Sorry to be all RAH-RAH!, but this damn post is the most useful one I've seen so far. Look, the point is, especially with genetic diversity, is not that each thing isn't vulnerable, it is that they are not vulnerable to the same damn thing. And that is good. Again, however, I have to ask: why can't there be middle ground? I fight for that middle ground: I want interoperability and resistence to attack. Let's find a way to have both, as much as we can. We shouldn't ignore either, and we are.
Yes, it is all black and white. There are simple causes for every outcome. Because of this, THIS happens. Oh, and capitalization makes things more true. REALLY!
A couple things:
On point #1:
1. DOS does not equal windows
2. MacOS, UNIX, AmigaOS, BeOS, Solaris, etc. Operating systems have competed, and lost (so far). Is it because Microsoft practices illegal monopolistic crap? That certainly is likely to be a contributing factor. But so do other businesses that fail.
On #2: Want to help us out and provide a link? I don't think this proves anything about monoculture in software, but it might be interesting.
On #3: see the above.
Okay, so fewer vulnerabilities? Prove it. Don't state it, prove it. And the Apache vs. IIS argument is a bit silly - Apache isn't Linux, and IIS isn't Windows. Linux owes its ability to be secure to the experiences of the marketplace, many of which comes from experiences with Windows. So no, there is no way to prove that Linux would be more secure. Open your eyes, and take a look around. Linux is probably more secure RIGHT NOW than Windows, but who the hell knows what it'd be if not for Windows?
Since this has gotten all point to point, one last thing. Writing an exploit for both is too hard for these script kiddies - there are two pieces to the puzzle - easiest screw with the most effect. That's Windows right now.
So, sir, I say, "Get Real, yourself."
Hope to hear from you soon!
on whether you believe this tripe or not. Is there a monoculture in the software industry? Are standards bad? Is it bad that my desktop is the same operating system as the guy in the next cube? That I use the same tools as the guy down the street? Is the world ending because I use TCP/IP to communicate over this horrible Internet thing? Does everything have to be black and white? Isn't it POSSIBLE that there are a FEW advantages to my father using the same operating system, etc. that I am? Isn't it POSSIBLE that those advantages contributed to the fact that it is true?
It all makes sense now. Article was written by a web DEVELOPER. Some of it came close to making sense, I can certainly see why new APIs can be frustrating, and the point is valid in certain cases, but I didn't see any in the article. The point for me isn't that rebuilding is bad, just that it isn't always good - making the choice is the right tact, not "don't do it". Have fun with your HTML programming!
Okay, well, I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. Please look up the words hyperbole, overstatement, irony, and rhetoric. If you STILL have a problem with what I said, then I guess I can't help you. I'm not denying what the guy said. I'm not saying that there are not documented cases (the guy actually posted some references in answer to my post, duh). I'm saying that what he said is overstated, and done using rhetoric, which is bad form if you are trying to actually prove a point, not just win an arguement. Anyway, get yourself some education, if you have the time. Till then, I'll try not to hold it against you.
Please reread my comment. I'm not saying you are making anything up. Check the dictionary. I'm saying that you are not stating any facts or information - just making an emotional arguement devoid of comment. I'm not even saying I disagree with your point, just with the way you are making it.
This is one of the stupidest things I've ever read there. Unless you meant this as irony, since this is rhetoric and exaggeration at its worst. Please tell me you are trying to be funny, and restore my faith in humanity. Okay, maybe that's not possible, but please, again, tell me you are joking.
EXACTLY what I was looking for - thank you!
You misread me. I was just basically saying thank you to the previous author for actually having some information in their posting. I LIKE the fact there is a book reference there.
Why in all hell would "highly educated workers" want to work for "minimum wage or less"? If the industry requires that, then I guess we won't have anyone in that industry here. I mean, I've spent many many thousands of dollars for my education, and continue to have to do so every year. And the technology industry wants me to (a) work at minimum wage; (b) break the law and work at under minimum wage. No thanks. Good luck with that. And we thought that the products going to market right now sucked!
Guess I'll go find another job that doesn't require any investment in time or education, like, perhaps, CEO of a technology company.
Aha! Reward this man for having CONTENT in his post. Even if I don't agree, CONTENT! What a joy! (yes, I notice the irony that this post has very little content).
Obviously you find hyperbole and rhetoric an excellent way of stating things as facts without backing them up or bringing understanding to an issue ;)
Oh no! The FBI doesn't want to investigate little Jimmy being extorted for his lunch money on the playground at school? What is this world coming to?
This example of the counter-"point" is brought to you by the citizens for people thinking first before typing. Thank you.
Interesting enough - there was a four hour documentary on the history channel in the last year or so that specifically covered this guy, and mentioned, in part, what you just said. So perhaps it isn't so taboo?
That's why the coroner's report includes the direct cause of death, not the hypothetical or "connected" reasons for death. So, for asthma, it won't even say "asthma" - it'll say respiratory failure due to constriction of the throat or somesuch.