Why doesn't someone set up a "honey pot" that automatically trolled through the nastiest of the nasty of the various "terrorist" web sites, and see what happens?
I'm with 'ya on that! God knows Open Source can do without the images in the press of RMS picking fleas out of his beard as he pontificates on Socialism.
Someone once referred to this as a big game of chicken. Netscape loses by blinking and putting in ActiveX. This removes a lot of the pressure sites have to wake up and stop making their pages IE-only.
Since no one uses Netscape anyway (come on, this is not a troll, it's a reality), I don't think this has effect at all on anything. I continue to be surprised that AOL has anyone at all working on a browser that they refuse to use or promote. Is it charity? Contractual? Who knows, but Netscape is a non-player, and so a non-issue in any way.
Heretic. Heretic. Heretic. Cough, cough, HERETIC. NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition! Our chief weapon is surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise.... Our two weapons are fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency.... Our *three* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope.... Our *four*...no... *Amongst* our weapons.... Amongst our weaponry...are such elements as fear, surprise.... I'll come in again.
I'm not comparing what these languages are designed to address as far as application, I'm talking about good programming habbits prevent nasty things that you can do in almost any language.
You obviously have NO IDEA what these people need or want. They don't need or want to run Unreal Tournament. They just need an appliance that will allow them to access digital information, including the internet.
That is an ignorant and elitist view. They don't need a souped up PDA, they need a computer.
We are not an advocacy group. Our purpose is to promote secure programming practices within the PHP community, not promote PHP to other groups. PHP is already taken very seriously by some of the web's largest and most heavily trafficked sites.
This will fall on deaf ears here. This is a Perl Zone. Reason with respect to PHP does not work here, because people here fear php. And that's a shame because as you say, PHP is already taken very seriously by some of the web's largest and most heavily trafficked sites. Those who discount PHP may find themselves being passed over for some very good jobs on very tasty projects.
But what's funny is that many of the "problems" that people here have with PHP are present in their preferred language, Perl, C, C++, whatever. The solution is understanding the language you are working in, whatever it is, and using good programming habits.
With the number of perfectly good P3s and older P4s finding their way to thrift shops, why not spend the $100 on refurbishing machines that are still good but that we rich folks don't want, thus saving the landfill of toxic waste and providing poor people with real machines?
This sort of thing will happen whe people refuse to update. NO software company is required to support old software forever, and we shall see if OO formats 10 years from now will open in today's version of OO, or the other way around.
Why people never even consider that something else exists other than MS Office
First, Word Perfect is still King in law offices and certain other niche areas. But two words: "Market Saturation". If you need to communicate with the majority of people and business out there, if you're not sending.doc you might as well just send a random string of characters, so it's a matter of if you want to do business or not.
everyone I know has ran into problems with a.doc from a different version that doesn't open
Also, most people don't have problems opening Word docs that are not the latest version, this is simply an anecdote perpetuated by people that don't like Microsoft. Right now, I have Office 97 (which I actually have owned since about that time) at home, and have never had any problems opening brand spanking new Word docs.
I support open document formats because it promotes competition in the areas of application user experience that count like usability. I would very much like to see OpenOffice mature to a point where most people including large companies would feel safe transitioning. But repeating these discounted "stories" of version incompatibility help no one.
What do you want, a retinal scan? Short or having some human examine you, your ID, and your other boneifieds to vette you, systems like these will always be crackable. Get over it, life has risks.
What makes you think these products where coded by chimps? Are you telling us that it is possible (for you perhaps?) to make crypo secure RFID products? This is simply an inappropriate use of RFID, and regardless of the quality of the engineers working one these toys, the decision to go with this misuse of technology almost certainly came from the Suits upstairs.
I'm not a big gamer, in fact the only games I play are Doom and Solitaire, sooo... I'm Probibly ignorant.
But it seems to me that Steam is a pretty obnoxious company to its customers / users (at least judging by all the stories about it that end up here). Why not move on to some game company that shows a little more respect to its income source? ID Software?
No, I don't think so. I think they are very much like a cult and at high levels have deluded themselves into thinking that these issues don't really exist if they don't talk about them. I think at lower levels, there are Probibly many who do want to talk about it, but like their jobs more.
If, as OSRM implies, that various types of insurance, such as its latest offering, are prudent for Open Source projects, than I think that OSS loses a lot of its advantages. I've grown to suspect OSRM's motivations and think perhaps they might just be a little biased. Insurance companies tend to have hidden agendas.
Here is the issue. Open source or proprietary software re: security? Security a matter of design rather than something revealed by a simple litmus test. Open source and proprietary software can be secure or insecure. But the way we find this is by discussing the structure of the program and determining whether it is resistant to attack and fails gracefully without exposing the rest of the system. This is easier with open source software. (emphasis mine)
And this is what I find puzzling about Microsoft. There can be no question that they have just an enormous number of extremely competent, indeed smart, people working for them (yes, they do). They seem to have the kind of non-cube farm work environment that smart people want to work in. So with these simply huge numbers of people working for the Redmond Borg, why can they not have this "discussing the structure of the program and determining whether it is resistant to attack and fails gracefully without exposing the rest of the system"?
From the story: "In Microsoft's world customers are confidant that we take responsibility. They know that they will get their upgrades and patches."
And this is about where I stopped reading. There are no worries in this story, it's a combination of the delusional thinking that prevents Microsoft from improving their product (which, with the incredible "brain trust" that they have, is a perfectly reasonable possibility), and preaching to the converted. This story serves another purpose, and that is to cause *nix fanatics (or "evangelists" as Microsoft calls their fanatics) to froth and flap about, embarrassing themselves in public.
But what about this gem: "Linux is not ready for mission-critical computing. There are fundamental things missing." What exactly is Microsoft's market share for "mission-critical" computing? Most of these types of applications run on some proprietary Unix clone, but will soon be seen on Linux, not Microsoft OS. This is why Microsoft spreads this obviously untrue manure; they are scared.
I suspect they are starting to realize that "The Desktop" and browser market is not where they will lose the Microsoft / *nix war. It's in these "mission-critical" enterprise computing areas.
Slashdot Mirror
Why doesn't someone set up a "honey pot" that automatically trolled through the nastiest of the nasty of the various "terrorist" web sites, and see what happens?
I'm with 'ya on that! God knows Open Source can do without the images in the press of RMS picking fleas out of his beard as he pontificates on Socialism.
Since no one uses Netscape anyway (come on, this is not a troll, it's a reality), I don't think this has effect at all on anything. I continue to be surprised that AOL has anyone at all working on a browser that they refuse to use or promote. Is it charity? Contractual? Who knows, but Netscape is a non-player, and so a non-issue in any way.
Heretic. Heretic. Heretic. Cough, cough, HERETIC. NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition! Our chief weapon is surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise.... Our two weapons are fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency.... Our *three* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope.... Our *four*...no... *Amongst* our weapons.... Amongst our weaponry...are such elements as fear, surprise.... I'll come in again.
I'm not comparing what these languages are designed to address as far as application, I'm talking about good programming habbits prevent nasty things that you can do in almost any language.
That is an ignorant and elitist view. They don't need a souped up PDA, they need a computer.
This will fall on deaf ears here. This is a Perl Zone. Reason with respect to PHP does not work here, because people here fear php. And that's a shame because as you say, PHP is already taken very seriously by some of the web's largest and most heavily trafficked sites. Those who discount PHP may find themselves being passed over for some very good jobs on very tasty projects.
But what's funny is that many of the "problems" that people here have with PHP are present in their preferred language, Perl, C, C++, whatever. The solution is understanding the language you are working in, whatever it is, and using good programming habits.
LaTeX is not an "all purpose" word processor. Move on, before you make more of an ASS of your self.
So, will version 10 of OO still read version .9 and 1? Get real.
You think these people are stupid? They don't need or want our McComputers, the NEED and WANT the real thing.
With the number of perfectly good P3s and older P4s finding their way to thrift shops, why not spend the $100 on refurbishing machines that are still good but that we rich folks don't want, thus saving the landfill of toxic waste and providing poor people with real machines?
This sort of thing will happen whe people refuse to update. NO software company is required to support old software forever, and we shall see if OO formats 10 years from now will open in today's version of OO, or the other way around.
Of course, you don't have to do business with these types, but you may not do much business than.
No. They knew it HIT the wing. They did not know it made a big hole.
Dashboard toy / air freshener?
I said MOST people. Also, try PDF for resumes, they get there just the way you want them to, no one can change them (without difficulty)...
First, Word Perfect is still King in law offices and certain other niche areas. But two words: "Market Saturation". If you need to communicate with the majority of people and business out there, if you're not sending .doc you might as well just send a random string of characters, so it's a matter of if you want to do business or not.
everyone I know has ran into problems with a .doc from a different version that doesn't open
Also, most people don't have problems opening Word docs that are not the latest version, this is simply an anecdote perpetuated by people that don't like Microsoft. Right now, I have Office 97 (which I actually have owned since about that time) at home, and have never had any problems opening brand spanking new Word docs.
I support open document formats because it promotes competition in the areas of application user experience that count like usability. I would very much like to see OpenOffice mature to a point where most people including large companies would feel safe transitioning. But repeating these discounted "stories" of version incompatibility help no one.
What do you want, a retinal scan? Short or having some human examine you, your ID, and your other boneifieds to vette you, systems like these will always be crackable. Get over it, life has risks.
What makes you think these products where coded by chimps? Are you telling us that it is possible (for you perhaps?) to make crypo secure RFID products? This is simply an inappropriate use of RFID, and regardless of the quality of the engineers working one these toys, the decision to go with this misuse of technology almost certainly came from the Suits upstairs.
But it seems to me that Steam is a pretty obnoxious company to its customers / users (at least judging by all the stories about it that end up here). Why not move on to some game company that shows a little more respect to its income source? ID Software?
No, I don't think so. I think they are very much like a cult and at high levels have deluded themselves into thinking that these issues don't really exist if they don't talk about them. I think at lower levels, there are Probibly many who do want to talk about it, but like their jobs more.
If, as OSRM implies, that various types of insurance, such as its latest offering, are prudent for Open Source projects, than I think that OSS loses a lot of its advantages. I've grown to suspect OSRM's motivations and think perhaps they might just be a little biased. Insurance companies tend to have hidden agendas.
And this is what I find puzzling about Microsoft. There can be no question that they have just an enormous number of extremely competent, indeed smart, people working for them (yes, they do). They seem to have the kind of non-cube farm work environment that smart people want to work in. So with these simply huge numbers of people working for the Redmond Borg, why can they not have this "discussing the structure of the program and determining whether it is resistant to attack and fails gracefully without exposing the rest of the system"?
And this is about where I stopped reading. There are no worries in this story, it's a combination of the delusional thinking that prevents Microsoft from improving their product (which, with the incredible "brain trust" that they have, is a perfectly reasonable possibility), and preaching to the converted. This story serves another purpose, and that is to cause *nix fanatics (or "evangelists" as Microsoft calls their fanatics) to froth and flap about, embarrassing themselves in public.
But what about this gem: "Linux is not ready for mission-critical computing. There are fundamental things missing." What exactly is Microsoft's market share for "mission-critical" computing? Most of these types of applications run on some proprietary Unix clone, but will soon be seen on Linux, not Microsoft OS. This is why Microsoft spreads this obviously untrue manure; they are scared.
I suspect they are starting to realize that "The Desktop" and browser market is not where they will lose the Microsoft / *nix war. It's in these "mission-critical" enterprise computing areas.
A lot of things have changed since 2001, yes? It's 2005 now, correct? Qmail is in the process of overtaking Sendmail, and for good reason.