FINALLY, someone out there is getting the idea! You can't eat a "thank you", and while the amounts paid may or may not be worth the effort put in, it's something! Great incentive.
With even a little bit of cash out there for developers to earn, projects like gnome can go a lot farther, a lot faster IMO. My hat is off to you guys at gnome.org!
It's important to note that using XHTML 1.1 requires you to send your documents as XML. This means the document should have an XML declaration above the doctype, and needs to be sent with an XML mime-type, ideally application/xhtml+xml. This has a significant drawback; IE can't see it.
A fairly well established workaround is to use mod_rewrite and munge the mime-type of a document based on what a user agent sends in its Accept header (To date, Mozilla is the only browser to include application/xhtml+xml in its Accept header). However, some would argue that this too has drawbacks. Since only Mozilla understands application/xhtml+xml, your documents will be sent as text/html, and XHTML does not validate as HTML.
It's one of the many bitches I have with the slashdot process. That along with not properly verifying the stories they run on the front page, printing half-truths, and taking things out of context _really_ hurt this site, and take away from it's credability.
So, instead of getting the money back for the software you didn't want (or ask for) in the first place, you turn around and give it to someone else?
Right... I think the FSF can find their own funding. If you really want to support someone, then donate your money to an OSS project that you actively use instead of the FSF. This makes a hell of a lot more sense to me.
Don't we already pay to have regular mail sent? We get tones of spam in regular mail even though it costs money to send it. I don't think it will make any difference at all for electronic spam.
I don't think introducing a tax willslow them down at all. Jail time probably would though. Make spam illegal. It's not like we don't already get bombarded by advertizing everywhere else.
So, what are you suggesting? That we invent one law for Microsoft, and another for the rest of us?
It won't work. Either you have a law that we are *all* bound to, or no law at all. So really, you have to decide. Would it be a good thing if any developer could be sued for unintentionally introducing a security risk in something?
How would that work in a large scale OSS project? Would we sue the person who submitted the code, or the person who reviewed it, or maybe the head maintainer? Or maybe everyone who had anything to do with it?
That sure would be an interesting scenerio. Regardless, I don't think it's possible to sue MS on those grounds. I haven't actually looked, but I bet there is something in the EULA that would prevent you from even getting to first base.
It is an interesting idea, but I think it would do far more harm than good.
Because of the complexity. I don't know anyone who writes 100% bug/problem free code the first time around.
When you're dealing with 100K - 500K lines of code errors can and will be made. I don't care who you are, it's not possible to write things as complicated as operating systems without making mistakes. Those mistakes may translate into security risks, or they may not. But if we start actively suing developers over every security vulnerability found there won't be much incentive to write code, will there?
Any programmer will tell you this - even the most closely scrutinized code can contain bugs that were missed.
...Except you're way off topic - this is about spam being sent through systems that have their guest account enabled. A thing like this could be *avoided* by doing a proper audit after you knew your system had been comprimized.
I use Windows myself (on the desktop only), and no, I don't use Outlook. I'm in total agreement with you on the sheer idiocy of that email client. I've even made it something of a personal quest to drive people away from it whenever, and wherever possible.
Still, if we could sue people for security flaws in software, it would set a really nasty precident for all developers in the windows arena, the linux arena and others. I'm not sure I'd want a successful case like that, it'd make building anything like traversing a legal minefield, regardless of how careful you are.
This isn't to say security flaws in software are acceptable, only to say that they do happen, even to the best of us when developing an application.
I agree there are a myrid of sysadmins out there who heard the term 'security audit' and probably wondered if the IRS is somehow involved in the process, but surly you can't shift blame from the sysadmin to Microsoft for not ensuring the guest account is properly disabled.
Would we blame redhat if a sysadmin left a box with a glaring wide open hole? No, we couldn't. Why then should it be any different with this?
Somewhere along the line we really have to examine whether blame on Microsoft for a given thing is justified, or if we're just doing it because it's Microsoft. This kind of FUD is exactly what we blame Microsoft for all the time. Should we not rise about that kind of activity?
Should we not be placing the blame on system administrators who fail to perform proper security audits of their systems?
This seems like a very logical thing for one to do after being struck previously by a worm that exploits the system. IMO the fault doesn't lie with microsoft this time, but with the sysadmins who don't have a close enough look at their configurations, and just leave everything to someone else to fix.
On the contrary, I have not seen one government embrace linux yet. I've seen lots of them talk about it, and say that they are going to do it.
When they stop talking and start doing I'll start believing.
I'm sure they have enough technical expertise in China to do the deployment themselves. I don't understand why they need a company like Sun to do it for them.
And another issue - if security was a concern of using windows (which many here think to be the case) why do they not use a BSD? Why Linux at all?
Something tells me there is more going on here than they let on.
Since redhat has spent a significant amount of time developing their own linux distrobution, which is arguably one of the more user friendly ones, I'd be more inclined to believe them over IBM.
You could be a BASIC programmer with no more than 10 lines of code under your belt, as an advocate of Linux, how you present your arguments is everything. Come off like a zealot, and the only people who take you seriously are other zealots.
At no point did I say anyone should outright abandon the Linux effort. What we should do though, is admit Linux does have some failings, and then work towards fixing them. Remember, the goal is to attract people to Linux, not to belittle and push them away. If you feel my points are invalid, then discuss it, don't flame. I think you'll find that I'm more receptive than you might be lead to believe.
I would like to have an alternative to Windows, but for me, in my experience, it needs to meet or exceed what I already have, or there is no point. What I require from my OS may not be the same as what you require. The same could be said of other people too.
Only by being critical of things in an honest and constructive way can we hope to improve them. So, please, be critical, but please also be respectful of others' opinions.
1) I've had to spend countless hours poking at logs generated by X when it has failed to start, for whatever reason. Perhaps this was the fault of the drivers, you may have a point there.
2) Compliant apps do not count for every applicaiton used. I've had these problems with mozilla, which is the only browser worth using under Linux IMO.
3) Funny, windows seems to autodetect every mouse I've given it so far. I've used any number of logitech mice with it, and windows seems to be able to determing what they all are. I'll agree that some mice with more than 3 buttons sometimes need additional software, but i've never seen a scrollwheel not work.
4) Regardless of who is at fault here (and i believe I mentioned this was not an X/Linux issue) it's still a problem. My favorite applications are not available for linux, and may never be.
5) Nope, I can set up a Windows box really fast. There is always some issue with linux, though, that causes it to be an entire day of fun.
6) It's rare for me to see a Windows installation go bad. In the past, there were problems with DLL conflicts (no one loved DLL hell) but that is an issue of the past. I've had many problems with linux and library conflicts (damn, which version of glibc did i need this time?). Uninstalling something from windows is also really easy. Uninstalling something from linux might be easy, depending on what package management system is being used. I'm sorry that you think I'm trolling here, but Linux package management is one of my biggest gripes with Linux.
In closing:
You're absolutly right. A linux distro on the desktop is completely not good enough for me. It might be one day, but as I stated in the topic, not today.
Also, Windows is not expensive. $99 Canadian for an operating system is not unreasonable at all, considering what you get, and how much time it took to develop. Given the choice of getting something for free that doesn't meet all my needs, and paying a few bucks for something that isn't free but does meet my needs, I'll cough up a few bucks, no problem.
Hm, I'm not American, so I'm not sure what your point with that comment is.
I'm also not anti-Linux. I'm not pro-Linux either. What I am, is all for the thing which does the best job, with the least amount of hassle possible. The right tool for the job, per-se. If you want to interpret this as a hostile and derogatory thing, I can't help that.
When Linux works as well (for me) as Windows does in the desktop scene, i'll be more than happy to run it. It doesn't work well for me though, and any time I run it I feel like something is missing.
Thanks, I may try that.
It's interesting that almost everyone here thinks I'm trolling, but really, I'm speaking out of my own experience, and I'm not trying to offend.
It really is the little things that drive me crazy where Linux is concerned.
I think the point is Linux is not a success on the desktop, and will not be until it's as easy for home users to run their favorite applications as windows already is. Ask a pile of computer illiterates if they'd like to switch from what they're using to some other thing. The result would probably be a resounding 'no'.
Computer literate people are a minority.
'Success' to me should be defined as a product that the majority of people use as their solution. Linux fails at home because it does not easily allow people to run their favorite applications. Could Linux be a success in business? maybe. At home? No chance.
"One of the more interesting things about Linux is that it gives people a chance to resist the slavish dependance on monster apps and to break the software monoculture."
You're assuming people want to change, the average person is highly resistant to change. I know people who are still trying to run Netscape 4.77 as their default browser, when really, it's outdated and *should* be upgraded. Try telling those same people they should switch operating systems, and get ready for disaster.
Slashdot Mirror
FINALLY, someone out there is getting the idea! You can't eat a "thank you", and while the amounts paid may or may not be worth the effort put in, it's something! Great incentive.
With even a little bit of cash out there for developers to earn, projects like gnome can go a lot farther, a lot faster IMO. My hat is off to you guys at gnome.org!
If XHTML, there are some things to consider:
It's important to note that using XHTML 1.1 requires you to send your documents as XML. This means the document should have an XML declaration above the doctype, and needs to be sent with an XML mime-type, ideally application/xhtml+xml. This has a significant drawback; IE can't see it.
A fairly well established workaround is to use mod_rewrite and munge the mime-type of a document based on what a user agent sends in its Accept header (To date, Mozilla is the only browser to include application/xhtml+xml in its Accept header). However, some would argue that this too has drawbacks. Since only Mozilla understands application/xhtml+xml, your documents will be sent as text/html, and XHTML does not validate as HTML.
The arguments around this issue have been summarized in the widely linked "Sending XHTML as text/html Considered Harmful"
'It's "lose," not "loose." It's "a lot," not "alot." And it's "its," not "it's." Isn't it?' Case and point.
This is a discussion, not a spelling bee. Grow up.
I couldn't agree more.
It's one of the many bitches I have with the slashdot process. That along with not properly verifying the stories they run on the front page, printing half-truths, and taking things out of context _really_ hurt this site, and take away from it's credability.
I don't need to, i don't use linux. Thats your problem, not mine :)
So, instead of getting the money back for the software you didn't want (or ask for) in the first place, you turn around and give it to someone else? Right ... I think the FSF can find their own funding. If you really want to support someone, then donate your money to an OSS project that you actively use instead of the FSF. This makes a hell of a lot more sense to me.
Don't we already pay to have regular mail sent? We get tones of spam in regular mail even though it costs money to send it. I don't think it will make any difference at all for electronic spam.
I don't think introducing a tax willslow them down at all. Jail time probably would though. Make spam illegal. It's not like we don't already get bombarded by advertizing everywhere else.
That one brightened my day, thanks :)
So, what are you suggesting? That we invent one law for Microsoft, and another for the rest of us?
It won't work. Either you have a law that we are *all* bound to, or no law at all. So really, you have to decide. Would it be a good thing if any developer could be sued for unintentionally introducing a security risk in something?
How would that work in a large scale OSS project? Would we sue the person who submitted the code, or the person who reviewed it, or maybe the head maintainer? Or maybe everyone who had anything to do with it?
That sure would be an interesting scenerio. Regardless, I don't think it's possible to sue MS on those grounds. I haven't actually looked, but I bet there is something in the EULA that would prevent you from even getting to first base.
It is an interesting idea, but I think it would do far more harm than good.
Because of the complexity. I don't know anyone who writes 100% bug/problem free code the first time around. When you're dealing with 100K - 500K lines of code errors can and will be made. I don't care who you are, it's not possible to write things as complicated as operating systems without making mistakes. Those mistakes may translate into security risks, or they may not. But if we start actively suing developers over every security vulnerability found there won't be much incentive to write code, will there? Any programmer will tell you this - even the most closely scrutinized code can contain bugs that were missed.
...Except you're way off topic - this is about spam being sent through systems that have their guest account enabled. A thing like this could be *avoided* by doing a proper audit after you knew your system had been comprimized.
I use Windows myself (on the desktop only), and no, I don't use Outlook. I'm in total agreement with you on the sheer idiocy of that email client. I've even made it something of a personal quest to drive people away from it whenever, and wherever possible.
Still, if we could sue people for security flaws in software, it would set a really nasty precident for all developers in the windows arena, the linux arena and others. I'm not sure I'd want a successful case like that, it'd make building anything like traversing a legal minefield, regardless of how careful you are.
This isn't to say security flaws in software are acceptable, only to say that they do happen, even to the best of us when developing an application.
I agree there are a myrid of sysadmins out there who heard the term 'security audit' and probably wondered if the IRS is somehow involved in the process, but surly you can't shift blame from the sysadmin to Microsoft for not ensuring the guest account is properly disabled.
Would we blame redhat if a sysadmin left a box with a glaring wide open hole? No, we couldn't. Why then should it be any different with this?
Somewhere along the line we really have to examine whether blame on Microsoft for a given thing is justified, or if we're just doing it because it's Microsoft. This kind of FUD is exactly what we blame Microsoft for all the time. Should we not rise about that kind of activity?
Could you sue Linus Torvalds if you were insanely lax in your security audits and left massive gaping holes open in your system?
RTFA - This is about sysadmins who need to be fired, not about anything Microsoft has done.
Should we not be placing the blame on system administrators who fail to perform proper security audits of their systems?
This seems like a very logical thing for one to do after being struck previously by a worm that exploits the system. IMO the fault doesn't lie with microsoft this time, but with the sysadmins who don't have a close enough look at their configurations, and just leave everything to someone else to fix.
On the contrary, I have not seen one government embrace linux yet. I've seen lots of them talk about it, and say that they are going to do it. When they stop talking and start doing I'll start believing.
Why do they need Sun at all?
I'm sure they have enough technical expertise in China to do the deployment themselves. I don't understand why they need a company like Sun to do it for them.
And another issue - if security was a concern of using windows (which many here think to be the case) why do they not use a BSD? Why Linux at all?
Something tells me there is more going on here than they let on.
Since redhat has spent a significant amount of time developing their own linux distrobution, which is arguably one of the more user friendly ones, I'd be more inclined to believe them over IBM.
Except if it were vaporware, it wouldn't be around, now would it?
You could be a BASIC programmer with no more than 10 lines of code under your belt, as an advocate of Linux, how you present your arguments is everything. Come off like a zealot, and the only people who take you seriously are other zealots.
At no point did I say anyone should outright abandon the Linux effort. What we should do though, is admit Linux does have some failings, and then work towards fixing them. Remember, the goal is to attract people to Linux, not to belittle and push them away. If you feel my points are invalid, then discuss it, don't flame. I think you'll find that I'm more receptive than you might be lead to believe.
I would like to have an alternative to Windows, but for me, in my experience, it needs to meet or exceed what I already have, or there is no point. What I require from my OS may not be the same as what you require. The same could be said of other people too.
Only by being critical of things in an honest and constructive way can we hope to improve them. So, please, be critical, but please also be respectful of others' opinions.
1) I've had to spend countless hours poking at logs generated by X when it has failed to start, for whatever reason. Perhaps this was the fault of the drivers, you may have a point there.
2) Compliant apps do not count for every applicaiton used. I've had these problems with mozilla, which is the only browser worth using under Linux IMO.
3) Funny, windows seems to autodetect every mouse I've given it so far. I've used any number of logitech mice with it, and windows seems to be able to determing what they all are. I'll agree that some mice with more than 3 buttons sometimes need additional software, but i've never seen a scrollwheel not work.
4) Regardless of who is at fault here (and i believe I mentioned this was not an X/Linux issue) it's still a problem. My favorite applications are not available for linux, and may never be.
5) Nope, I can set up a Windows box really fast. There is always some issue with linux, though, that causes it to be an entire day of fun.
6) It's rare for me to see a Windows installation go bad. In the past, there were problems with DLL conflicts (no one loved DLL hell) but that is an issue of the past. I've had many problems with linux and library conflicts (damn, which version of glibc did i need this time?). Uninstalling something from windows is also really easy. Uninstalling something from linux might be easy, depending on what package management system is being used. I'm sorry that you think I'm trolling here, but Linux package management is one of my biggest gripes with Linux.
In closing:
You're absolutly right. A linux distro on the desktop is completely not good enough for me. It might be one day, but as I stated in the topic, not today.
Also, Windows is not expensive. $99 Canadian for an operating system is not unreasonable at all, considering what you get, and how much time it took to develop. Given the choice of getting something for free that doesn't meet all my needs, and paying a few bucks for something that isn't free but does meet my needs, I'll cough up a few bucks, no problem.
So, I need to be running KDE for this particular ctrl-C/ctrl-V functionality? Or am I missing something else?
Hm, I'm not American, so I'm not sure what your point with that comment is. I'm also not anti-Linux. I'm not pro-Linux either. What I am, is all for the thing which does the best job, with the least amount of hassle possible. The right tool for the job, per-se. If you want to interpret this as a hostile and derogatory thing, I can't help that. When Linux works as well (for me) as Windows does in the desktop scene, i'll be more than happy to run it. It doesn't work well for me though, and any time I run it I feel like something is missing.
Thanks, I may try that. It's interesting that almost everyone here thinks I'm trolling, but really, I'm speaking out of my own experience, and I'm not trying to offend. It really is the little things that drive me crazy where Linux is concerned.
I think the point is Linux is not a success on the desktop, and will not be until it's as easy for home users to run their favorite applications as windows already is. Ask a pile of computer illiterates if they'd like to switch from what they're using to some other thing. The result would probably be a resounding 'no'.
Computer literate people are a minority.
'Success' to me should be defined as a product that the majority of people use as their solution. Linux fails at home because it does not easily allow people to run their favorite applications. Could Linux be a success in business? maybe. At home? No chance.
"One of the more interesting things about Linux is that it gives people a chance to resist the slavish dependance on monster apps and to break the software monoculture."
You're assuming people want to change, the average person is highly resistant to change. I know people who are still trying to run Netscape 4.77 as their default browser, when really, it's outdated and *should* be upgraded. Try telling those same people they should switch operating systems, and get ready for disaster.