I'm not going to belabor the point, but Linux has been doing this since it's inception. UNIX has been doing this for 30 years. Programs can run under whatever user you create for them using whatever permissions you give them. This has nothing to do with SELinux.
Sure. What did you exactly miss from the paragraph where I say that nt also does this, and that vista's security model is completely different and much better than the unix model?
super-human Microsoft shill. Why would you trust him at all?
Yeah, why would trust a guy that admits and critizes Microsoft problems when they exist, that admits that most of the things in vista are inspired in mac os x, and that owns a mac and likes mac os x?
Re:Mr. Thurrott forgives Microsoft
on
How Vista Disappoints
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Introduces the new user security model similar to Un*x, only 30 years later. But it is (so far) incredibly inane in its interaction model with the user (from the article)
IMHO it's isn't, NT had a unix-like security model (not exactly the same, but...)from the start. XP may created user accounts with administrator privileges by default, but the problem there is just a bad default, they could have changed it very easily in the vista code base or in a XP SP.
The vista security model is different. I'm not sure of what it is - some security expert may know better than me, all the information you can find today about vista is mostly full of marketing crap and the rest are docs about how to use what they've implemented, not about what they've implemented - but I'd say that Vista has a SeLinux-like access control thingy, which is really different from the typical unix security model.
Take for example IE 7 running under Vista. In Vista, IE 7 runs with *less* privileges than the user running it, which means they can allow the browser to run activex controls *and* ensure nothing bad happens to the user, because IE is not allowed to write/read files even if the files belongs to the same user that is running IE (unless you allow it). In theory you can extend this to every program connected to the net (email client, messenger). Even if lot of Linux distros are already using SELinux, I welcome this change in vista. Now, as Paul says they may have implemented a horrible UI, but that's another problem...
Yes, their home-made opteron CPUs are a great example of how Sun does hardware....
Sun has given a lot to OSS but they really need to stop sucking that dry Solaris tit while they slowly starve to death. It looks kinda funny when there is a full Linux teat right next to them and they wont fully embrace it.
Solaris is opensource now, and the license is quite reasonable. There's many people playing with opensolaris now that it has been opensourced. Hell, if it wasn't because i'm on dialup, I'd download and install it next to my linux partition, you even have kde/gnome available and drivers from nvidia.
Export that info somewhere, once the the cpu scheduler know what features the CPU has it can start to try to take decisions optimized for that cpu. 2.6.17 will feature a new "scheduler domain" which optimizes scheduling decisions for multi-core CPUs, for example.
Of course you could choose not to export that info and let the CPU do it transparently, but does that have any sense at all? Now that cores are becoming so important you may end having more than one CPU with different number of cores each one, and the OS wants to know that.
I doubt they started from plain XP kernel. Windows 2003 is just the XP kernel but improved, win 2003 was internally named "windows xp server" sometimes before being released. Now, i guess that longhorn development started at the same time than windows 2003, but....
What delayed them quite a lot was the XP SP2. There was some blogs explaining how 90% of the windows division (who were working mostly in longhorn) were sent back to make SP2 and fix the worm wave XP was suffering. It took them quite a lot, maybe a year since microsoft announced a new "big sp2 delay" due to radical changes to improve security?
Whatever. Anyway, most of the longhorn programmers were sent back to SP2 to do what XP should have been. That meant that only a few essential groups kept working on longhorn. When SP2 was finished they were sent back to longhorn (although I guess they sent some people to integrate the SP2 changes in the windows 2003 SP...). That kind of crappy management doesn't help to finish a products quickly I guess.
If it's no better than what Redhat did with their Frankenstein mix of Gnome and KDE, then I want nothing to do it
At least that was a Red Hat thing. It's nice that OSDL is taking decisions that are automatically added to "standards" and that Linux is turning into a comitee-driven crap.
It's different. Windows XP does not support EFI and vista won't support it either. Apparently Apple has created a EFI->BIOS compatibility layer for those systems. Linux however does support EFI
People work for companies. And capitalism is by definition not a system, it is liberty
So? What is stopping companies from not using Linux? What I HATE is that choose Linux as their target operative system and after getting millons of lines of code FOR FREE they blame Linux for not being "free enought". Fine, just don't use it.
The word "community" has the word "collaboration" in it. Companies want a NGO-style community: Give me everything you can without expecting anything in return. The open source community - at least me - do not want to be missionaries because there's just nobody dying from hunger in the IT world. It's fair to give money to those that need it to live, but giving money to those that not only have money but have more than you is not fair, it's - in my humble opinion - being stupid.
I did make a good portion of the code used in my embedded device available to the BSD community. I won, they won. Nobody twisted my arm
You're the exception. The number of GPL violations (specially in embedded products) is increasing at an alarming speed. We're lucky that Linux is GPL, if they're not collaborating even when licenses forces them it's easy to imagine what would happen if the license wouldn't force them
Who wants to invest money in developing a product, only to have the open source community go after you? And you get bashed for trying to earn a living
Oh, wait. Poor companies, clearly they have not ways of being succesful in this capitalist system, GPL is going to kill them.
I think that companies have enought money to write an entire operative system from scratch or license a comercial one. Stop this "booo GPL is so bad with us". Why you don't tell the truth? Why you're trying to hide the fact that as a company - as any succesful company - you're a miserable bastard who is just trying to minimize costs by using a free (as in beer) operative system and maximize your revenue by not sharing your code, and maximize your "competivity" by not sharing your code?
Other companies also want to try to earn a living. If you want open source developers to help you to earn your living, why don't you share your code with other companies that also want/need to earn their livings? Double standard?
Because this will help them to look like they're the poor guys at the eyes of everybody. "Help us, the EU is paranoid and we can do nothing to stop them!"
The EC is asking them to do things like ie: Documenting some propietary protocols which they use between windows clients and windows servers, because 95% of the clients are windows clients and hence non-microsoft servers can't compete fairly even if they're able to build better products than microsoft. Other companies document things but they know that if they start to be fair with competition and document things their competitors may break their monopoly. Unsurprisingly, Microsoft is trying to do everything they can to stop it, because even if they document those things only for european programmers, they products created with that documentation can be sold in the rest of the world. So Microsoft is trying to look like the poor guy and make the EC look like it's being obssesive and hates US companies (like Europe cares about that, Microsoft competitors are all american companies aswell).
Hey, fighting worked in the US when the US government failed to protect true competition, why wouldn't it work again.
I'm against software patent insanity. This is about software patent insanity. Forcing Microsoft to dump this feature because of a crazy patente is STUPID. It shouldn't happen, even if it's Microsoft. How is this going to affect firefox and XUL?
You know, NT is also derived from Mach - that they got their inspiration from vms, just like os x got it from BSD doesn't change the facts.
I guess you're also aware that windows can host several "subsystems", and that win32 is justone of them? There used to be OS/2 and POSIX subsystems aswell, but Microsoft seems to want to focus on win32.
You know, they used this also to run DOS apps in XP. XP has no DOS on it. Just an emulation. Just like Mac OS X.
You know, the Linux sensor developers ARE Linux developers (in charge of a given subsystem>), it's not a "third party group" where "changes still have to be imported" - in Linux the hardware monitoring features, IPMI etc have been in the mainline tree - and shipped in distros with commercial support etc - for years.
I really don't see the difference, except that OpenBSD seems to be the one who is catching up.
"I don't know what other OSes do, I don't use them"
(Disclaimer: I know Theo didn't said that himself)
Well, then maybe he should just shut up about the things he doesn't know. Linux DOES have support hardware monitoring drivers, IPMI, and the randomization feature since 2.6.12 or so. Pretty much EVERYTHING he said about Linux is wrong.
If you don't know nothing about something, then just don't talk about it. What Theo did is pure and true FUD.
"There is a significant new sensor framework [in OpenBSD 3.9], which supports voltage sensors, fan sensors, temperature sensors, and so on," said de Raadt. "Such a feature is still missing in Linux and other major operating systems."
Also, 4 KB is the size of a page in the x86 architecture. Some operative systems would have problems (ie: they'd need to rewrite something) to handle block sizes bigger than 4 KB.
Intel Core Duo, anyone? It has more or less the same performance and it eats less power
Sure, core duo isn't being used in the entire Intel product line, but being objective I'd say that the best Intel chips (core duo) are starting to look better than the AMD's ones.
Technically, they weren't correct at all. Your analogy is far from being true, removing IE wouldn't "render XP useless". You wouldn't be able to use the "active desktop", some view modes in explorer.exe, the html help, part of the media player...
Microsoft managed to convince that if those things stop working, windows is "rendered useless". It's not. The kernel is running, drivers are managing the hardware, the win32 API can be used.....
Of course Microsoft was interested in make judgues think that IE could not be removed. It could, it just neede to redesign some small parts and make windows....more configurable. The fact is that microsoft could have allowed to remove IE in many ways. They just weren't interested in doing it. The fact that Microsoft is allowing to remove it again pretty much proves that it was not so integrated as they said
You don't care. DRM is what Microsoft wants to use to keep you tied to Microsoft Office - the real format are not the XML schemes, but the DRM layer which is placed before it. "open xml" is the perfect excuse to make people think that they're not going to be locked in in a single vendor. Like Microsoft is going to share with others the 30% of their income....
Re:Botmasters will switch to distributed C&C
on
Meet the Botnet Hunters
·
· Score: 2, Informative
why can't they take control of the computers, tell them to pop up a "you've been infected, moron" window and format themselves?
Those bots "patch" the backdoors so nobody else can get in through the hole
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not going to belabor the point, but Linux has been doing this since it's inception. UNIX has been doing this for 30 years. Programs can run under whatever user you create for them using whatever permissions you give them. This has nothing to do with SELinux.
Sure. What did you exactly miss from the paragraph where I say that nt also does this, and that vista's security model is completely different and much better than the unix model?
super-human Microsoft shill. Why would you trust him at all?
Yeah, why would trust a guy that admits and critizes Microsoft problems when they exist, that admits that most of the things in vista are inspired in mac os x, and that owns a mac and likes mac os x?
Introduces the new user security model similar to Un*x, only 30 years later. But it is (so far) incredibly inane in its interaction model with the user (from the article)
IMHO it's isn't, NT had a unix-like security model (not exactly the same, but...)from the start. XP may created user accounts with administrator privileges by default, but the problem there is just a bad default, they could have changed it very easily in the vista code base or in a XP SP.
The vista security model is different. I'm not sure of what it is - some security expert may know better than me, all the information you can find today about vista is mostly full of marketing crap and the rest are docs about how to use what they've implemented, not about what they've implemented - but I'd say that Vista has a SeLinux-like access control thingy, which is really different from the typical unix security model.
Take for example IE 7 running under Vista. In Vista, IE 7 runs with *less* privileges than the user running it, which means they can allow the browser to run activex controls *and* ensure nothing bad happens to the user, because IE is not allowed to write/read files even if the files belongs to the same user that is running IE (unless you allow it). In theory you can extend this to every program connected to the net (email client, messenger). Even if lot of Linux distros are already using SELinux, I welcome this change in vista. Now, as Paul says they may have implemented a horrible UI, but that's another problem...
Sun makes great hardware
Yes, their home-made opteron CPUs are a great example of how Sun does hardware....
Sun has given a lot to OSS but they really need to stop sucking that dry Solaris tit while they slowly starve to death. It looks kinda funny when there is a full Linux teat right next to them and they wont fully embrace it.
Solaris is opensource now, and the license is quite reasonable. There's many people playing with opensolaris now that it has been opensourced. Hell, if it wasn't because i'm on dialup, I'd download and install it next to my linux partition, you even have kde/gnome available and drivers from nvidia.
Export that info somewhere, once the the cpu scheduler know what features the CPU has it can start to try to take decisions optimized for that cpu. 2.6.17 will feature a new "scheduler domain" which optimizes scheduling decisions for multi-core CPUs, for example.
Of course you could choose not to export that info and let the CPU do it transparently, but does that have any sense at all? Now that cores are becoming so important you may end having more than one CPU with different number of cores each one, and the OS wants to know that.
I doubt they started from plain XP kernel. Windows 2003 is just the XP kernel but improved, win 2003 was internally named "windows xp server" sometimes before being released. Now, i guess that longhorn development started at the same time than windows 2003, but....
What delayed them quite a lot was the XP SP2. There was some blogs explaining how 90% of the windows division (who were working mostly in longhorn) were sent back to make SP2 and fix the worm wave XP was suffering. It took them quite a lot, maybe a year since microsoft announced a new "big sp2 delay" due to radical changes to improve security?
Whatever. Anyway, most of the longhorn programmers were sent back to SP2 to do what XP should have been. That meant that only a few essential groups kept working on longhorn. When SP2 was finished they were sent back to longhorn (although I guess they sent some people to integrate the SP2 changes in the windows 2003 SP...). That kind of crappy management doesn't help to finish a products quickly I guess.
Look at the good side: Girls will dress with less and less clothes before the world ends. Man, that's a nice way of dying.
If it's no better than what Redhat did with their Frankenstein mix of Gnome and KDE, then I want nothing to do it
At least that was a Red Hat thing. It's nice that OSDL is taking decisions that are automatically added to "standards" and that Linux is turning into a comitee-driven crap.
It's different. Windows XP does not support EFI and vista won't support it either. Apparently Apple has created a EFI->BIOS compatibility layer for those systems. Linux however does support EFI
People work for companies. And capitalism is by definition not a system, it is liberty
So? What is stopping companies from not using Linux? What I HATE is that choose Linux as their target operative system and after getting millons of lines of code FOR FREE they blame Linux for not being "free enought". Fine, just don't use it.
The word "community" has the word "collaboration" in it. Companies want a NGO-style community: Give me everything you can without expecting anything in return. The open source community - at least me - do not want to be missionaries because there's just nobody dying from hunger in the IT world. It's fair to give money to those that need it to live, but giving money to those that not only have money but have more than you is not fair, it's - in my humble opinion - being stupid.
I did make a good portion of the code used in my embedded device available to the BSD community. I won, they won. Nobody twisted my arm
You're the exception. The number of GPL violations (specially in embedded products) is increasing at an alarming speed. We're lucky that Linux is GPL, if they're not collaborating even when licenses forces them it's easy to imagine what would happen if the license wouldn't force them
Who wants to invest money in developing a product, only to have the open source community go after you? And you get bashed for trying to earn a living
Oh, wait. Poor companies, clearly they have not ways of being succesful in this capitalist system, GPL is going to kill them.
I think that companies have enought money to write an entire operative system from scratch or license a comercial one. Stop this "booo GPL is so bad with us". Why you don't tell the truth? Why you're trying to hide the fact that as a company - as any succesful company - you're a miserable bastard who is just trying to minimize costs by using a free (as in beer) operative system and maximize your revenue by not sharing your code, and maximize your "competivity" by not sharing your code?
Other companies also want to try to earn a living. If you want open source developers to help you to earn your living, why don't you share your code with other companies that also want/need to earn their livings? Double standard?
Because this will help them to look like they're the poor guys at the eyes of everybody. "Help us, the EU is paranoid and we can do nothing to stop them!"
The EC is asking them to do things like ie: Documenting some propietary protocols which they use between windows clients and windows servers, because 95% of the clients are windows clients and hence non-microsoft servers can't compete fairly even if they're able to build better products than microsoft. Other companies document things but they know that if they start to be fair with competition and document things their competitors may break their monopoly. Unsurprisingly, Microsoft is trying to do everything they can to stop it, because even if they document those things only for european programmers, they products created with that documentation can be sold in the rest of the world. So Microsoft is trying to look like the poor guy and make the EC look like it's being obssesive and hates US companies (like Europe cares about that, Microsoft competitors are all american companies aswell).
Hey, fighting worked in the US when the US government failed to protect true competition, why wouldn't it work again.
Because there're "virus" that are just a executable asking "CLICK ME!" and there's no technology on earth which can stop users being stupid?
Just because most of linux and mac os x users are not stupid doesn't mean everybody is smart and antivirus are not needed.
No, it's not a good reason. It's bad one.
I'm against software patent insanity. This is about software patent insanity. Forcing Microsoft to dump this feature because of a crazy patente is STUPID. It shouldn't happen, even if it's Microsoft. How is this going to affect firefox and XUL?
You know, NT is also derived from Mach - that they got their inspiration from vms, just like os x got it from BSD doesn't change the facts.
I guess you're also aware that windows can host several "subsystems", and that win32 is justone of them? There used to be OS/2 and POSIX subsystems aswell, but Microsoft seems to want to focus on win32.
You know, they used this also to run DOS apps in XP. XP has no DOS on it. Just an emulation. Just like Mac OS X.
You know, the Linux sensor developers ARE Linux developers (in charge of a given subsystem>), it's not a "third party group" where "changes still have to be imported" - in Linux the hardware monitoring features, IPMI etc have been in the mainline tree - and shipped in distros with commercial support etc - for years.
I really don't see the difference, except that OpenBSD seems to be the one who is catching up.
"I don't know what other OSes do, I don't use them"
(Disclaimer: I know Theo didn't said that himself)
Well, then maybe he should just shut up about the things he doesn't know. Linux DOES have support hardware monitoring drivers, IPMI, and the randomization feature since 2.6.12 or so. Pretty much EVERYTHING he said about Linux is wrong.
If you don't know nothing about something, then just don't talk about it. What Theo did is pure and true FUD.
And that's the ACPI thing, you've a sysfs interface for other sensors.
"There is a significant new sensor framework [in OpenBSD 3.9], which supports voltage sensors, fan sensors, temperature sensors, and so on," said de Raadt. "Such a feature is still missing in Linux and other major operating systems."
There we go
Also, 4 KB is the size of a page in the x86 architecture. Some operative systems would have problems (ie: they'd need to rewrite something) to handle block sizes bigger than 4 KB.
until Intel gets faster AND cooler
Intel Core Duo, anyone? It has more or less the same performance and it eats less power
Sure, core duo isn't being used in the entire Intel product line, but being objective I'd say that the best Intel chips (core duo) are starting to look better than the AMD's ones.
Technically, they weren't correct at all. Your analogy is far from being true, removing IE wouldn't "render XP useless". You wouldn't be able to use the "active desktop", some view modes in explorer.exe, the html help, part of the media player...
Microsoft managed to convince that if those things stop working, windows is "rendered useless". It's not. The kernel is running, drivers are managing the hardware, the win32 API can be used.....
Of course Microsoft was interested in make judgues think that IE could not be removed. It could, it just neede to redesign some small parts and make windows....more configurable. The fact is that microsoft could have allowed to remove IE in many ways. They just weren't interested in doing it. The fact that Microsoft is allowing to remove it again pretty much proves that it was not so integrated as they said
You don't care. DRM is what Microsoft wants to use to keep you tied to Microsoft Office - the real format are not the XML schemes, but the DRM layer which is placed before it. "open xml" is the perfect excuse to make people think that they're not going to be locked in in a single vendor. Like Microsoft is going to share with others the 30% of their income....
why can't they take control of the computers, tell them to pop up a "you've been infected, moron" window and format themselves?
Those bots "patch" the backdoors so nobody else can get in through the hole
not in ubuntu, for sure.