Bit off-topic. I am polish and I understand what you mean. But in my eyes this is funny.:) All of polish politics (also I don't track american politics to well) and it is all driven by affairs, corruption and so on, every week you have new issue in the media. I mean it is scary on its scale - like everyone is corrupted from little cases like some white collar worker who was bribed to affairs touching entire government and concerning milions of dollars. But what is scary that everybody is corrupted, I mean scale is scary. Probably in U.S. this is a bit more controlled...
Yes but I have mean this to be completely different from Netscape vs. MSIE case... Or maybe not.:) Netscape was not able to deliver "free" (as in beer) browsing experience and was killed by MS. But it is different now. Then you could choose browser (well till Netscape died - but now you can also choose). Now to get "security enhancements" (I am sysadmin Windows is a PITA for me, and I don't blame the users) I don't want these - I want secure system in first place - since they (MS) can not deliver it, I can't believe them on this (hipotetical) additional offer on being secure...
> As an employee of a security company, I don't > have a problem with this.
Of course you do not.:) This move will cause even more sec related problems so you will have more work to do -> more profit for you.
This move (note that it is completely hipotetical) will create some differences - networks/companies that pay will get somewhat (secure by obscure) tighter systems, but also loads of companies that will not go in this program will get even less secure...
(...)
> It really, we cry "unfair" over what they did to > Netscape. Rightly so; it was unfair. If they had > sold IE as a separate product, it wouldn't have > been unfair. So now they sell this stuff as a > separate product. They're not bundling. So > what's the problem?
These are like two completely different issues:). Netscape vs. Internet Explorer was about *features*, browsing experience divided by costs and so on... Here we are speaking of such fundamental things like your OS (which you have already payed for, a lot) working (free of crap), nearly working (loaded with shit) or dead. So once you pay for operating system license, then you pay for this system to be able to work for your users... Why not to pay it all in one package? Like:
Windows (cheaper but broken) Windows SE (secured edition)
So buy the most expensive Windows version it wil surely (bawhahah) save you from viri and stupid users...
> Yes it is stupid. Users/companies pay for licenses > of Windows which is somewhat costly when you > compare what other solutions can do for a fraction > of a price (Linux?!)
I love Linux, I am using it as primary and obly system everyday... But please consider that: in my work we are running office consisting of 17 employees. Few of them need to use Corel - they don't have this on Linux, sorry - they *need* to do it since we put all of our DTP work outside, and Linux has no option for that. Also I have (name it three) workers that *need* MS Office - they do decent job of making shit-stupid PR stuff in Office, and only thing they know is MS Office (OpenOffice.org is somewhat limited in stuff like data analysis and presentation). So at our scale it makes Linux on desktop more expensive than Windows - people are trained and used/tied to Windows. So OK for me Linux is great in lowend network stuff (DNS, mail, www, routing etc.) which does not face users but on desktop it is *very* hard to judge which is cheaper... Keep in mind that always man harbour (sorry for my poor english;)) is always the main cost. You can specify *few* areas where Linux has awful cost advantages (name it data entry centers, call centers, operating home made applications) but when it comes to small offices you just cannot implement Linux right now. It (Linux) costs *more* here.
This is kinda stupid. MS is trying (and they suceed with it) to make an OS aviable to every non-tech person to operate - OK - this is OK for me. But then why they blame people that they don't know shit about computing? People do not know shit - they bought Windows and wish to have their job (be it surfing net) done. I can take the same user surifng net on Windows with MSIE and on Linux with (also) MSIE. Guess which platform will be crawled to death by spyware... But where is user error?! Since the same user will be using the same software... Oh. It is the platform!
Well Linux example is quite hardcore. Usualy I put Mozilla Firefox combined with Mozilla Firebird (I've made it a company policy:>, we also host some applications which are Firefox only) on Windows machine, antivirus and spybot for spyware removal running at 4AM and systems are clear...
On Windows XP you can run the same browsers that on Mandrake, but it will be more responsive then via VNC. So what is the point? Usualy when you login to different system (than local) is to achive something remotely, like administering a system, developing something on server etc. - things that you cannot do localy. You can surely run browser localy. You don't need to run it remotely... I mean like some real life issues when you need to login remotely and when it gives advantages. Running browser via VNC is an disadvantage since it is simply slower.
to run VNC (via SSH) you don't need to cary anything. Both (VNC and SSH clients) are single binaries few hundred kilobytes each. So you can just download them from site (you need to have a network connection to use VNC or SSH usualy) and run instantly... If you cannot run downloaded binaries (f.e. due to security policy) you won't be able to run anything from removable media either (or the security policy is bad)...
Also please keep in mind that X11 is somewhat different than VNC.:) VNC is a client for VNC server, X11 server must be run on client machine to allow clients from other servers (not exactly X servers) to run. With X you can have just one program run, with VNC you need entire desktop session...
But who uses remote X or VNC anyway? Right now best unix remote interface is CLI and that is it. What for you need to login to X remotly anyway? Tu run web browser? You can run it localy. To run movies? No you can't really.:) Tu run gvim? Why not run it under terminal? I don't really see a serious reason for doing so (despite of terminal servers).
Translated == probably a subset of so called "supported" (by vendor) flagship applications. like most common: system tools, office suite, pim, standard desktop, mail/web client and so on... Not every app in system (probably it makes no sense to localize some rarely used developer application)...
I have: ~/bin - for my scripts, small programs (one binary) etc. in my $PATH as first... ~/build/rpm and ~/build/src - rpm is my rpmbuild root env (linked with web/nfs server to serve packages) src is for stuff i play with compiling from source (testing before it goes as rpm) ~/doc/priv and ~/doc/work - obvious... ~/mail/ - also obvious... ~/tmp/ - for all temporary stuff like downloads etc.
other things like videos, media, pictures etc. are shared abve my home directory - so I don't keep them in my ~ - I keep them on my NFS/web server...
also for backup reasons I've managed to force most of the apps (FireFox f.e.) to use/tmp for its cache... so I don't need to backup my browser chache which is useless...
I don't use FF on Windows. It was just an assumption. But within Microsoft measures (patches are delivered via WU) everything third party will be less secure than their own patching system and I can agree with that.:)
I use Linux. I hav written some PHP scripts using (sorry I am not a coder) to make a pleasant interface like:
#v+ What you wan to do: > Play game. Which game: > Metal Slug X OK! Here you go... #v-
And it works like charm, all my media is held on central computer with two IDE 250GB disks so all other systems are using this storage. You can do this with few Linux programs like mplayer (for any multimedia), advmame (for gaming), feh (for displaying images), and matchbox (http://matchbox.handhelds.org/ for drawing nice GUI), it is also capable of running tv app (tvtime) and radio (via mplayer) but it is more complex...
> We need to write PDF files from time to time > and only OpenOffice does that... sure we could > buy and install adobe acrobat... expensive...
Well not true... Check out: http://www.cutepdf.com/Products/CutePDF/writer.asp it is a dummy printer driver for Windows, it uses GNU Ghostsript, so you can choose "Print" from *any* application and then choose "Cute PDF" (in fact it is installed as additional printer in system) and get a nice PDF file instead of printout... Oh and it is free like a beer for anybody.
As for Adobe server products you can use CUPS and integrate it with web or file server to generate PDFs - for user it is all the matter of just selecting a different printer...
This is right but don't forgrt that patching Windows is a mess. I don't know if you are using Linux - in Linux such things are hadled like:
# upadteme 3 updates do go, one is firefox continue? [y/n] y downolading firefox update [##############] installing, thank you
In Windows only thing that is updated in something like automated manner (mind home users) is Windows Update - which means *only* Windows and Windows core components - in such sight FF on Windows *may* be less secure since FF has no system-wide update mechanism. MSIE has one it is called Windows Update.
They (M$) still have a lot of dirty tricks in their hands.
PLD started as a fork from RHL. PLD founder (now not in PLD project due to some developer rants) Tomasz Kloczko was dissappointed with RH closed developement model and decidet to fork of to make a better distro. And PLD is different from RHL right now - it has different ideas, different philosophy, different implementations and so on... PLD is maintained mostly by system administrators and developers.
Now Aurox is basically *nothing* (despite of few translated strings and some branding) new/different from Fedora. It has the same set of packages. Most packages are exactly taken from Fedora (not even recompliled on different buildsystem) - so I don't see anything innovative/good here just beside wasting time/energy for forking.
I am not against forking - it is good when it makes sense.
PLD is actually something very different from Aurox - Aurox is simply most of packages from Fedora (they are even compiled on RH servers) and just few additions to system (mostly localization of system stuff like menu, installer etc.).
PLD is completely different system (yes it is based on RH - but it is based on RH in the same way Mandrake is based on RH). It has some advantages and I know people using it and liking it (mostly its developers). It has its own (very good) package manager and strong community. Also they have lots of innovation (f.e. using bzip2 for packages, manpages, indexes etc., every package comes with ZSH functions for it etc.). And last but not leas PLD stands for PLD Linux Distribution - it is distro for anybody not only polish.
Forking is good but only when it makes sense. For me forking of entire distro just to add some translated strings (really, Aurox is not much more than some translation) is not making any sense...
Does anybody know how to change fontface used for drawing ballon tips and window while switching with alt-tab? It should be under some variable in ~/GNUstep/Defaults/WindowMaker - but I don't know which one...
IMHO it is bad fork. Main aspect of this distro existence is poor translation of Fedora into polish - but this is no mean to fork for me. Aurox team should work with Fedora community to deliver better translation, maybe develop "Aurox Fedora Extras" repository/cdrom (with MP3, DVD, NTFS, nvidia etc. stuff) but not to make an entire distro which is not so good for me. Only better localized but it is based on Fedora so it means Fedora will be always one step before Aurox.
Other aspect of Aurox existence is fact that it is mostly distributed with polish IT/Linux press - to it is developed by big publishing house to have somethng that is a brand and can be distributed with press... So IMHO Aurox has nothing to offer despite better *polish* localization... But for me it is bad. They should work with upstream instead of forking such simple task like translating few strings in menu system and instalator.
Actually this case is very good argument pro Open Source software. Too bad the/. post is flawed. It is perfectly OK that they state - we don't have a patch right now: you can:
1] Lay down the service and wait for patch. 2] Do a workaround the problem with scripts.
The case is not about the workaround as it is obvious that it is better than lay entire service. The case is about that there is no other option. You just have to wait for the patch (we'll se MSFT timing on that).
With Open Source you can:
1] Lay down the service and wait for distributor to issue patch/update. 2] Take the patch from somwhere else and apply it (on source code) yourself. 3] Make a workaround. 4] Pound through source code and fix it yourself (probably with help of entire community) - which often can be easier than issuing workarounds (depends on scale of your systems).
See? You have more options. Not just sit and wait you can actually do something. This flaw is much critical - it will be fixed soon. But I know MSFT not fixing flaw that caused system crashes like every 15 min. for 2,5 year just because it was flaw in something that was not widely used (but was important to me f.e.).
Take look at this KB: http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?sci d=kb; en-us;319810 It says it was fixed in June 1, 2002 - than consider that this hardware (and Windows version) was aviable and used in late 1999 which gives 2,5 year of not fixing unstable system. Congratulations.
I don't think that your argument with PDF is valid. I mean it is nice feature of OOo, but it can be also acomplished in any other Windows app that can print. You just install Cute PDF Writer (free as in beer) and have another printer installed that splits out PDF. Also I would be concerned with quality of OOo generated PDF. I personally use LyX and Scribus for my office publishing and they make very good quality PDF, but OOo f.e. does not make clickable links on export and so on...
From my experience I know that OOo is mostly used by organizations as it is: 1] Cheap (well MSO is well overpriced). 2] Is open - your data remains open.
IMHO the second point is most important - right now lots of goverments and organizations are considering options for publishing documents, and they are certainly not about closed formats anymore, they want standard open format, not loads of features - only basic like to get the job done. You really don't need VBS to make documents archive. You need readable open format to integrate with search engines (various), good indexing and flexibility and that is what OOo will give.
Sure OOo is way to heavy, interface needs polish but this is changing. I think version 2.0 (probably patched like Ximian version) will be much better and OOo is off to consume lots of MSO market share. Open formats and price will do this. When lots of agencies, goverments and so on will start to publish data in native OOo formats there will be no need to use MSO. Despite of yours data already stored in MSO - but hey if MSO wants to be competitive it must also support these open formats - so it would be easy to transfer all your existing data to new format using MSO (in some automated manner) and then when you are free just dump MSO.
I use Linux only but here you also do things to protect. But things you mentioned (FW, AV) are the basis. You have lots of other issues with security. I personally (despite of keeping patched and well configured systems) use only secure protocols (with encryption), use proactive security like patched kernels (MAC, stack controll etc.), intrusion detection system, honeypots and so on...
For my friends with Windows I usualy install:
ADAware PE (free) AVAst HE (free) Windows built in FW Set Automatic Updates on
Everybody is doing what he/she likes but this project is waste of time. Who actually still uses FTP for uplading files (for downloading FTP is perfectly mature and you don't need another program (despite of browser) to download file via FTP)? We should move things like uploading/sending files to solutions like WebDAV, SCP, P2P based file exchange (have you noticed how many people exchange files using email which is stupid since it consumes more transfer for both sides). We have plenty of FTP clients and IMHO they should stay integrated into the system as FTP is more like SMB or NFS... I have already writen that everybody is free to do whatever, but please do not consume other developers time on this project. There is more things to do with FireFox browser itself than to make another not so good FTP client.
I'have P2 266Mhz, 196MB RAM. Right now running: Inkscape, GIMP, Scribus, Opera, GNOME and some Eterms... Also some services (Samba, LAMP, lprNG) and my FC1 works like charm. Oh and memory usage (-buffers) is 109MB.
Who will gave an user access to su in first place? It should be disabled by default. I don't know in which form (disabled or enabled) comes vannila su. I'll bet on disabled as I know *nices...
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't mean it was cheerful in context of software patents... It was cheerful in context of somebody speaking of "honest politicians" in Poland. :)
Bit off-topic. I am polish and I understand what you mean. But in my eyes this is funny. :) All of polish politics (also I don't track american politics to well) and it is all driven by affairs, corruption and so on, every week you have new issue in the media. I mean it is scary on its scale - like everyone is corrupted from little cases like some white collar worker who was bribed to affairs touching entire government and concerning milions of dollars. But what is scary that everybody is corrupted, I mean scale is scary. Probably in U.S. this is a bit more controlled...
So this is kind of cheering to me...
Yes but I have mean this to be completely different from Netscape vs. MSIE case... Or maybe not. :) Netscape was not able to deliver "free" (as in beer) browsing experience and was killed by MS. But it is different now. Then you could choose browser (well till Netscape died - but now you can also choose). Now to get "security enhancements" (I am sysadmin Windows is a PITA for me, and I don't blame the users) I don't want these - I want secure system in first place - since they (MS) can not deliver it, I can't believe them on this (hipotetical) additional offer on being secure...
> Are they really trying to monopolize the desktop ;)
> security market
(?...)
They have created it. So natural way is to monopolize it.
> As an employee of a security company, I don't
:) This move will cause even more sec related problems so you will have more work to do -> more profit for you.
:). Netscape vs. Internet Explorer was about *features*, browsing experience divided by costs and so on... Here we are speaking of such fundamental things like your OS (which you have already payed for, a lot) working (free of crap), nearly working (loaded with shit) or dead. So once you pay for operating system license, then you pay for this system to be able to work for your users... Why not to pay it all in one package? Like:
> have a problem with this.
Of course you do not.
This move (note that it is completely hipotetical) will create some differences - networks/companies that pay will get somewhat (secure by obscure) tighter systems, but also loads of companies that will not go in this program will get even less secure...
(...)
> It really, we cry "unfair" over what they did to
> Netscape. Rightly so; it was unfair. If they had
> sold IE as a separate product, it wouldn't have
> been unfair. So now they sell this stuff as a
> separate product. They're not bundling. So
> what's the problem?
These are like two completely different issues
Windows (cheaper but broken)
Windows SE (secured edition)
So buy the most expensive Windows version it wil surely (bawhahah) save you from viri and stupid users...
This is absurd. Cant you see it?
> Yes it is stupid. Users/companies pay for licenses
;)) is always the main cost. You can specify *few* areas where Linux has awful cost advantages (name it data entry centers, call centers, operating home made applications) but when it comes to small offices you just cannot implement Linux right now. It (Linux) costs *more* here.
> of Windows which is somewhat costly when you
> compare what other solutions can do for a fraction
> of a price (Linux?!)
I love Linux, I am using it as primary and obly system everyday... But please consider that: in my work we are running office consisting of 17 employees. Few of them need to use Corel - they don't have this on Linux, sorry - they *need* to do it since we put all of our DTP work outside, and Linux has no option for that. Also I have (name it three) workers that *need* MS Office - they do decent job of making shit-stupid PR stuff in Office, and only thing they know is MS Office (OpenOffice.org is somewhat limited in stuff like data analysis and presentation). So at our scale it makes Linux on desktop more expensive than Windows - people are trained and used/tied to Windows. So OK for me Linux is great in lowend network stuff (DNS, mail, www, routing etc.) which does not face users but on desktop it is *very* hard to judge which is cheaper... Keep in mind that always man harbour (sorry for my poor english
This is kinda stupid. MS is trying (and they suceed with it) to make an OS aviable to every non-tech person to operate - OK - this is OK for me. But then why they blame people that they don't know shit about computing? People do not know shit - they bought Windows and wish to have their job (be it surfing net) done. I can take the same user surifng net on Windows with MSIE and on Linux with (also) MSIE. Guess which platform will be crawled to death by spyware... But where is user error?! Since the same user will be using the same software... Oh. It is the platform!
:>, we also host some applications which are Firefox only) on Windows machine, antivirus and spybot for spyware removal running at 4AM and systems are clear...
Well Linux example is quite hardcore. Usualy I put Mozilla Firefox combined with Mozilla Firebird (I've made it a company policy
But where is user error?
On Windows XP you can run the same browsers that on Mandrake, but it will be more responsive then via VNC. So what is the point? Usualy when you login to different system (than local) is to achive something remotely, like administering a system, developing something on server etc. - things that you cannot do localy. You can surely run browser localy. You don't need to run it remotely... I mean like some real life issues when you need to login remotely and when it gives advantages. Running browser via VNC is an disadvantage since it is simply slower.
to run VNC (via SSH) you don't need to cary anything. Both (VNC and SSH clients) are single binaries few hundred kilobytes each. So you can just download them from site (you need to have a network connection to use VNC or SSH usualy) and run instantly... If you cannot run downloaded binaries (f.e. due to security policy) you won't be able to run anything from removable media either (or the security policy is bad)...
:) VNC is a client for VNC server, X11 server must be run on client machine to allow clients from other servers (not exactly X servers) to run. With X you can have just one program run, with VNC you need entire desktop session...
:) Tu run gvim? Why not run it under terminal? I don't really see a serious reason for doing so (despite of terminal servers).
Also please keep in mind that X11 is somewhat different than VNC.
But who uses remote X or VNC anyway? Right now best unix remote interface is CLI and that is it. What for you need to login to X remotly anyway? Tu run web browser? You can run it localy. To run movies? No you can't really.
Translated == probably a subset of so called "supported" (by vendor) flagship applications. like most common: system tools, office suite, pim, standard desktop, mail/web client and so on... Not every app in system (probably it makes no sense to localize some rarely used developer application)...
I have:
/tmp for its cache... so I don't need to backup my browser chache which is useless...
~/bin - for my scripts, small programs (one binary) etc. in my $PATH as first...
~/build/rpm and ~/build/src - rpm is my rpmbuild root env (linked with web/nfs server to serve packages) src is for stuff i play with compiling from source (testing before it goes as rpm)
~/doc/priv and ~/doc/work - obvious...
~/mail/ - also obvious...
~/tmp/ - for all temporary stuff like downloads etc.
other things like videos, media, pictures etc. are shared abve my home directory - so I don't keep them in my ~ - I keep them on my NFS/web server...
also for backup reasons I've managed to force most of the apps (FireFox f.e.) to use
I don't use FF on Windows. It was just an assumption. But within Microsoft measures (patches are delivered via WU) everything third party will be less secure than their own patching system and I can agree with that. :)
I use Linux. I hav written some PHP scripts using (sorry I am not a coder) to make a pleasant interface like:
#v+
What you wan to do:
> Play game.
Which game:
> Metal Slug X
OK! Here you go...
#v-
And it works like charm, all my media is held on central computer with two IDE 250GB disks so all other systems are using this storage. You can do this with few Linux programs like mplayer (for any multimedia), advmame (for gaming), feh (for displaying images), and matchbox (http://matchbox.handhelds.org/ for drawing nice GUI), it is also capable of running tv app (tvtime) and radio (via mplayer) but it is more complex...
> We need to write PDF files from time to time
p it is a dummy printer driver for Windows, it uses GNU Ghostsript, so you can choose "Print" from *any* application and then choose "Cute PDF" (in fact it is installed as additional printer in system) and get a nice PDF file instead of printout... Oh and it is free like a beer for anybody.
> and only OpenOffice does that... sure we could
> buy and install adobe acrobat... expensive...
Well not true... Check out: http://www.cutepdf.com/Products/CutePDF/writer.as
As for Adobe server products you can use CUPS and integrate it with web or file server to generate PDFs - for user it is all the matter of just selecting a different printer...
This is right but don't forgrt that patching Windows is a mess. I don't know if you are using Linux - in Linux such things are hadled like:
# upadteme
3 updates do go, one is firefox
continue? [y/n] y
downolading firefox update [##############]
installing, thank you
In Windows only thing that is updated in something like automated manner (mind home users) is Windows Update - which means *only* Windows and Windows core components - in such sight FF on Windows *may* be less secure since FF has no system-wide update mechanism. MSIE has one it is called Windows Update.
They (M$) still have a lot of dirty tricks in their hands.
Just my 2gr...
> But surely PLD started this way?
PLD started as a fork from RHL. PLD founder (now not in PLD project due to some developer rants) Tomasz Kloczko was dissappointed with RH closed developement model and decidet to fork of to make a better distro. And PLD is different from RHL right now - it has different ideas, different philosophy, different implementations and so on... PLD is maintained mostly by system administrators and developers.
Now Aurox is basically *nothing* (despite of few translated strings and some branding) new/different from Fedora. It has the same set of packages. Most packages are exactly taken from Fedora (not even recompliled on different buildsystem) - so I don't see anything innovative/good here just beside wasting time/energy for forking.
I am not against forking - it is good when it makes sense.
PLD is actually something very different from Aurox - Aurox is simply most of packages from Fedora (they are even compiled on RH servers) and just few additions to system (mostly localization of system stuff like menu, installer etc.).
PLD is completely different system (yes it is based on RH - but it is based on RH in the same way Mandrake is based on RH). It has some advantages and I know people using it and liking it (mostly its developers). It has its own (very good) package manager and strong community. Also they have lots of innovation (f.e. using bzip2 for packages, manpages, indexes etc., every package comes with ZSH functions for it etc.). And last but not leas PLD stands for PLD Linux Distribution - it is distro for anybody not only polish.
Forking is good but only when it makes sense. For me forking of entire distro just to add some translated strings (really, Aurox is not much more than some translation) is not making any sense...
Does anybody know how to change fontface used for drawing ballon tips and window while switching with alt-tab? It should be under some variable in ~/GNUstep/Defaults/WindowMaker - but I don't know which one...
IMHO it is bad fork. Main aspect of this distro existence is poor translation of Fedora into polish - but this is no mean to fork for me. Aurox team should work with Fedora community to deliver better translation, maybe develop "Aurox Fedora Extras" repository/cdrom (with MP3, DVD, NTFS, nvidia etc. stuff) but not to make an entire distro which is not so good for me. Only better localized but it is based on Fedora so it means Fedora will be always one step before Aurox.
Other aspect of Aurox existence is fact that it is mostly distributed with polish IT/Linux press - to it is developed by big publishing house to have somethng that is a brand and can be distributed with press... So IMHO Aurox has nothing to offer despite better *polish* localization... But for me it is bad. They should work with upstream instead of forking such simple task like translating few strings in menu system and instalator.
http://fedora.redhat.com/projects/translations/
http://fedora.redhat.com/projects/i18n/
Actually this case is very good argument pro Open Source software. Too bad the /. post is flawed. It is perfectly OK that they state - we don't have a patch right now: you can:
i d=kb; en-us;319810
1] Lay down the service and wait for patch.
2] Do a workaround the problem with scripts.
The case is not about the workaround as it is obvious that it is better than lay entire service. The case is about that there is no other option. You just have to wait for the patch (we'll se MSFT timing on that).
With Open Source you can:
1] Lay down the service and wait for distributor to issue patch/update.
2] Take the patch from somwhere else and apply it (on source code) yourself.
3] Make a workaround.
4] Pound through source code and fix it yourself (probably with help of entire community) - which often can be easier than issuing workarounds (depends on scale of your systems).
See? You have more options. Not just sit and wait you can actually do something. This flaw is much critical - it will be fixed soon. But I know MSFT not fixing flaw that caused system crashes like every 15 min. for 2,5 year just because it was flaw in something that was not widely used (but was important to me f.e.).
Take look at this KB:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?sc
It says it was fixed in June 1, 2002 - than consider that this hardware (and Windows version) was aviable and used in late 1999 which gives 2,5 year of not fixing unstable system. Congratulations.
I don't think that your argument with PDF is valid. I mean it is nice feature of OOo, but it can be also acomplished in any other Windows app that can print. You just install Cute PDF Writer (free as in beer) and have another printer installed that splits out PDF. Also I would be concerned with quality of OOo generated PDF. I personally use LyX and Scribus for my office publishing and they make very good quality PDF, but OOo f.e. does not make clickable links on export and so on...
From my experience I know that OOo is mostly used by organizations as it is:
1] Cheap (well MSO is well overpriced).
2] Is open - your data remains open.
IMHO the second point is most important - right now lots of goverments and organizations are considering options for publishing documents, and they are certainly not about closed formats anymore, they want standard open format, not loads of features - only basic like to get the job done. You really don't need VBS to make documents archive. You need readable open format to integrate with search engines (various), good indexing and flexibility and that is what OOo will give.
Sure OOo is way to heavy, interface needs polish but this is changing. I think version 2.0 (probably patched like Ximian version) will be much better and OOo is off to consume lots of MSO market share. Open formats and price will do this. When lots of agencies, goverments and so on will start to publish data in native OOo formats there will be no need to use MSO. Despite of yours data already stored in MSO - but hey if MSO wants to be competitive it must also support these open formats - so it would be easy to transfer all your existing data to new format using MSO (in some automated manner) and then when you are free just dump MSO.
Either because of price or opennes.
Well you assumed that computer == Windows?
I use Linux only but here you also do things to protect. But things you mentioned (FW, AV) are the basis. You have lots of other issues with security. I personally (despite of keeping patched and well configured systems) use only secure protocols (with encryption), use proactive security like patched kernels (MAC, stack controll etc.), intrusion detection system, honeypots and so on...
For my friends with Windows I usualy install:
ADAware PE (free)
AVAst HE (free)
Windows built in FW
Set Automatic Updates on
It usualy helps to keep the system running.
Everybody is doing what he/she likes but this project is waste of time. Who actually still uses FTP for uplading files (for downloading FTP is perfectly mature and you don't need another program (despite of browser) to download file via FTP)? We should move things like uploading/sending files to solutions like WebDAV, SCP, P2P based file exchange (have you noticed how many people exchange files using email which is stupid since it consumes more transfer for both sides). We have plenty of FTP clients and IMHO they should stay integrated into the system as FTP is more like SMB or NFS... I have already writen that everybody is free to do whatever, but please do not consume other developers time on this project. There is more things to do with FireFox browser itself than to make another not so good FTP client.
I'have P2 266Mhz, 196MB RAM. Right now running: Inkscape, GIMP, Scribus, Opera, GNOME and some Eterms... Also some services (Samba, LAMP, lprNG) and my FC1 works like charm. Oh and memory usage (-buffers) is 109MB.
Who will gave an user access to su in first place? It should be disabled by default. I don't know in which form (disabled or enabled) comes vannila su. I'll bet on disabled as I know *nices...