They had the people, they could build the facilities, but they didn't have the raw materials.
Face facts, they had not built them in the past 12 years.
What would have changed and why would it have changed so that they would build them in the next few weeks?
Every country in the world has the "CAPABILITY to be churning out tons of Sarin and Biological agents in a couple of months". Yet very few countries do and America is one of them.
"Uh. You're not understanding me. In past samba/filesharing/webserver/database benchmarks, there have been many times where the 'losing' group complained that the winning group had tuned their setup to be unfair and not within the boundaries of the test. Maybe you haven't seen reports of that happen...sorry if I assumed you had."
Did you miss the part about me saying how the benchmarks should be run? Should be run? SHOULD BE RUN?
Instead, you're going on about how OTHER tests had problems.
Try addressing what I've said instead of other situations, okay?
"The only reliable benchmarks are those performed by *real* non-biased parties, and the exact specifics of tuning, setup, procedure, etc. have been documented."
No they aren't. Because even those non-biased parties might tune one system for better performance than the other.
That is why each vendor sends out their own teams.
If anyone wants to argue that Team Samba doesn't know how to tune a Samba server, that's their problem.
It might not be a "benchmark" in the sense you'd like it to be, but it would be a reliable comparision of two platforms. Which is what "benchmarks" are.
"Your suggestion for a 'benchmark' isn't measuring the performance of anything, except for the intelligence of the people running the tests."
Nope. I can get the smartest people to do the configuration, but if the software can't handle the load, it can't handle the load.
How well would a web server from back in 1989 compare to a web server today? It doesn't matter how smart the people configuring it are, it will suck compared to a current server.
"It's obvious that most situations will go with your latter option (multiple servers, load balanced) for many reasons, not just budgetary, performance, and reliability."
Most, but not all. Remember, there was a Scandinavian ISP named Telia that deployed Linux on a mainframe to consolidate their websites. They went from 70 machines down to 1.
Different scenarios can have completely different solutions.
That is why each team should be given a budget and a scenario. Then let them do the best they can with their platform and that budget.
"The "losing" group invariably complains that the OSs weren't tuned effectively, set up improperly,etc., and then cry foul about the setup, attempting to declare the results biased and moot."
Whereas I clearly stated that each group would do their own tuning. How can one side complain that their platform wasn't tuned correctly when they did the tuning themselves?
"For example...with regards to performance and reliability...I, for one, have never (and will never) rely on raid for webservers....I'll have redundancy set up elsewhere (i.e. load balanced)."
Which was covered in my second example. Given a set budget, how would each team configure their website? What are the performance benefits of each approach and what are the drawbacks?
If you go with one server that eats up all of your budget, then running anything less than redundant disks is idiotic.
If you run multiple servers in a cluster or load balanced configuration then the redundancy is provided by the servers themselves.
I believe I had spelled that out clearly enough for anyone with any knowledge of the subject to understand.
Microsoft likes to run benchmarks where the disk array is RAID 0.
It does give better performance under some conditions, but it is the worst configuration with regards to your data. If any disk dies, you've lost all your data.
A RAID 5 array would be more secure, but would not give as good performance in all circumstances.
If the hardware was not specified, then the platform that used the least resources would have an advantage. Instead of paying extra for the extra megahertz, redundant components could be included.
Then, after benchmarking each system, the benchmarks can be run a second time, with each team demonstrating how their configuration has advantages.
The easiest one would be the RAID 0 vs 5 example. The RAID 5 team could cut one of the power cables to a drive on the RAID 0 team's server. That server would crash and everything would be lost.
Then the RAID 0 team could cut a power cable to one of the RAID 5 team's drives. But their server would continue to run and no data would be lost.
That is how to run a benchmark of two different software platforms.
Comparing Apache on Linux to IIS on Windows. Do you go with one huge and expensive server with multiple processors and multiple network cards or do you go with a few cheaper but less powerful machines with only one processor and network card each?
Which configuration would give you the best performance in that circumstance?
Just have each vendor send a group to configure the systems. Give them them both the same amount of money to purchase the systems. Once the benchmark has been run, have the other teams point out the flaws in the setup in each system.
How can they seem "to have full legal right to terminate IBM & SGI's Unix licenses" when they haven't shown the complete contracts?
All you're basing that statement on is SCO's claims.
SCO's claims don't carry much weight. Particularly since the episode where both their examples of stolen code were quickly shown to be legally used.
If SCO did have the "full legal right to terminate" those licenses, SCO should be pushing to get that case through the courts as quickly as possible. Instead, SCO is dragging it out.
I've had an SMTP service, FTP service, ssh service and NFS service running on my workstation.
It's a lot easier to handle things like that than to have those services running on other machines. Except for the ssh service. Instead, I'll have the clients on the other machines so they can connect to my workstation.
Fewer services running on those machines means reduced chances for worms.
They are very different beasties and they are handled in very different ways.
A worm is handled by keeping your patches up to date and by NOT RUNNING ANYTHING YOU DON'T NEED.
A virus is handled by NOT RUNNING AS ROOT.
A trojan is handled by EDUCATION.
Microsoft has made the spread of trojans and viruses very easy by automatically running code. Sometimes without the user even knowing that the code has been executed.
A rootkit usually uses an exploit in a running process to install itself. In this fashion, it is similar to a worm. But it does not automatically spread itself to other machines.
Or it could be a hacked version of ls that is executed because someone was dumb enough to have . in their path. In which case it is similar to a trojan.
Different terms to reflect different attacks that are defeated in different ways.
All the patching in the world will not stop a trojan.
The best security on your email program will not matter if you're running a vulnerable version of sendmail.
Only run what you need to run. Run with the minimum rights necessary. Don't run unknown code. Keep your patches current. Run tripwire or something similar. Review your logs.
Ranting about the laws does nothing to improve the laws. Without offering alternatives all you're doing is ranting. Not to mention that he was wrong on whether the law would apply to spammers in America.
I've already given you some groundwork. I've shown you how email spam is different from junk snail mail. I've even shown you how opt-out would do nothing to decrease the amount of spam.
Right. Laws are useless. Bad guys will just get around them. We shouldn't have any laws. We shouldn't have any laws that aren't 100% perfect.
Judging from the interviews with spammers, an excellent example was in/. just a little while ago, they aren't that intelligent. I'll take a law that gets some spammers fined or jailed.
"for example, can you apply your laws outside of the US and is the Internet a US-only thing?"
Simple, if you send spam while you are inside the US, then you have performed an illegal act. This will not cut down on people living in China sending spam to the US, but it seems that the majority of spammers are in the US.
"The big boys of the spam industry will not be affected."
So you say. Yet you offer no rational for saying so. Unless they move to another country, they will be affected.
"Everybody employs anti-spam technology. Spam doesn't reach people. People sending spam therefore do not make money. Spam stops."
Right. Even if every email program shipped with anti-spam software, spam would get through and people would reply to it.
Again, just read the old interview in/. and you'll see how little money it takes for a spammer to continue.
Instead of your ranting against laws, why don't you look at the actual law?
Opt-out lists are useless. All they do is provide the spammers with real email addresses which can be used in other spams or sold for a profit.
Opt-in is the only way to go. But with junk snail mail, you don't have to do opt-in. You can send junk to every address. But the sender pays for the delivery.
Don't just rant against laws. Make suggestions that can be implemented. Saying that everyone should use anti-spam software is not something that can be implemented. Everyone won't even use anti-virus software right now.
Because they pay for the bulk mail and they send so much of it, it reduces the cost of the mail I send.
If the spammers want to contribute towards my internet bill, then they can send me crap as well.
If they aren't going to reduce my internet charges, then they cannot spam me.
In your example, if my mailbox was filled because of people stuffing flyers and such in there that had not been sent through the mail, then I would have a problem.
Actually, I wouldn't have a problem because I believe that such behavior is already illegal.
If they are willing to pay, they can send it.
If they aren't willing to pay, they cannot send it.
Just about every law on the books is still broken by someone. Does that mean we should embrace anarchy?
Just because the spammers will move overseas, does that mean we don't pass laws against spam?
If we only passed laws that the bad guys would not attempt to violate, then we wouldn't have very many laws. Theft would be legal.
"Further, it would be a country with no fair business regulations either. Want a working "opt out" link? Forget it. Valid return address? Never. ANY legal recourse against the spammers? Not a chance."
In other words, the situation would be exactly as it is today, except the spammers would have to utilize the resources in another country.
Would those resources would have to be paid for? Or would they be stolen?
If stolen, then, eventually, that country would get around to passing their own laws against that. I can't think of any country that would welcome the spammers stealing their bandwidth.
So, eventually, the spammers would be left with the option of breaking the law and stealing resources or paying for services in a foreign country.
Now, the foreign countries tend to want to increase the money coming in. I believe they will raise the rates as high as they can without completely destroying the spammer's business. But those increased rates would mean that the spammer's margins get even slimmer.
So, the majority of spam ends up coming from a few overseas countries. That should make filtering it a lot easier.
This is spam. Not whiskey. The spammers are losers who will DDoS their enemies, but that's about it. No Al Capone style shootings.
As for scrificing my Liberty, what Liberty have I lost if it is illegal to send spam?
It annoys millions of people, but it brings in enough money to keep you in trailer payments and those fashionable ebay shorts!
This guy is 31 and he's bragging that he's wearing Nikes and Dockers? Dockers? Pants that sell new for $30? Were they used when he bought them on ebay?
He doesn't even pay for the shareware he's using. But he brags that he's made $130,000 in the past.
These losers don't care how many people they annoy as long as it brings in the pittance necessary for his continued extravagant lifestyle.
Levi closed its last two manufacturing plants. 2,000 jobs will be lost and Levi will now only design and market clothing. The manufacturing will take place in China and Bangladesh. I guess you can't beat slave labor pricing in China.
I'm wearing Levis right now. But I'll be looking for American made jeans next time I go shopping.
That's right. There are always more jobs out there. Our unemployment statistics are ficticious.
We can all make money by selling advertising on each other's websites.
You don't understand what "basic economic fundamentals" are. There are not an infinite number of jobs out there.
Because there is not an infinite number of jobs, that means there are a finite number of jobs.
But you say that there aren't a finite number of jobs. Therefore, there must be an infinite number of jobs. I wonder where those infinite number of employers are hiding.
"Either everyone pays higher prices to support inflated American wages and while starving foreigners produce nothing and spend all their time contemplating how to blow up our skyscrapers, or we import what's cheaper to import and we all get more stuff for the same price."
False dichotomy. That isn't an either or situation.
"Why leave an Indian doing nothing when we can get an Indian to work for us and only pay him half of what he's producing is worth?"
Because that would mean than an American is without a job.
An American without a job is not going to be paying taxes.
An American without a job is going to be drawing money from the government in the form of unemployment benefits or welfare.
That means it takes 2 or more working Americans to make up in taxes for the one Indian you want to employ.
How many jobs has America lost since 2000?
And our country isn't recovering from the recession.
Without Americans working, Americans don't have money to buy the things that American companies have paid Indians to manufacture.
"I completely agree, but I guess where we don't see eye to eye on this is that I thought that ALL of those action sequences, from Neo vs. 100 Smiths through mr "You only know someone by fighting them" and shoot out at frenchy's place, were entirely boring. They looked fake. They felt contrived. Maybe if there was more action (and by this, I mean Dramatic action in the classical sense of the word) and less fighting, the movie wuold be able to stand on its own."
Neo vs 100 Smiths. The worst crime possible in an action film.
The action was boring.
It looked fake. It felt contrived. And I just wanted it to end. Whether it ended with Neo beating all the Smiths or with all the Smiths beating Neo would not have mattered to me. Either outcome would have been possible.
But it goes on and on and on and on and then Neo just leaves.
Team 1: Install the biggest TV they can buy, hookup the TiVo and spend the rest of the time showing everyone how to erase everyone else's shows. Before leaving, hack TiVo and put in 200GB disk.
Team 2: Install the GPS in the SUV. Show mom the basics.
Team 3: DSL to firewall to airport. New PC's with wireless cards installed. Test with camera. Teach 4 year old how to run camera and send movies to granma.
Team 4: Keep the house stocked with pizza and beer and go around putting the tech support phone numbers on all the devices.
If you run an app and it does that, then it is a "trojan". No operating system will ever be free of trojans.
But trojans have trouble spreading themselves. Anyone can write a Linux trojan (cd ~ ; rm -R), but it will not spread far. While you may think that the damage is bad because it happened to your machine, you represent less than 1/10,000,000'th of the total.
More people will have lost data because of hard drive failure than lose data because of Linux viruses or trojans.
Yes, if a hole is found in pine or mutt or Evolution that allows email viruses such as you describe is found, then email viruses such as you describe can be written for that application.
But an exploit for pine would not affect someone running mutt or Evolution.
Linux has a better designed security system than Windows does.
A hole in one application will only affect those people running that application and it will have to find some way of spreading to those people.
Without the means of spreading, the virus will be contained.
Without the ability to infect machines it has contact with, the virus will be contained.
Which is why there aren't any Linux viruses in the wild. Not because people aren't writing them. But because they cannot spread the infection.
Slashdot Mirror
They'd need the facilities to produce the stuff.
They'd need the raw materials.
They'd need the people with the expertise.
They had the people, they could build the facilities, but they didn't have the raw materials.
Face facts, they had not built them in the past 12 years.
What would have changed and why would it have changed so that they would build them in the next few weeks?
Every country in the world has the "CAPABILITY to be churning out tons of Sarin and Biological agents in a couple of months". Yet very few countries do and America is one of them.
And Gertrude at 6:00.
Helga's a lovely Olympic weight lifter from Russia. Weighing in at a svelte 250 pounds, her hobbies include shaving her mustache and pig farming.
Yep, that's the law. They have to sleep with you and you have to sleep with them.
He pissed in a cup.
The company already knew who he was and had decided to hire based only upon his genetic code.
His "interview" was just providing a biological sample to confirm his identity.
"Uh. You're not understanding me. In past samba/filesharing/webserver/database benchmarks, there have been many times where the 'losing' group complained that the winning group had tuned their setup to be unfair and not within the boundaries of the test. Maybe you haven't seen reports of that happen...sorry if I assumed you had."
Did you miss the part about me saying how the benchmarks should be run? Should be run? SHOULD BE RUN?
Instead, you're going on about how OTHER tests had problems.
Try addressing what I've said instead of other situations, okay?
"The only reliable benchmarks are those performed by *real* non-biased parties, and the exact specifics of tuning, setup, procedure, etc. have been documented."
No they aren't. Because even those non-biased parties might tune one system for better performance than the other.
That is why each vendor sends out their own teams.
If anyone wants to argue that Team Samba doesn't know how to tune a Samba server, that's their problem.
It might not be a "benchmark" in the sense you'd like it to be, but it would be a reliable comparision of two platforms. Which is what "benchmarks" are.
"Your suggestion for a 'benchmark' isn't measuring the performance of anything, except for the intelligence of the people running the tests."
Nope. I can get the smartest people to do the configuration, but if the software can't handle the load, it can't handle the load.
How well would a web server from back in 1989 compare to a web server today? It doesn't matter how smart the people configuring it are, it will suck compared to a current server.
"It's obvious that most situations will go with your latter option (multiple servers, load balanced) for many reasons, not just budgetary, performance, and reliability."
Most, but not all. Remember, there was a Scandinavian ISP named Telia that deployed Linux on a mainframe to consolidate their websites. They went from 70 machines down to 1.
Different scenarios can have completely different solutions.
That is why each team should be given a budget and a scenario. Then let them do the best they can with their platform and that budget.
"The "losing" group invariably complains that the OSs weren't tuned effectively, set up improperly,etc., and then cry foul about the setup, attempting to declare the results biased and moot."
Whereas I clearly stated that each group would do their own tuning. How can one side complain that their platform wasn't tuned correctly when they did the tuning themselves?
"For example...with regards to performance and reliability...I, for one, have never (and will never) rely on raid for webservers....I'll have redundancy set up elsewhere (i.e. load balanced)."
Which was covered in my second example. Given a set budget, how would each team configure their website? What are the performance benefits of each approach and what are the drawbacks?
If you go with one server that eats up all of your budget, then running anything less than redundant disks is idiotic.
If you run multiple servers in a cluster or load balanced configuration then the redundancy is provided by the servers themselves.
I believe I had spelled that out clearly enough for anyone with any knowledge of the subject to understand.
Microsoft likes to run benchmarks where the disk array is RAID 0.
It does give better performance under some conditions, but it is the worst configuration with regards to your data. If any disk dies, you've lost all your data.
A RAID 5 array would be more secure, but would not give as good performance in all circumstances.
If the hardware was not specified, then the platform that used the least resources would have an advantage. Instead of paying extra for the extra megahertz, redundant components could be included.
Then, after benchmarking each system, the benchmarks can be run a second time, with each team demonstrating how their configuration has advantages.
The easiest one would be the RAID 0 vs 5 example. The RAID 5 team could cut one of the power cables to a drive on the RAID 0 team's server. That server would crash and everything would be lost.
Then the RAID 0 team could cut a power cable to one of the RAID 5 team's drives. But their server would continue to run and no data would be lost.
That is how to run a benchmark of two different software platforms.
Comparing Apache on Linux to IIS on Windows. Do you go with one huge and expensive server with multiple processors and multiple network cards or do you go with a few cheaper but less powerful machines with only one processor and network card each?
Which configuration would give you the best performance in that circumstance?
Which configuration would be the most fail safe?
Are you trading performance for reliability?
Just have each vendor send a group to configure the systems. Give them them both the same amount of money to purchase the systems. Once the benchmark has been run, have the other teams point out the flaws in the setup in each system.
How can they seem "to have full legal right to terminate IBM & SGI's Unix licenses" when they haven't shown the complete contracts?
All you're basing that statement on is SCO's claims.
SCO's claims don't carry much weight. Particularly since the episode where both their examples of stolen code were quickly shown to be legally used.
If SCO did have the "full legal right to terminate" those licenses, SCO should be pushing to get that case through the courts as quickly as possible. Instead, SCO is dragging it out.
I've had an SMTP service, FTP service, ssh service and NFS service running on my workstation.
It's a lot easier to handle things like that than to have those services running on other machines. Except for the ssh service. Instead, I'll have the clients on the other machines so they can connect to my workstation.
Fewer services running on those machines means reduced chances for worms.
They are very different beasties and they are handled in very different ways.
A worm is handled by keeping your patches up to date and by NOT RUNNING ANYTHING YOU DON'T NEED.
A virus is handled by NOT RUNNING AS ROOT.
A trojan is handled by EDUCATION.
Microsoft has made the spread of trojans and viruses very easy by automatically running code. Sometimes without the user even knowing that the code has been executed.
A rootkit usually uses an exploit in a running process to install itself. In this fashion, it is similar to a worm. But it does not automatically spread itself to other machines.
Or it could be a hacked version of ls that is executed because someone was dumb enough to have . in their path. In which case it is similar to a trojan.
Different terms to reflect different attacks that are defeated in different ways.
All the patching in the world will not stop a trojan.
The best security on your email program will not matter if you're running a vulnerable version of sendmail.
Only run what you need to run.
Run with the minimum rights necessary.
Don't run unknown code.
Keep your patches current.
Run tripwire or something similar.
Review your logs.
Ranting about the laws does nothing to improve the laws. Without offering alternatives all you're doing is ranting. Not to mention that he was wrong on whether the law would apply to spammers in America.
I've already given you some groundwork. I've shown you how email spam is different from junk snail mail. I've even shown you how opt-out would do nothing to decrease the amount of spam.
"New laws will simply be circumvented"
/. just a little while ago, they aren't that intelligent. I'll take a law that gets some spammers fined or jailed.
/. and you'll see how little money it takes for a spammer to continue.
Right. Laws are useless. Bad guys will just get around them. We shouldn't have any laws. We shouldn't have any laws that aren't 100% perfect.
Judging from the interviews with spammers, an excellent example was in
"for example, can you apply your laws outside of the US and is the Internet a US-only thing?"
Simple, if you send spam while you are inside the US, then you have performed an illegal act. This will not cut down on people living in China sending spam to the US, but it seems that the majority of spammers are in the US.
"The big boys of the spam industry will not be affected."
So you say. Yet you offer no rational for saying so. Unless they move to another country, they will be affected.
"Everybody employs anti-spam technology. Spam doesn't reach people. People sending spam therefore do not make money. Spam stops."
Right. Even if every email program shipped with anti-spam software, spam would get through and people would reply to it.
Again, just read the old interview in
Instead of your ranting against laws, why don't you look at the actual law?
Opt-out lists are useless. All they do is provide the spammers with real email addresses which can be used in other spams or sold for a profit.
Opt-in is the only way to go. But with junk snail mail, you don't have to do opt-in. You can send junk to every address. But the sender pays for the delivery.
Don't just rant against laws. Make suggestions that can be implemented. Saying that everyone should use anti-spam software is not something that can be implemented. Everyone won't even use anti-virus software right now.
Because they pay for the bulk mail and they send so much of it, it reduces the cost of the mail I send.
If the spammers want to contribute towards my internet bill, then they can send me crap as well.
If they aren't going to reduce my internet charges, then they cannot spam me.
In your example, if my mailbox was filled because of people stuffing flyers and such in there that had not been sent through the mail, then I would have a problem.
Actually, I wouldn't have a problem because I believe that such behavior is already illegal.
If they are willing to pay, they can send it.
If they aren't willing to pay, they cannot send it.
Just about every law on the books is still broken by someone. Does that mean we should embrace anarchy?
Just because the spammers will move overseas, does that mean we don't pass laws against spam?
If we only passed laws that the bad guys would not attempt to violate, then we wouldn't have very many laws. Theft would be legal.
"Further, it would be a country with no fair business regulations either. Want a working "opt out" link? Forget it. Valid return address? Never. ANY legal recourse against the spammers? Not a chance."
In other words, the situation would be exactly as it is today, except the spammers would have to utilize the resources in another country.
Would those resources would have to be paid for? Or would they be stolen?
If stolen, then, eventually, that country would get around to passing their own laws against that. I can't think of any country that would welcome the spammers stealing their bandwidth.
So, eventually, the spammers would be left with the option of breaking the law and stealing resources or paying for services in a foreign country.
Now, the foreign countries tend to want to increase the money coming in. I believe they will raise the rates as high as they can without completely destroying the spammer's business. But those increased rates would mean that the spammer's margins get even slimmer.
So, the majority of spam ends up coming from a few overseas countries. That should make filtering it a lot easier.
This is spam. Not whiskey. The spammers are losers who will DDoS their enemies, but that's about it. No Al Capone style shootings.
As for scrificing my Liberty, what Liberty have I lost if it is illegal to send spam?
It looks like he's trying to build up stock for a yard sale. "Gay Monopoly"? Reindeer ashtray? Hideous vases? Back issues of Daredevil comic?
If my life ever got that pathetic, I'd just suck a bullet.
It's like an unholy cross between an 8 year old punk and an 80 year old grandmother.
It annoys millions of people, but it brings in enough money to keep you in trailer payments and those fashionable ebay shorts!
This guy is 31 and he's bragging that he's wearing Nikes and Dockers? Dockers? Pants that sell new for $30? Were they used when he bought them on ebay?
He doesn't even pay for the shareware he's using. But he brags that he's made $130,000 in the past.
These losers don't care how many people they annoy as long as it brings in the pittance necessary for his continued extravagant lifestyle.
Levi closed its last two manufacturing plants. 2,000 jobs will be lost and Levi will now only design and market clothing. The manufacturing will take place in China and Bangladesh. I guess you can't beat slave labor pricing in China.
I'm wearing Levis right now. But I'll be looking for American made jeans next time I go shopping.
That's right. There are always more jobs out there. Our unemployment statistics are ficticious.
We can all make money by selling advertising on each other's websites.
You don't understand what "basic economic fundamentals" are. There are not an infinite number of jobs out there.
Because there is not an infinite number of jobs, that means there are a finite number of jobs.
But you say that there aren't a finite number of jobs. Therefore, there must be an infinite number of jobs. I wonder where those infinite number of employers are hiding.
"Either everyone pays higher prices to support inflated American wages and while starving foreigners produce nothing and spend all their time contemplating how to blow up our skyscrapers, or we import what's cheaper to import and we all get more stuff for the same price."
False dichotomy. That isn't an either or situation.
"Why leave an Indian doing nothing when we can get an Indian to work for us and only pay him half of what he's producing is worth?"
Because that would mean than an American is without a job.
An American without a job is not going to be paying taxes.
An American without a job is going to be drawing money from the government in the form of unemployment benefits or welfare.
That means it takes 2 or more working Americans to make up in taxes for the one Indian you want to employ.
How many jobs has America lost since 2000?
And our country isn't recovering from the recession.
Without Americans working, Americans don't have money to buy the things that American companies have paid Indians to manufacture.
"I completely agree, but I guess where we don't see eye to eye on this is that I thought that ALL of those action sequences, from Neo vs. 100 Smiths through mr "You only know someone by fighting them" and shoot out at frenchy's place, were entirely boring. They looked fake. They felt contrived. Maybe if there was more action (and by this, I mean Dramatic action in the classical sense of the word) and less fighting, the movie wuold be able to stand on its own."
Neo vs 100 Smiths. The worst crime possible in an action film.
The action was boring.
It looked fake. It felt contrived. And I just wanted it to end. Whether it ended with Neo beating all the Smiths or with all the Smiths beating Neo would not have mattered to me. Either outcome would have been possible.
But it goes on and on and on and on and then Neo just leaves.
Action that is boring?
Doesn't that just define "bad action movie"?
Idiots.
They didn't bother to check any of the information presented.
They did do any research into the market or Linux or SCO. None. Nada. Zero. Zilch. They took SCO's press releases as gospel.
They're idiots and anyone who invests based upon their advice is also an idiot.
Split into teams.
Team 1: Install the biggest TV they can buy, hookup the TiVo and spend the rest of the time showing everyone how to erase everyone else's shows. Before leaving, hack TiVo and put in 200GB disk.
Team 2: Install the GPS in the SUV. Show mom the basics.
Team 3: DSL to firewall to airport. New PC's with wireless cards installed. Test with camera. Teach 4 year old how to run camera and send movies to granma.
Team 4: Keep the house stocked with pizza and beer and go around putting the tech support phone numbers on all the devices.
Why try to kill the machine?
Rather, change a dozen or so random numbers in every Excel spreadsheet that can be reached.
Corrupt the data, leave the machine.
It could be years before some of the damage is noticed.
A window pops up saying that a function failed and it needs the root password or something like that?
That means that the file has already gotten to your machine.
How did it get there? Did you just launch a file that someone sent you?
That's a trojan. It requires that a person give it the root password.
Trojans will always be with us.
Linux viruses and worms are rare because of Linux's security system.
If you run an app and it does that, then it is a "trojan". No operating system will ever be free of trojans.
But trojans have trouble spreading themselves. Anyone can write a Linux trojan (cd ~ ; rm -R), but it will not spread far. While you may think that the damage is bad because it happened to your machine, you represent less than 1/10,000,000'th of the total.
More people will have lost data because of hard drive failure than lose data because of Linux viruses or trojans.
Yes, if a hole is found in pine or mutt or Evolution that allows email viruses such as you describe is found, then email viruses such as you describe can be written for that application.
But an exploit for pine would not affect someone running mutt or Evolution.
Linux has a better designed security system than Windows does.
A hole in one application will only affect those people running that application and it will have to find some way of spreading to those people.
Without the means of spreading, the virus will be contained.
Without the ability to infect machines it has contact with, the virus will be contained.
Which is why there aren't any Linux viruses in the wild. Not because people aren't writing them. But because they cannot spread the infection.