_If_ they find that code was stolen, it doesn't mean that they have to release the entire program code though (does it?). Couldn't they just remove the offending code and move on?
If KISS _have_ taken GPL'd code could it be because they believe SCO when they say that the GPL is invalid?
And if the GPL _is_ tested in court (SCO vs IBM) and holds up do you think KISS will rethink their position?
Hmm...
End of linux U.S.A? Have you forgotten that code is rewitable? All the developers have to do is know what code they need to rewrite and Linux is back in business. Yeah, if SCO win developers will have to be more careful about what they submit (especially one's that have access to propriety code) but I think Linux ending is a little radical.
I use british public transport regularly and longer journeys are almost always late. Quite often more than ten minutes. The shorter journeys arn't so bad but they don't really have much distance to become late.
The most common excuses I hear are that there are leaves on the line, it's too hot and the rails might have expanded so the trains travel slower and things like the train had to wait for additional carriges to link up to it.
Generally it's not too bad but trains are rarely on time.
As for wireless on the trains, I think it's a good idea in theory (i'd like it anyway) but I'm not too sure how well it'll work in practice.
If the overwhelming majority of widespread attacks originate from infected Windows machines and affect Windows machines, then it's a pretty safe conclusion that Windows machines are more vulnerable.
No it's not. More users = bigger target = bigger effect = more publicity for the virus/exploit writers.
Linux is generally more secure but only because it takes more technical knowlege to damage it. It's not less vunrable but it takes smarter people to mess it up.
Re:MS will win, of course, they are running the te
on
Security FUD On Linux
·
· Score: 1
and any engineer/programmer/sysadmin/techie who knows anything will typically wait for that third party to do a similar report.
Only nieve people will listen to MS because of their report.
It's happened before hasn't it? MS sponsered benchtesting (MS agains linux). MS came out on top but the whole exercise provided linux maintainers with a serious bug (to do with scaling) which got fixed. MS got a nice bit of good PR but if they hadn't dont that linux would have got a whole lot more bad PR further down the line. MS trying to discredit linux (and other OSS) through technical problems only leads to linux gaining insight into said problems and fixing them. I'd say to MS to keep up the good work.
But isn't the truth that MS DO make plausable software. It's just not very configurable and it's a big capitalist venture. Sure it's got an overwealming amount of problems but saying linux has very few problems is also a lie. A comparason could only really be made if you left out the opinions and statistics and went on the merits of the code.
If you consider their marketing budget they probably think they can win. If they give linux enough bad press (deserved or otherwise) they take it away from themselves and voila! they're back on top.
I'd disagree. If it goes on then the media will (probably) pick up on it and publisize that microsoft is building a smear campaine. It could well just blow up in microsoft's face. And the linux community don't have to look like they're just as bad.
I doubt they'd include it because they probably had a patch out for it. The fact that only tech savvy people and diligent people would have applied said patch won't be in the report.
What about all those non-techies who've only ever used windows? The transition might be difficult. Also, many popular applications ONLY run on windows (including corporate ones). I wouldn't tell corporations to switch over just yet since open source needs time to get more apps out there for every business. It won't happen over night.
I'd have said that an ethical exploit writer wouldn't even give the world a working exploit to play with. In the past a posted exploit's had an important part missing or wrong so script kiddies can't go out and cause havok. I'd put that into the list of responsibilities of the exploit writer.
I'd also say you missed one out. The tester. The developer knows his/her peice of software far too well to test it for other users (who won't know it nearly aswell), so other people need to test it out and report on what they've found (back to the developer).
Slashdot Mirror
_If_ they find that code was stolen, it doesn't mean that they have to release the entire program code though (does it?). Couldn't they just remove the offending code and move on?
If KISS _have_ taken GPL'd code could it be because they believe SCO when they say that the GPL is invalid? And if the GPL _is_ tested in court (SCO vs IBM) and holds up do you think KISS will rethink their position? Hmm...
End of linux U.S.A? Have you forgotten that code is rewitable? All the developers have to do is know what code they need to rewrite and Linux is back in business. Yeah, if SCO win developers will have to be more careful about what they submit (especially one's that have access to propriety code) but I think Linux ending is a little radical.
How can fixing something be lost time? If anything, showing up bugs and/or vunrabilities, and then having them fixed is progress.
I use british public transport regularly and longer journeys are almost always late. Quite often more than ten minutes. The shorter journeys arn't so bad but they don't really have much distance to become late. The most common excuses I hear are that there are leaves on the line, it's too hot and the rails might have expanded so the trains travel slower and things like the train had to wait for additional carriges to link up to it. Generally it's not too bad but trains are rarely on time. As for wireless on the trains, I think it's a good idea in theory (i'd like it anyway) but I'm not too sure how well it'll work in practice.
If the overwhelming majority of widespread attacks originate from infected Windows machines and affect Windows machines, then it's a pretty safe conclusion that Windows machines are more vulnerable. No it's not. More users = bigger target = bigger effect = more publicity for the virus/exploit writers. Linux is generally more secure but only because it takes more technical knowlege to damage it. It's not less vunrable but it takes smarter people to mess it up.
and any engineer/programmer/sysadmin/techie who knows anything will typically wait for that third party to do a similar report. Only nieve people will listen to MS because of their report.
It doesn't sound like MS defense. It sounds like common sense. Users ARE to blame...but then again, when you don't teach them they'll never learn.
It's happened before hasn't it? MS sponsered benchtesting (MS agains linux). MS came out on top but the whole exercise provided linux maintainers with a serious bug (to do with scaling) which got fixed. MS got a nice bit of good PR but if they hadn't dont that linux would have got a whole lot more bad PR further down the line. MS trying to discredit linux (and other OSS) through technical problems only leads to linux gaining insight into said problems and fixing them. I'd say to MS to keep up the good work.
But isn't the truth that MS DO make plausable software. It's just not very configurable and it's a big capitalist venture. Sure it's got an overwealming amount of problems but saying linux has very few problems is also a lie. A comparason could only really be made if you left out the opinions and statistics and went on the merits of the code.
If you consider their marketing budget they probably think they can win. If they give linux enough bad press (deserved or otherwise) they take it away from themselves and voila! they're back on top.
I'd disagree. If it goes on then the media will (probably) pick up on it and publisize that microsoft is building a smear campaine. It could well just blow up in microsoft's face. And the linux community don't have to look like they're just as bad.
I doubt they'd include it because they probably had a patch out for it. The fact that only tech savvy people and diligent people would have applied said patch won't be in the report.
What about all those non-techies who've only ever used windows? The transition might be difficult.
Also, many popular applications ONLY run on windows (including corporate ones). I wouldn't tell corporations to switch over just yet since open source needs time to get more apps out there for every business. It won't happen over night.
I'd have said that an ethical exploit writer wouldn't even give the world a working exploit to play with. In the past a posted exploit's had an important part missing or wrong so script kiddies can't go out and cause havok. I'd put that into the list of responsibilities of the exploit writer. I'd also say you missed one out. The tester. The developer knows his/her peice of software far too well to test it for other users (who won't know it nearly aswell), so other people need to test it out and report on what they've found (back to the developer).
but if it's designed to be an infinate loop then it's not a bug...just useless.