The irony is that Caldera never would have been able to afford DR-DOS, at the price they could afford to paid for it, if Microsoft hadn't stomped it as an OS by various means. So they bought something cheap and used it as a vehicle to attack Microsoft. Kind of the corporate equivalent of buying a cheap used Ford Pinto in order to attack the Ford Motor Company.
The link times out, which gives credance to the idea that SCO is being DoS'd. I tried to go to SCO 'out of the blue' earlier today and it did the same. Before this story was posted.
Is it surprising that a smug 'security expert' on the side of OSS would say 'noooo, they're not being DoS'd.....'??
I guess I can't imagine ever using the email program 'built into' or bundled with a browser, so haven't experienced this problem. It's Eudora on Windows and Sylpheed on the freenixes for me. I've never had the problems being described here. Microsoft installs of various kinds do have the annoying habit of reinstalling Outlook Express, which then has to be beaten down again over and over, but since I have an empty dead 'Address Book' it really doesn't matter.
No. I use Windows Update all the time, and almost exclusively use the Mozilla 1.5 browser on this machine. Windows Update doesn't screw up anything on this machine (w2k). Browser preferences stay the way they are.
Anecdotal note: awhile ago I installed Mozilla almost immediately after a fresh install of Windows 2000, and never, ever, used IE on the machine. At some point later I tried to re-enable the system to use IE by default. It proved nearly impossible in that instance. I haven't seen the phenomenon repeated, but in at least that instance the mechanism for IE to 'take over' browser preferences from Mozilla was completely broken, worse than any experience I've had getting the reverse (setting browzer prefs from IE to Mozilla) to happen.
The solution is to instruct people to NEVER enter info on webforms they are redirected to from a random email. Close the email message and go to the website in question by direct means.
how badly does the regular computer-using public need to get battered, by security holes and other exploits in IE, before they finally just ditch the damn thing?
The scamming and rip-offs are a result of the gullible public, not IE itself. If Mozilla had the market share of IE there would be plug-ins galore to create havoc and rip people off. And people would eagerly download and install them.
Also, the 'open source' nature of Mozilla/Firebird make it far easier to produce a 'trojaned' version that is seamless and looks exactly like the original. Is the Mozilla project prepared to spend big bucks on an HTTPS site to serve as a 'validated download site' for Mozilla to 95% of the Internet? when Moz goes mainstream, casual 'mirror sites' won't cut it any longer.
I doubt if there is any company in the world that hasn't broken the law twice and continued on in business.
As I said, many of them aren't as good at it as Microsoft but they wish they were.
There are so many factors in Microsoft's success that it's easy for pundits for or against Microsoft to pull together a fairy tale that makes Microsoft either good or evil.
They're just a successful company. And losers hate successful companies.
Fortunately 'writing a worm' isn't the same thing as finding a new exploit.
Think about it: many exploits, in both Windows and Linux and every other system, exist for months or years before being discovered. Or should we say, before being discovered by the kind of person who makes noise about it and/or noisily makes trouble using it. I wonder sometimes how 'far ahead of the curve' on that sort of thing the smarter black hats and agencies like the NSA tend to stay. Surely they like the convenience of Open Source and quietly audit it all the time. Easier to find flaws if you're reading source code than black-box testing Windows (though the NSA surely has a source license for Windows)
I prefer a nice non-proprietary Xterm. It's documented well in O'reilly's massive X Window System handbook set, and it's available on any system running X.
It was years ago now that I noticed the borg-like crawl of KDE, prepending a 'K' onto the names of of cool software I liked, forcing me to install a big monstrous mess instead of the little app out of the source tarball that I remembered. I guess it makes me a grumpy old fart.
It's a good thing Mary Shelly isn't around. She'd be disappointed that people like you have so little understanding of her work, obviously having never read it.
Dr. Frankenstein was the man who created 'Frankenstein's Monster' who was not called Frankenstein. And the monster was NOT bent on world domination, but was actually a sad unhappy monster.
Really, there's no problem with dropping a reference to 'Frankenstein' improperly if you like. There are plenty of ignorant people who won't be able to tell the difference. But if you're going to bring in the author's name (even her middle name, how impressive) show a little more literacy.
It's funny how many of the systems being replaced with the GPL'd Linux system are proprietary Unix systems, and really not that many of them are Microsoft boxes.
As to 'there aren't any other companies like Microsoft' that makes you sound like someone who primarily is out there to hate Microsoft. There are many other companies like Microsoft. Many of them aren't as good at it as Microsoft but they wish they were. Oracle is a good example. They pioneered the concept of vapourware, when Billy was still just selling MS-DOS.
You shouldn't whittle it down to the same old saw about 'many small tools' on UNIX. Particularly not to a crowd whom, if they use Unix or Linux at all, are probably hunkered down in their Gnome or KDE desktop.
Besides which 'monolithic' isn't a uniquely Microsoft approch, nor does their 'pushing' things like WMP have a whole lot to do with the monolythic vs. discrete divide.
You're comparing the emachine to what is commonly seen as the most horrible cheap line of HP boxes. 'The big guys' don't put that kind of components into anything but the machines they're selling to the market of people who want a computer brand that matches their printer.
You slap a 'Type R' sticker over the 'E Machines' logo on the box and you're in sweet, maaaan. And even if anybody figures out what you did, you were case-modding, maaaan.
Slashdot Mirror
The irony is that Caldera never would have been able to afford DR-DOS, at the price they could afford to paid for it, if Microsoft hadn't stomped it as an OS by various means. So they bought something cheap and used it as a vehicle to attack Microsoft. Kind of the corporate equivalent of buying a cheap used Ford Pinto in order to attack the Ford Motor Company.
Well, they bought a lot of DOS and used it as an excuse to unleash lawyers on Microsoft, anyway.
With the word 'grok' in their name, they're probably mostly Robert Heinlein experts.
You know, hard-libertarian and/or CAW-type neopagans.
Hard to imagine that sort making it through law school, but it probably happens.
It fits right in with the 'Mad Magazine' level of maturity exhibited by so many participants in this discussion. If that's what you meant...
The US Government sued IBM. In an anti-trust suit that lasted for ages and ages. Back before IBM was claiming that Linux is a little blond-headed boy.
The link times out, which gives credance to the idea that SCO is being DoS'd. I tried to go to SCO 'out of the blue' earlier today and it did the same. Before this story was posted.
Is it surprising that a smug 'security expert' on the side of OSS would say 'noooo, they're not being DoS'd.....'??
It seems the timing is right for me to now sell my collection of Defibrillator Capacitors on eBay for big bux.
I guess I can't imagine ever using the email program 'built into' or bundled with a browser, so haven't experienced this problem. It's Eudora on Windows and Sylpheed on the freenixes for me. I've never had the problems being described here. Microsoft installs of various kinds do have the annoying habit of reinstalling Outlook Express, which then has to be beaten down again over and over, but since I have an empty dead 'Address Book' it really doesn't matter.
No. I use Windows Update all the time, and almost exclusively use the Mozilla 1.5 browser on this machine. Windows Update doesn't screw up anything on this machine (w2k). Browser preferences stay the way they are.
Anecdotal note: awhile ago I installed Mozilla almost immediately after a fresh install of Windows 2000, and never, ever, used IE on the machine. At some point later I tried to re-enable the system to use IE by default. It proved nearly impossible in that instance. I haven't seen the phenomenon repeated, but in at least that instance the mechanism for IE to 'take over' browser preferences from Mozilla was completely broken, worse than any experience I've had getting the reverse (setting browzer prefs from IE to Mozilla) to happen.
The solution is to instruct people to NEVER enter info on webforms they are redirected to from a random email. Close the email message and go to the website in question by direct means.
This is what people need to learn to do.
how badly does the regular computer-using public need to get battered, by security holes and other exploits in IE, before they finally just ditch the damn thing?
The scamming and rip-offs are a result of the gullible public, not IE itself. If Mozilla had the market share of IE there would be plug-ins galore to create havoc and rip people off. And people would eagerly download and install them.
Also, the 'open source' nature of Mozilla/Firebird make it far easier to produce a 'trojaned' version that is seamless and looks exactly like the original. Is the Mozilla project prepared to spend big bucks on an HTTPS site to serve as a 'validated download site' for Mozilla to 95% of the Internet? when Moz goes mainstream, casual 'mirror sites' won't cut it any longer.
You've already been exploited and are 0wned by Jobs.
Only as a 'collectable' not as a commodity.
I've sold early date-code 6502 processor chips on eBay for big bucks. Not because anybody was going to use them.
I doubt if there is any company in the world that hasn't broken the law twice and continued on in business.
As I said, many of them aren't as good at it as Microsoft but they wish they were.
There are so many factors in Microsoft's success that it's easy for pundits for or against Microsoft to pull together a fairy tale that makes Microsoft either good or evil.
They're just a successful company. And losers hate successful companies.
They started taking over/absorbing independent software packages, mireing them in the dependencies of KDE.
Fortunately 'writing a worm' isn't the same thing as finding a new exploit.
Think about it: many exploits, in both Windows and Linux and every other system, exist for months or years before being discovered. Or should we say, before being discovered by the kind of person who makes noise about it and/or noisily makes trouble using it. I wonder sometimes how 'far ahead of the curve' on that sort of thing the smarter black hats and agencies like the NSA tend to stay. Surely they like the convenience of Open Source and quietly audit it all the time. Easier to find flaws if you're reading source code than black-box testing Windows (though the NSA surely has a source license for Windows)
I prefer a nice non-proprietary Xterm. It's documented well in O'reilly's massive X Window System handbook set, and it's available on any system running X.
It was years ago now that I noticed the borg-like crawl of KDE, prepending a 'K' onto the names of of cool software I liked, forcing me to install a big monstrous mess instead of the little app out of the source tarball that I remembered. I guess it makes me a grumpy old fart.
It's a good thing Mary Shelly isn't around. She'd be disappointed that people like you have so little understanding of her work, obviously having never read it.
Dr. Frankenstein was the man who created 'Frankenstein's Monster' who was not called Frankenstein. And the monster was NOT bent on world domination, but was actually a sad unhappy monster.
Really, there's no problem with dropping a reference to 'Frankenstein' improperly if you like. There are plenty of ignorant people who won't be able to tell the difference. But if you're going to bring in the author's name (even her middle name, how impressive) show a little more literacy.
It's funny how many of the systems being replaced with the GPL'd Linux system are proprietary Unix systems, and really not that many of them are Microsoft boxes.
As to 'there aren't any other companies like Microsoft' that makes you sound like someone who primarily is out there to hate Microsoft. There are many other companies like Microsoft. Many of them aren't as good at it as Microsoft but they wish they were. Oracle is a good example. They pioneered the concept of vapourware, when Billy was still just selling MS-DOS.
You shouldn't whittle it down to the same old saw about 'many small tools' on UNIX. Particularly not to a crowd whom, if they use Unix or Linux at all, are probably hunkered down in their Gnome or KDE desktop.
Besides which 'monolithic' isn't a uniquely Microsoft approch, nor does their 'pushing' things like WMP have a whole lot to do with the monolythic vs. discrete divide.
The FSF holds GPL Seminars every day, here on Slashdot. Often as many as 600 or 800 times per day.
I couldn't get Zmodem to build from source on my HP48 calculator.
So it's kinda like running MS-DOS on a 486 box, which we all did for quite awhile, pretending the 486 was just a 'really really fast 8086 chip.'
You're comparing the emachine to what is commonly seen as the most horrible cheap line of HP boxes. 'The big guys' don't put that kind of components into anything but the machines they're selling to the market of people who want a computer brand that matches their printer.
You slap a 'Type R' sticker over the 'E Machines' logo on the box and you're in sweet, maaaan. And even if anybody figures out what you did, you were case-modding, maaaan.