Wants us to trust them to run our electorate system? Lets face it, this was a VERY easily preventable oversight. These machines should have survived without patching by installing a rudimentary port blocker of some form. There is no reason RPC should be exposed by an ATM. If they are leaving ATMs wide open, i dont know how we're supposed to expect their Voting Machines to work.
The real question is who would do a better job. ICANN has made some questionable decisions in the past regarding delegation of authority *cough* Netsol *Cough* Considering that whoever we get is going to be a largely bureaucratic body, what can the ITU give us that will make them a better solution? Bear in mind as well that handing control to the ITU could cost us in that ICANN has traditionally been a bit more... Anglo-centric in terms of policy.
Do you know where your emergency migration plan is?
Its very like gartner to play both sides of the fence, but i find it interesting that the analyst's true opinion shows out here. Quite aside from SCO's financial woes (lets face it, you'd need the Sultan's treasury to really afford taking on IBM) he doesnt place much faith in any of SCOs bullying, or their case. He basically warns you to sit tight, do nothing, and watch SCO sort of topple over and die. I applaud him for his very sensible advice.
My one major issue with my D600 (Dell/Centrino) laptop is the fact that i cant take advantage of the wireless in it under Linux, i have to install another card. Hopefully this will soon lead to Intel/2100 card support and we can all be happy again!
3 of 4 initial posts are trollbait. Trolls are so cute and Fuzzy!
Are among the most atrocius pieces of hardware I have ever encountered. Frequent hardware failures, performance issues that stagger the mind... I stay away from them at all costs. Oh incidentally, their enterprise support sucks as well. You would do better to get your hardware from the mom and pop store down the street, let alone Dell, HP/CPQ, or IBM.
Reasonable Mitigation. There is very little you can do to prevent someone from cutting your brakelines. A lot of Computer Zombification stems from users not proactively patching AV and OS (lets not even talk about applications). Slammer (yes i know this was a server-worm) and Blaster are excellent examples. The world at large had 6 months and 1.5 months respectively to prevent the nightmare from happening, but nobody takes responsibility for (to extend your car analogy) Changing the oil and other basic maintenance on their computers. If a users computer causes x amount in damages and they had a reasonable ability to patch the problem and mitigate it, then they should be held responsible. This obviously doesnt apply for 0-day takeovers.
The problem then lies in showing HOW the computer was compromised, and the question is:
'Is the burden of proof upon the user to show they are not at fault, or the attack victim to show that they are?'
More or less dead on. The true target here was never IBM, the target was Linux, and the only way to start targeting Linux as a whole is to target the kernel. Then you move on from there to the GPL (which they've already done). Id be willing to bet most of the discovery targeted at stallman and other G/L people will deal with undermining the GPL, not the kernel itself. This, if successful serves to blow linux as a whole out of the water.
It would seem to an outside observer that SCO is getting desperate and seeking discovery from anyone they can get their hands on(this is alluded to in the article). Im not sure thats how they are thinking. SCOs logic trail seems to follow two basic paths:
1. We know there is UNIX code in linux, and we need to bring in as many people as possible to show how fragmented and uncontrolled Linux Development is. This will make the court favor us, as we can show a lack of true orginization on the defendants part (the defendant being Linux, not the legal defendant e.g. IBM).
2. We have gone on record disclosing that our revenue model is largely based around SCOSource, which is largely based around people paying us for our IP. Ergo, we have to show people that we can win(otherwise we have no IP to charge people for), and to do this we must undermine Linux's Credibility.
The practical upshot is that the 'buckshot' discovery model is aimed partially at garnering as much information possible (relevant or not) and partially to illustrate to the court that there is no one authoritative 'source' to the problem (thereby undermining the general credibility of linux with the court, making the court more inclined to see it as a dangerous conglomeration of not-necessarily-IP-abiding individuals.)
I know this is supposition, but like many of the other theories about why SCO is doing what they are doing it fits well in the facts.
One thing i will say about even traditional paper based voting is that A. we know how it works, and B. it doesnt have to be rebooted and have its hardware and software swapped out and replaced with unverified components (see Diebold). How the hell are we supposed to trust an electoral system thats going to allow this?
And so we continue to move closer to a single identifier per person. You're SS# is used for identity verification with nearly every social and financial service, and now we move closer to being wedded to another identifier. Whether we want it or not, Internet ID is going to move closer to this paradigm as time moves on. Ive seen a lot of flambait regarding 'YES to SSO' or 'DOWN with SSO!'. But this kind of consolidation is the same trend every vital service has moved towards.
Your diversion to a business oriented model makes a lot of sense, although you dont need me to tell you that. However, RH has long placed a lot of emphasis on helping (and defending) the general Linux community. Will we still be able to depend on RH for their help with both linux development (possibly through Fedora, possibly not) and their commitment to Linux? Or is this a signal of departure to a more closed model?
Slashdot Mirror
Wants us to trust them to run our electorate system? Lets face it, this was a VERY easily preventable oversight. These machines should have survived without patching by installing a rudimentary port blocker of some form. There is no reason RPC should be exposed by an ATM. If they are leaving ATMs wide open, i dont know how we're supposed to expect their Voting Machines to work.
The Great Emporer ICANN.
The real question is who would do a better job. ICANN has made some questionable decisions in the past regarding delegation of authority *cough* Netsol *Cough* Considering that whoever we get is going to be a largely bureaucratic body, what can the ITU give us that will make them a better solution? Bear in mind as well that handing control to the ITU could cost us in that ICANN has traditionally been a bit more... Anglo-centric in terms of policy.
To invite entries for a super-computer that will fit in there? thats the only way this could possibly be on-topic.
Do you know where your emergency migration plan is?
Its very like gartner to play both sides of the fence, but i find it interesting that the analyst's true opinion shows out here. Quite aside from SCO's financial woes (lets face it, you'd need the Sultan's treasury to really afford taking on IBM) he doesnt place much faith in any of SCOs bullying, or their case. He basically warns you to sit tight, do nothing, and watch SCO sort of topple over and die. I applaud him for his very sensible advice.
My one major issue with my D600 (Dell/Centrino) laptop is the fact that i cant take advantage of the wireless in it under Linux, i have to install another card. Hopefully this will soon lead to Intel/2100 card support and we can all be happy again!
3 of 4 initial posts are trollbait. Trolls are so cute and Fuzzy!
Are among the most atrocius pieces of hardware I have ever encountered. Frequent hardware failures, performance issues that stagger the mind... I stay away from them at all costs. Oh incidentally, their enterprise support sucks as well. You would do better to get your hardware from the mom and pop store down the street, let alone Dell, HP/CPQ, or IBM.
Major Book Publishers use DMCA to quash blurbs and book reviews!
This law is getting just a shade ridiculous.
But their computer components leave something to be desired.
What im grappling with is whether this is actually some form of Hardware Darwinism...
Reasonable Mitigation. There is very little you can do to prevent someone from cutting your brakelines. A lot of Computer Zombification stems from users not proactively patching AV and OS (lets not even talk about applications). Slammer (yes i know this was a server-worm) and Blaster are excellent examples. The world at large had 6 months and 1.5 months respectively to prevent the nightmare from happening, but nobody takes responsibility for (to extend your car analogy) Changing the oil and other basic maintenance on their computers. If a users computer causes x amount in damages and they had a reasonable ability to patch the problem and mitigate it, then they should be held responsible. This obviously doesnt apply for 0-day takeovers. The problem then lies in showing HOW the computer was compromised, and the question is: 'Is the burden of proof upon the user to show they are not at fault, or the attack victim to show that they are?'
More or less dead on. The true target here was never IBM, the target was Linux, and the only way to start targeting Linux as a whole is to target the kernel. Then you move on from there to the GPL (which they've already done). Id be willing to bet most of the discovery targeted at stallman and other G/L people will deal with undermining the GPL, not the kernel itself. This, if successful serves to blow linux as a whole out of the water.
It would seem to an outside observer that SCO is getting desperate and seeking discovery from anyone they can get their hands on(this is alluded to in the article). Im not sure thats how they are thinking. SCOs logic trail seems to follow two basic paths:
1. We know there is UNIX code in linux, and we need to bring in as many people as possible to show how fragmented and uncontrolled Linux Development is. This will make the court favor us, as we can show a lack of true orginization on the defendants part (the defendant being Linux, not the legal defendant e.g. IBM).
2. We have gone on record disclosing that our revenue model is largely based around SCOSource, which is largely based around people paying us for our IP. Ergo, we have to show people that we can win(otherwise we have no IP to charge people for), and to do this we must undermine Linux's Credibility.
The practical upshot is that the 'buckshot' discovery model is aimed partially at garnering as much information possible (relevant or not) and partially to illustrate to the court that there is no one authoritative 'source' to the problem (thereby undermining the general credibility of linux with the court, making the court more inclined to see it as a dangerous conglomeration of not-necessarily-IP-abiding individuals.)
I know this is supposition, but like many of the other theories about why SCO is doing what they are doing it fits well in the facts.
One thing i will say about even traditional paper based voting is that
A. we know how it works,
and B. it doesnt have to be rebooted and have its hardware and software swapped out and replaced with unverified components (see Diebold). How the hell are we supposed to trust an electoral system thats going to allow this?
And so we continue to move closer to a single identifier per person. You're SS# is used for identity verification with nearly every social and financial service, and now we move closer to being wedded to another identifier. Whether we want it or not, Internet ID is going to move closer to this paradigm as time moves on. Ive seen a lot of flambait regarding 'YES to SSO' or 'DOWN with SSO!'. But this kind of consolidation is the same trend every vital service has moved towards.
I believe that was the argument used to justify MSBLAST.D, and look where that got us...
Your diversion to a business oriented model makes a lot of sense, although you dont need me to tell you that. However, RH has long placed a lot of emphasis on helping (and defending) the general Linux community. Will we still be able to depend on RH for their help with both linux development (possibly through Fedora, possibly not) and their commitment to Linux? Or is this a signal of departure to a more closed model?