Are you implying that NFS (v3 at least, I don't know much about v4) is a "good fundamental design"? SMB at least allows finer-grained security than by IP address.
What about root_squash, nosuid, and noexec? Surely this is finer grained control than just by IP address.
Internally, WinNT series is based on VMS, which was extremely stable and secure
That's a popular myth. NT is not VMS. Dave Cutler was hired from Digital to create NT. He took with him several engineers and they built NT with the knowledge they had gained from VMS. There are many similarities but they are not the same. NT is sort of a derivation of VMS with a boatload of crappy API's (Win32, Win16, DOS) tacked on to be backwards compatible.
Oh no, another local root exploit...that was found a month ago and fixed already. Remember that worm in the past month that affected 1 in 7 emails? Or how about its several variations? Or the other viruses in the past month and their several variations that are still affecting Windows? Please tell me how that local exploit hurt anyone or caused any monetary damage to any business.
You're contradicting yourself here. On one hand you say linux is good because it's never more than a few months old, and on the other hand you say windows is bad because it's either old, or you have to download new stuff.
So which is it? Keeping your OS up-to-date is good, or bad?
He's not saying that at all. What the fuck are you reading?
Yeah--the one that excluded user-run executables, as it should have.
You forgot that they also didn't give any statistical percentages. They only used raw numbers and if you looked a little deeper you would find that it was only webservers, which are dominated more by linux than windows. So you have hard numbers showing more linux servers breached, while there are more linux servers to be breached out there. On top of that the explanation of the collection of evidence was pretty weak. So I would say you are the fanboy here.
Who was this women that got millions from Mcdonalds for something really stupid. Your industry promotes these practices so shut up if you are a bloody American.
Oh you mean this? She was an 80-something year old woman who had third-degree burns that required skin grafts and a seven-day hospital stay. She did not receive "millions" either. This is just another one of those facts that people use to try to push tort reform. It's a bad example as are most of the ones that are usually given. Read about these cases before you make another stupid comment.
So what if the drivers are closed source? ATI cant and wont expose the low level details of their hardware's functionality to competitors. Whats the difference anyway?
It makes a big difference when you have a laptop. The drivers are specific to each different configuration since the monitors are all very different. With so many different configurations, without an open source driver, hardware acceleration in laptops is impossible. None of these hardware companies make Linux drivers for their laptops and I doubt they're going to start soon. With an open source driver, each configuration could be tweaked for different laptops by the community.
Does it strike anyone as a bit of a negative attribute that you have to have a massive knowledgebase to use your operating system?
You don't need a massive knowledge base to use Linux. The main difference is that documentation for Linux usually covers a lot more than just the kernel. It usually covers a ton of popular programs in addition to the kernel, including two entirely different desktops. Not to mention the fact that you can change so many more parameters in Linux than you can in Windows or MacOSX. For example, it is fairly simple to install another kernel if you want to on most Linux distributions but you also have the ability to compile your own kernel. This will take more documentation than either Windows or OSX but it hasn't made anything more difficult.
i doubt that adobe will clue into linux, we'll have to rely on hoping that the gimp folks will figure out how to make an interface that is comprehensible and we can get rid of photoshop once and for all
I hear this argument all the time and I just don't get it. I've used both PS and the GIMP and I find the GIMP much easier to understand and much easier to use. I've never needed to use any of the features that PS has that GIMP does not have, but for most people the GIMP is sufficient and easier to use. I'll never understand how people can actually prefer the "window within a window" crap that is prevalent in Windows programs.
I hereby grant permission to the SCO group to use under the GPL license dhowells-map which is similar to nmap but seperately licenced. Doesnt this fuck up fyodor's restriction. Although he can still sue them for violation for the violations of the GPL which they have already comitted, but not for continuing to use and redistribute dhowells-map
That doesn't work at all unless you make a clone completely void of nmap code. You must release any derivative under the GPL. In addition to this the author can most certainly sue SCO for using your version if it contains his copyrighted code. The copyright holder alone chooses how his work can be distributed. Without his consent you and SCO have no right to distribute.
But that's not the argument at all. MS bundles software and doesn't include competing versions. This is what locks people in. It doesn't matter if Linux bundles everything and the kitchen sink because they don't use propietary formats and they aren't a monopoly.
Well if SCO somehow wins they won't have to worry about getting sued and if they lose they'll declare bankruptcy and no one will get their money back. I doubt in this day and age that any criminal charges could or would be brought against them.
Apparently, no landings on Venus are planned - is this another case of humanity losing advanced space travel capability due to neglect, like Apollo?
Perhaps this is the reason why we have not seen Venus landers:
Venus today is a scorching, hell-like place -- totally dry, with a
surface temperature hotter than the melting point of zinc (800 degrees F)
and an enormously heavy, largely carbon dioxide atmosphere, 100 times as
dense as Earth's.
I don't know for certain but I imagine that would complicate things enourmously.
I have an XP box that crashes left and right. It's basically a fresh install too. I thought it was the hardware at first but Suse doesn't complain. A driver perhaps? It's my brothers box so I haven't really taken the time to figure it out.
Linux is over-represented as a target of hacking because there is so much low hanging fruit out there, same reason that Windows is over-represented in the malware depart.
The study chose to not consider malware because that is really a UI and social engineering problem, this study was about attacking servers without an inside patsy and Linux came up short. It is dishonest and dangerous to ignore these sorts of results.
No it is not dishonest to ignore these results. These results are dishonest. Raw numbers don't prove anything. There is no statistical analysis done at all. Perhaps there is some worthwhile anylysis in their report but you have to pay to see it. Sounds a little sketchy to me. It's absolutely insane to say that MacOSX is the most secure simply because it is hardly ever used as a webserver in comparison to Linux.
The previous survery they mention was reported here:
Considering Apache is the most used webserver and Linux is the most used operating system to run Apache on then I would say that the results makes perfect sense, but prove nothing.
What if I made my own operating system and made it as insecure as possible, then ran a webserver on it but since no one cares about cracking my website it never gets cracked? Am I to presume that it is the "World's Safest Operating System"? It seems you would. It also seems that the "World's Safest Operating System" could be a worm infested zombie and still be considered safe by your standards and by mi2g's standards. You have to admit that at least the title was misleading.
when have consumers screaming "compatibility" ever affected manufacturing? Please - DVD+R-R+XY!#$$% is a shining example.
The difference is that Bluetooth has been around a while now. Those competing standards you speak of are in their infancy. One will come out on top and the others will go away. Remember DIVX?
Another problem--we don't have wireless power yet. Some of these devices pull power off of a USB cable, which is easier to carry than the power brick. But until someone figures out how to do broadcast power, a truly wireless solution may never be possible.
It's already possible. The only implementation I know of is not all that safe though.
I work in software. I write software for a living, and I expect to get paid for it. I provide valuable expertise that I use to build (hopefully) a very valuable product.
Yet my work is 'performed' only once (when I code it) and yet is run on a playback device (that others already paid for) over and over again. By your logic, I should only be able to sell one copy of any software that I write.
After all, I'm asking for a 'stream of endless payments' for not doing anything but making copies of what I already have.
That is completely ludicrous. The fact of the matter is that the value of my software is not in it's creation, but in the continuing value it provides. You may open it 1000000 times, and everytime it is likely to prove useful to you (otherwise why would you use it?). When you are buying the software you are really buying the hours and hours of hard work that I put into building it.
So what you want is to be as lazy as possible right? Unlike someone who has an actual product to sell, that has to continuously spend money on parts, rent, help, and other expenses, you get to write code once and profit off of it without any more cost to you. Sounds fair.
Oh, and this:
The fact of the matter is that the value of my software is not in it's creation
When you are buying the software you are really buying the hours and hours of hard work that I put into building it.
Slashdot Mirror
What about root_squash, nosuid, and noexec? Surely this is finer grained control than just by IP address.
Internally, WinNT series is based on VMS, which was extremely stable and secure
That's a popular myth. NT is not VMS. Dave Cutler was hired from Digital to create NT. He took with him several engineers and they built NT with the knowledge they had gained from VMS. There are many similarities but they are not the same. NT is sort of a derivation of VMS with a boatload of crappy API's (Win32, Win16, DOS) tacked on to be backwards compatible.
Oh no, another local root exploit...that was found a month ago and fixed already. Remember that worm in the past month that affected 1 in 7 emails? Or how about its several variations? Or the other viruses in the past month and their several variations that are still affecting Windows? Please tell me how that local exploit hurt anyone or caused any monetary damage to any business.
He's not saying that at all. What the fuck are you reading?
You forgot that they also didn't give any statistical percentages. They only used raw numbers and if you looked a little deeper you would find that it was only webservers, which are dominated more by linux than windows. So you have hard numbers showing more linux servers breached, while there are more linux servers to be breached out there. On top of that the explanation of the collection of evidence was pretty weak. So I would say you are the fanboy here.
True, but ugly is still ugly. OSX had it right until they started changing to that crappy metal look.
I think he's supposed to look like that. Linus said once that he looks like he could have a beer in his hand.
That stupid butterfly and annoying paperclip didn't seem to impede MS at all.
Get real.
Oh you mean this? She was an 80-something year old woman who had third-degree burns that required skin grafts and a seven-day hospital stay. She did not receive "millions" either. This is just another one of those facts that people use to try to push tort reform. It's a bad example as are most of the ones that are usually given. Read about these cases before you make another stupid comment.
It makes a big difference when you have a laptop. The drivers are specific to each different configuration since the monitors are all very different. With so many different configurations, without an open source driver, hardware acceleration in laptops is impossible. None of these hardware companies make Linux drivers for their laptops and I doubt they're going to start soon. With an open source driver, each configuration could be tweaked for different laptops by the community.
You don't need a massive knowledge base to use Linux. The main difference is that documentation for Linux usually covers a lot more than just the kernel. It usually covers a ton of popular programs in addition to the kernel, including two entirely different desktops. Not to mention the fact that you can change so many more parameters in Linux than you can in Windows or MacOSX. For example, it is fairly simple to install another kernel if you want to on most Linux distributions but you also have the ability to compile your own kernel. This will take more documentation than either Windows or OSX but it hasn't made anything more difficult.
No they couldn't. Gentoo had WineX in its repository at one time but was forced to take it out.
I hear this argument all the time and I just don't get it. I've used both PS and the GIMP and I find the GIMP much easier to understand and much easier to use. I've never needed to use any of the features that PS has that GIMP does not have, but for most people the GIMP is sufficient and easier to use. I'll never understand how people can actually prefer the "window within a window" crap that is prevalent in Windows programs.
This is quite sickening. Have the United States no regard for innocent human life at all? We're lucky this little incident didn't cause WWIII.
That doesn't work at all unless you make a clone completely void of nmap code. You must release any derivative under the GPL. In addition to this the author can most certainly sue SCO for using your version if it contains his copyrighted code. The copyright holder alone chooses how his work can be distributed. Without his consent you and SCO have no right to distribute.
But that's not the argument at all. MS bundles software and doesn't include competing versions. This is what locks people in. It doesn't matter if Linux bundles everything and the kitchen sink because they don't use propietary formats and they aren't a monopoly.
Well if SCO somehow wins they won't have to worry about getting sued and if they lose they'll declare bankruptcy and no one will get their money back. I doubt in this day and age that any criminal charges could or would be brought against them.
Perhaps this is the reason why we have not seen Venus landers:
Venus today is a scorching, hell-like place -- totally dry, with a surface temperature hotter than the melting point of zinc (800 degrees F) and an enormously heavy, largely carbon dioxide atmosphere, 100 times as dense as Earth's.
I don't know for certain but I imagine that would complicate things enourmously.
I have an XP box that crashes left and right. It's basically a fresh install too. I thought it was the hardware at first but Suse doesn't complain. A driver perhaps? It's my brothers box so I haven't really taken the time to figure it out.
...but they work because of Windows' inherent flaws.
The study chose to not consider malware because that is really a UI and social engineering problem, this study was about attacking servers without an inside patsy and Linux came up short. It is dishonest and dangerous to ignore these sorts of results.
No it is not dishonest to ignore these results. These results are dishonest. Raw numbers don't prove anything. There is no statistical analysis done at all. Perhaps there is some worthwhile anylysis in their report but you have to pay to see it. Sounds a little sketchy to me. It's absolutely insane to say that MacOSX is the most secure simply because it is hardly ever used as a webserver in comparison to Linux.
The previous survery they mention was reported here:
linuxword
As you can see they are reporting about only webservers.
As you can see here, Apache is the most common webserver (by far):
netcraft
Considering Apache is the most used webserver and Linux is the most used operating system to run Apache on then I would say that the results makes perfect sense, but prove nothing.
What if I made my own operating system and made it as insecure as possible, then ran a webserver on it but since no one cares about cracking my website it never gets cracked? Am I to presume that it is the "World's Safest Operating System"? It seems you would. It also seems that the "World's Safest Operating System" could be a worm infested zombie and still be considered safe by your standards and by mi2g's standards. You have to admit that at least the title was misleading.
when have consumers screaming "compatibility" ever affected manufacturing? Please - DVD+R-R+XY!#$$% is a shining example. The difference is that Bluetooth has been around a while now. Those competing standards you speak of are in their infancy. One will come out on top and the others will go away. Remember DIVX?
It's already possible. The only implementation I know of is not all that safe though.
Well then it is your own fault for publishing your idea.
I work in software. I write software for a living, and I expect to get paid for it. I provide valuable expertise that I use to build (hopefully) a very valuable product.
Yet my work is 'performed' only once (when I code it) and yet is run on a playback device (that others already paid for) over and over again. By your logic, I should only be able to sell one copy of any software that I write.
After all, I'm asking for a 'stream of endless payments' for not doing anything but making copies of what I already have.
That is completely ludicrous. The fact of the matter is that the value of my software is not in it's creation, but in the continuing value it provides. You may open it 1000000 times, and everytime it is likely to prove useful to you (otherwise why would you use it?). When you are buying the software you are really buying the hours and hours of hard work that I put into building it.
So what you want is to be as lazy as possible right? Unlike someone who has an actual product to sell, that has to continuously spend money on parts, rent, help, and other expenses, you get to write code once and profit off of it without any more cost to you. Sounds fair.
Oh, and this:
The fact of the matter is that the value of my software is not in it's creation
When you are buying the software you are really buying the hours and hours of hard work that I put into building it.