Now I understand why Microsoft is having such a difficult time making reliable & secure software... They spend most of their time dialing with viruses & other assorted malware.
It's hard to believe that anyone bothered to carry SCO's story about their alternative website, but it certainly had the effect of promoting Groklaw, which is probably not what SCO had in mind. Another SCO backfire, with Maureen's help. What a bunch of idiots...
If Darl was smart, he would keep his mouth shut. Every time he says something he shoots himself in the foot. In this particular case, he's sending more of his audience to Groklaw to see what all the fuss is about. Meanwhile his own rebuttal site is still not up, and probably won't be for weeks.
Of course, if Darl was smart, he wouldn't have gotten himself into the predicament he's in.
No, I would not switch. I'm quite happy with my PowerPC Mac, thank you very much. It doesn't crash, I haven't been plagued by viruses, it's got the best apps, it's UNIX, it's well supported, it's (mostly) open source, etc. No reason to switch to x86 architecture.
The following is my speculation about how the cap came about. I am not a lawyer, and I don't know anything you don't know. I'm just guessing. Having said that...
I suspect it was the law firm's idea.
I'm sure by this time Boise & Co realize that they're just "taking the dog for a walk" (that is, they know, based on the facts, the law, and their opponents, that they're gonna lose). They're experienced at losing. Unless they're idiots, they recognize that the value of their contingency upside potential is pretty close to $0. They also know the depth of SCO's pockets, and how much they can pump out of the well before it goes dry (there's a mixed metaphor). They know that, when it's all over, SCO will be worthless and just a dry corpse.
They've calculated how long they can continue to delay the inevitable, and how much SCO needs to stay alive until then. I don't know what they think the final date will be, but obviously they think SCO will need $12M to stay alive that long. SCO has $43M, and Boise & Co can do simple arithmetic. Presto! Boise & Co offers to cap their expenses at $31M.
Boise & Co knows what needs to be done (billable hours), and what they can skip in order to save their client money (billable hours that would extend beyond $31M). I predict that the final gavel will fall with a thud at just about the same time that the legal invoice reaches $31M, and at the same instant that SCO's $12M is exhausted.
With their track record for losing cases, I suspect that this is the kind of thing the Boise & Co is GOOD at!
Remember IBM & the operating system for their 360 mainframe? It finally reached such a state of inscrutable complexity that IBM froze it, and told their customers that whatever bugs they found, they would have to live with and work around. They couldn't fix it any more, because each time they fixed one bug, they introduced two more...
I'm thinking about Windoze, and backwards compatibility requirements, and various hardware configurations, and the number of engineers Microsoft has with their fingers in the pie, and software written in an inherently unsafe language like C/C++...
I wonder when Microsoft will discover that their Windoze monster has crossed the line into uncontrollable unmaintainable complexity. At this point, they'll never be able to get it to work reliably.
Being a monopolist, or having a monopoly, is not a crime. However, engaging in behavior that takes unfair advantage of one's monopolist state to inhibit or stifle competition can be a crime.
Secunia asserts that all the advisories are available on their site. Perhaps it would be interesting for someone to check their analysis using their own data.
They claim that, for Mac OS X, "Of the 36 advisories issued in 2003-2004, 61% could be exploited across the internet and 32% enabled attackers to take over the system." But it is interesting that they don't reveal the intersection of these two numbers: in other words, what percentage enabled attackers to take over the system across the internet.
They also don't talk about actual exploitation of vulnerabilities that occurred, such as in billions of dollars for Windows exploits vs. dollars for Mac exploits.
> I'm sorry, but I really wish people would stop using the > argument that alternative operating systems (Linux, OS X, etc.) > are better because they are free from vulnerabilities.
I'm not sure what you're referring to. I made no such claim. Perhaps you have my post confused with some other post.
> Yes, they might be more secure from an architecture > standpoint, but as soon as a greater number of people start > using these systems, the amount of exploits, viruses, etc. will > most definitely rise.
I agree with you. We can only hope that the architectural superiority to which you refer will help keep the malware to a minimum on non-Windows platforms.
> The alternative systems are not perfect, and thus they have > their weaknesses, and it's just plain delusional to think > otherwise.
I agree. Perhaps you read my post with an overly-active imagination. Do you consume a lot of caffeine?
>...and as far as your philosophy on proprietary email > attachments, if I were to recieve (sic) such a self-important > response as you describe I would tell you to go fuck yourself.
So far, everyone I have asked to resend their message to me in a readable format have done so. I suppose it might be because they have something they feel is worth communicating.
> The Mac snob/prick attitude is seriously getting tired. > It is not up to the rest of the world to take time out of their > days to accomodate your personal quirks. Either deal with > inter-OS clevages on a personal level or or stop using a > fucking computer.
Your jealousy is so transparent.:-) Does dealing with viruses, worms, trojans & other malware make you feel angry?
Because of all the unresolved vulnerabilities in all of Microsoft's operating systems offerings, I wouldn't be surprised if the Department of Homeland Security next recommends using some other operating system. I myself use Mac OS X, and I have never ever suffered any ill effects from malware. And whenever anyone sends me an attachment in some proprietary format known to be a malware carrier (such as Excel or Word) I always ask the sender to try again in some safer format (such as text).
Programmer productivity is a more important metric
on
Java Faster Than C++?
·
· Score: 1
I've heard that studies indicate that programmers who write their code in Java are 2 to 10 times more productive than those who use C/C++, but I can't find pointers to those studies right now. Anybody got some references?
I any case, I think it's probably true, speaking from firsthand experience. I programmed for more than 15 years in C/C++, and now that I use Java, I pray daily that I'll never have to write another line of code in C/C++. With Java, things often work the first try and just don't break. With C/C++, I've found that latent bugs can lurk in the code for years before they're tracked down and fixed.
Of coures it is possible to write good code (or bad code) in any language. But clearly, with Java, it's a lot easier to write good code. Java is much simpler than C++, and much less dangerous than C.
If CVS was implemented in Java it couldn't suffer from this kind of problem. Sure, there are still plenty of other bugs that can be coded up in Java, but not nearly the plethora of agonizing painful excruciating unfindable bugs you can subject yourself (and your users) to with applications written in C & C++ and other archaic languages.
I'm sure there are good reasons to program in C, C++, assembly language, FORTRAN, COBOL, BASIC,... I just can't think of any offhand.:-)
I got my mother-in-law a Mac. All I had to do for her was set up her network & printer. She had never used a computer before. Now she keeps her personal & business finances (Quicken), maintains a non-profit database (FileMaker), sends & received email, surfs the web, etc.
I suppose you could try that with a Pee-Cee if you're a masochist...
Daimler-Chrysler is a 15% shareholder in Deutsche Bank which provided the propup funds to SCO which is suing Daimler-Chrysler.
Novell has 20(?)% of its shares under the Norda Trust which is a majority (?) stakeholder in The Canopy Group which owns 37% of SCO (common stock) which is suing Novell.
This makes me wonder if these two particular lawsuits aren't actually a carefully contrived part of the whole scam.
It's possible that SCOG selected its "victims" with the expectation that they would act to protect their (the victims') investments in SCOG. With that in mind, perhaps AutoZone and Daimler-Chrysler will capitulate loudly and painfully, and settle out-of-court for "an undisclosed amount." This might serve to motivate other companies with deep pockets to settle as well (or just buy SCOG licenses) to minimize their risks. Whatever's good for SCOG is good for their investors...
I can't think of any other scenario in which the suits make any sense at all. Why make new enemies?
The basis for SCO's belief is the precision and efficiency with which the migration to Linux occurred,...
What a sweet testimonial to the ease of migration to Linux! I hope all the Linux companies will make use of SCO's public opinion in their marketing materials.
Slashdot Mirror
You said "girl." That's gonna hurt your karma...
Now I understand why Microsoft is having such a difficult time
making reliable & secure software... They spend most of their
time dialing with viruses & other assorted malware.
It's hard to believe that anyone bothered to carry SCO's story
about their alternative website, but it certainly had the effect
of promoting Groklaw, which is probably not what SCO had
in mind. Another SCO backfire, with Maureen's help. What
a bunch of idiots...
If Darl was smart, he would keep his mouth shut. Every time he says something he shoots himself in the foot. In this particular case, he's sending more of his audience to Groklaw to see what all the fuss is about. Meanwhile his own rebuttal site is still not up, and probably won't be for weeks.
Of course, if Darl was smart, he wouldn't have gotten himself into the predicament he's in.
"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so..."
No, I would not switch. I'm quite happy with my PowerPC Mac, thank you very much. It doesn't crash, I haven't been plagued by viruses, it's got the best apps, it's UNIX, it's well supported, it's (mostly) open source, etc. No reason to switch to x86 architecture.
The following is my speculation about how the cap came about.
I am not a lawyer, and I don't know anything you don't know.
I'm just guessing. Having said that...
I suspect it was the law firm's idea.
I'm sure by this time Boise & Co realize that they're just "taking
the dog for a walk" (that is, they know, based on the facts, the law,
and their opponents, that they're gonna lose). They're experienced
at losing. Unless they're idiots, they recognize that the value of their
contingency upside potential is pretty close to $0. They also know
the depth of SCO's pockets, and how much they can pump out of
the well before it goes dry (there's a mixed metaphor). They know
that, when it's all over, SCO will be worthless and just a dry corpse.
They've calculated how long they can continue to delay the inevitable,
and how much SCO needs to stay alive until then. I don't know what
they think the final date will be, but obviously they think SCO will need
$12M to stay alive that long. SCO has $43M, and Boise & Co can do
simple arithmetic. Presto! Boise & Co offers to cap their expenses at
$31M.
Boise & Co knows what needs to be done (billable hours), and what they
can skip in order to save their client money (billable hours that would
extend beyond $31M). I predict that the final gavel will fall with a thud
at just about the same time that the legal invoice reaches $31M, and at
the same instant that SCO's $12M is exhausted.
With their track record for losing cases, I suspect that this is the
kind of thing the Boise & Co is GOOD at!
Remember IBM & the operating system for their 360 mainframe?
It finally reached such a state of inscrutable complexity that IBM
froze it, and told their customers that whatever bugs they found,
they would have to live with and work around. They couldn't
fix it any more, because each time they fixed one bug, they
introduced two more...
I'm thinking about Windoze, and backwards compatibility
requirements, and various hardware configurations, and the
number of engineers Microsoft has with their fingers in the pie,
and software written in an inherently unsafe language like
C/C++...
I wonder when Microsoft will discover that their Windoze
monster has crossed the line into uncontrollable unmaintainable
complexity. At this point, they'll never be able to get it to work
reliably.
Being a monopolist, or having a monopoly, is not a crime.
However, engaging in behavior that takes unfair advantage of
one's monopolist state to inhibit or stifle competition can be a
crime.
I am not a lawyer, but I know right from wrong...
Secunia asserts that all the advisories are available on their site.
Perhaps it would be interesting for someone to check their
analysis using their own data.
They claim that, for Mac OS X, "Of the 36 advisories issued in
2003-2004, 61% could be exploited across the internet and 32%
enabled attackers to take over the system." But it is interesting
that they don't reveal the intersection of these two numbers: in
other words, what percentage enabled attackers to take over the
system across the internet.
They also don't talk about actual exploitation of vulnerabilities
that occurred, such as in billions of dollars for Windows exploits
vs. dollars for Mac exploits.
This smells like more Microsoft-funded FUD...
> I'm sorry, but I really wish people would stop using the
...and as far as your philosophy on proprietary email
:-) Does dealing with viruses,
> argument that alternative operating systems (Linux, OS X, etc.)
> are better because they are free from vulnerabilities.
I'm not sure what you're referring to. I made no such claim.
Perhaps you have my post confused with some other post.
> Yes, they might be more secure from an architecture
> standpoint, but as soon as a greater number of people start
> using these systems, the amount of exploits, viruses, etc. will
> most definitely rise.
I agree with you. We can only hope that the architectural
superiority to which you refer will help keep the malware
to a minimum on non-Windows platforms.
> The alternative systems are not perfect, and thus they have
> their weaknesses, and it's just plain delusional to think
> otherwise.
I agree. Perhaps you read my post with an overly-active
imagination. Do you consume a lot of caffeine?
>
> attachments, if I were to recieve (sic) such a self-important
> response as you describe I would tell you to go fuck yourself.
So far, everyone I have asked to resend their message to me
in a readable format have done so. I suppose it might be
because they have something they feel is worth communicating.
> The Mac snob/prick attitude is seriously getting tired.
> It is not up to the rest of the world to take time out of their
> days to accomodate your personal quirks. Either deal with
> inter-OS clevages on a personal level or or stop using a
> fucking computer.
Your jealousy is so transparent.
worms, trojans & other malware make you feel angry?
Because of all the unresolved vulnerabilities in all of Microsoft's operating systems offerings, I wouldn't be surprised if the Department of Homeland Security next recommends using some other operating system. I myself use Mac OS X, and I have never ever suffered any ill effects from malware. And whenever anyone sends me an attachment in some proprietary format known to be a malware carrier (such as Excel or Word) I always ask the sender to try again in some safer format (such as text).
I've heard that studies indicate that programmers who write their code in Java are 2 to 10 times more productive than those who use C/C++, but I can't find pointers to those studies right now. Anybody got some references?
I any case, I think it's probably true, speaking from firsthand experience. I programmed for more than 15 years in C/C++, and now that I use Java, I pray daily that I'll never have to write another line of code in C/C++. With Java, things often work the first try and just don't break. With C/C++, I've found that latent bugs can lurk in the code for years before they're tracked down and fixed.
Of coures it is possible to write good code (or bad code) in any language. But clearly, with Java, it's a lot easier to write good code. Java is much simpler than C++, and much less dangerous than C.
If CVS was implemented in Java it couldn't suffer from this
... I just :-)
kind of problem. Sure, there are still plenty of other bugs
that can be coded up in Java, but not nearly the plethora of
agonizing painful excruciating unfindable bugs you can
subject yourself (and your users) to with applications written
in C & C++ and other archaic languages.
I'm sure there are good reasons to program in C, C++,
assembly language, FORTRAN, COBOL, BASIC,
can't think of any offhand.
I suppose you could try that with a Pee-Cee if you're a masochist...
This makes me wonder if these two particular lawsuits aren't actually a carefully contrived part of the whole scam.
It's possible that SCOG selected its "victims" with the expectation that they would act to protect their (the victims') investments in SCOG. With that in mind, perhaps AutoZone and Daimler-Chrysler will capitulate loudly and painfully, and settle out-of-court for "an undisclosed amount." This might serve to motivate other companies with deep pockets to settle as well (or just buy SCOG licenses) to minimize their risks. Whatever's good for SCOG is good for their investors...
I can't think of any other scenario in which the suits make any sense at all. Why make new enemies?
The basis for SCO's belief is the precision and efficiency with which the migration to Linux occurred, ...
What a sweet testimonial to the ease of migration to Linux! I hope all the Linux companies will make use of SCO's public opinion in their marketing materials.
Thanks, SCO!