Is this the same Malone guy that predicted back in 1999 or 2000 that Apple and/or the PC in general would die Real Soon Now? I think he was high on the "network PC" back then.
Unsafe refers to pointer operations, not security. The code is still managed and under the effective permissions "bucket" under which the assembly is being executed. "unsafe" doesn't mean "unsecure".
Let me see if I get this right. There's this "thing" (which I won't call a feature) that can be enabled, at the machine, process or domain level, by an administrator. It is secured by default. Your position is essentially that it's wrong merely because it exists. Correct?
Do you even know what you're talking about? Do you know how the.NET security model works? Let me guess - the answer is "no".
If the same thing was a "feature" of some open source framework and I were making the same argument as you I'm sure someone (like you) would come along and use exactly the same point I'm making to prove how wonderful open source is, but always remember that you have to be responsible with how you configure security and so on.
If.NET didn't allow these things someone else would be holding that up as proof that "it sucks".
With Microsoft, it's always dammed if they do, and dammed if they don't, so why try to sound like you're rationalizing something you a) dislike on principal; and b) don't understand.
But please, choosing an 'unstable' distribution and complaining about things not working? I mean, that is not tech talk, that is plain english.
Debian unstable is pretty effin' stable. The distro had nothing to do with his problems, it was his inexperience. I could have handed him a perfectly configured SuSE box and the end result would have been the same.
Besides, all our internal Linux servers are Debian so I went with it because I could get support from the sysadmins, who never touch the Windows desktops.
Spare me the theatrics, I hadn't visited the bug page in a long time. It was first denied, then tacked on Windows (see the other duplicates) and then finally fixed and never merged into the 1.0 release. On irc.mozilla.org the whole thing was even worse.
Too much of Mozilla goes like that. They make a good browser, but sometimes they can be hard to deal with.
We recently had one of our in-house developers set up a Linux workstation (Debian unstable) to test a PHP/MySQL application that was primarily developed for Windows. He was gung-ho at first, and then as the weeks passed and no updates to the bug tracker were made I went to talk to him. He was frustrated beyond belief. He couldn't get Apache to work quite right and he was having a lot of problems getting MySQL to behave, never mind the fact that he had to use a plain text editor to work. CVS (running locally in his box) was a mess.
Instead of fixing things for him I showed him what the problems were to the best of my ability - I'm a 6-year Linux "power user" if you will but far from an expert, so the rest of the stuff we just Googled. Eventually he got to the point where he was coding, doing his daily check-in and builds and demoing the app, which is working pretty well now. His changes are then backported to the main Windows trunk to ensure everything works. We're thinking of also supporting BSD at this point.
It just takes time. Even the most savvy PC users will have problems. I can't believe IBM would be that different, especially when trying to move their less technical folks to a brand new environment. Just give them time.
This is not a Slashdot problem, it's a rendering problem in Firefox. I have the exact same problem you're seeing at work, but not at home - with the same 1.0 build of the browser. Why? I have no friggin' idea. OTOH, Mozilla works fine on both boxes. On my Linux laptop FF 1.0 renders Slashdot just fine.
There are two problems here. One is Slashdot's table-laden circa 1996 crappy HTML, which if nothing else should be fixed. They've already been shown how they can save gigabytes of bandwidth (and ergo, $$$) by moving to a cleaner layout + CSS that looks exactly the same. But they know better than everyone else and they drink gin and tonic, so what do I know.
Second it's the Firefox people's position that there is no bug, because they can't reproduce it. We are all suffering from mass hallucination or we're just trying to "damage FF's reputation", as someone told me on IRC a couple of weeks ago (I shit you not).
The browser brings absolutely nothing, the users clicking "OK" when they shouldn't (because they just have to look at this cool page on teh interweb) and installing crap that in turn installs more crap ad nauseaum - that's what "brings the crap".
I'm tempted to give kudos to M$ for the effort, but I fear I would get modded Troll for doing so
No, no, your use of "M$" is prolific enough to warrant at least a +1, Sheepbot. Kudos to you.
This is obviously a hoax, but if the "editors" understood even the most basic facts about tsunamis (and they have been in the news of late) they'd have known that a tsunami is inconsequential in deep water - it's only until the wave reaches the incline of the shore that it becomes a wall of water. Ergo, no "deep sea creatures" can be "dredged" up, not even bizarre ones.
Surely you mean BerkeleyDB, right? If you used the embedded version of MySQL you would be restricted with how you could sell Mozilla, restrictions which I belive the Mozilla license does not have. And I hope you're not expecting people to install a database server for a browser =)
In any case the Moz folks are known for their megarrific case "not invented here" syndrome, so they'll just write one. XML is a good alternative, too.
LOL! Why are you posting the exact same thing again? Because someone modded you (rightly so) as a troll?
What did you expect, with that ridiculous demeanor? You attack someone for saying they have no problem using "Windoze" and then you turn around and make an equivalent proclamation about free software being the end-all of computing.
I doubt you've even ever used Windows after 1996. 2000, XP and 2003 are perfectly stable and secure if you patch them and don't do stupid things with them. No different than Linux or FreeBSD, all of which I run every day.
I swear I'd enjoy using free software even more if it wasn't for people like you.
The FSF didn't know anything was happening for four months.
A local user was involved with the FSF crack
So what you're saying is they're "less worse"? Mmmkay.
The FSF ftp site was a repository that could easily be checked
Of course, assuming you knew it was actually compromised from March to August. Ouch.
Please don't try to compare the Microsoft monoculture disaster to free software
I wasn't, and "monoculture" has nothing to do with it. BTW, I'd recommend revising your use of the "monoculture" term given the latest trojan attack on RedHat users and the PHP/Apache/Google worm making the rounds.
I love the mods on this thread. Someone makes an observation about something (which is mostly true), then some wacko goes off on a "you motherfucker i hate u" rant, and gets modded to +4.
Looks like some people are a bit touchy on this subject.
Telling all the stories you like about how your (or your mothers/wives/SO's) machine has never had a virus/spyware attack even though you never run anti-virus software nor a spyware detection suite isn't going to mnean a lot.
Similarly, telling all the stories about how Linux is so wonderful and easy to use isn't going to mean a lot.
The simple fact is that many of the people on this board have to work with windows (from 95 to 2003) everyday and can tell you horror stories
The "people on this board" have an amazingly high (statistically speaking) number of horror stories to tell about, surprise, Microsoft products.
about machines that have been secured, reside behind a natting firewall, etc etc but still they get slapped down by the newest virus which has snuck in through a vulnerability which was patched three months ago.
I suggest you put up or shut up - are you saying that the machine was magically infected with something even though it had been patched? Care to share your horror story on this?
The other area you seem to be missing is the inate ability of users to fuck things up, no matter how secure you make it. All it takes is one innocent click on a link and all of a sudden you have spyware coming out your nose.
Yes, and we all know Linux cures stupidity and increases the user's IQ by about 100 points after install.
Oh, and I love how you call people "astroturfers" because they're sharing the fact that they haven't had the same sheer number of horrific experiences with spyware and the like. I guess that makes everyone else a fanboy, eh?
Bottom line is that much as I enjoy reading Slashdot, it seems its sole purpose has turned from being really "news for nerds" to "let's bash Microsoft" day in and day out, most of the time putting out hysterical-sounding headlines that do no justice to the actual topic being covered. It saddens me because Slashdot has become the mouthpiece for the zealots that used to be confined to the advocacy groups on Usenet. We are doing the same things we accuse Microsoft of: spreading FUD. When the balancing POV gets nailed as "astroturfers" then you start having problems with fairness.
Microsoft can push the closed source model all they want, but the reality is that they essentially killed it by buying out all the other closed-source solutions in the marketplace. Now all that remains is for them to eventually succumb.
Your user name is quite appropriate given the dumbness of your comment. There are thousands - thousands - of software companies producing commercial "closed-source" products. You and everyone else around here have somehow decided that the only entity in the planet producing commercial software is Microsoft, and that the only software used by people and companies is a kernel, the desktop, a web browser and an office suite. So you can't see the forest for the trees.
BTW - Microsoft isn't "pushing" anything. The people who "push" open source are the ones on which the onus falls to prove that it is viable. Commercial licensed software was working fine before Stallman had his Jolt-induced vision. You may not like how it worked (or how it works now), but that doesn't mean open source somehow magically invented the software market last year.
Yes, but when the polls favour your POV/platform/chosen candidate/party/etc... then they're fantastically accurate and a good indication that the other side 'sucks', ad nauseam.
Several Librarians I know have told me that they have to re image Windoze
Several Librarians I know have not told me that. See how that works?
I seriously doubt you can carry many users with it, AS I KNOW YOU CAN WITH ANY DECENT LINUX DISTRO.
This is besides the point anyway - if you want something like that you *are* better off using Linux, if you can deal with it. Windows was never designed that way, but that doesn't make it inferior to Linux. If anything, Linux has been and will continue to be hobbled as a desktop OS by that 30 year-old client/server graphics system that was designed to function as a terminal server, and not as something you write cool GUIs and games against. The right tool for the job, eh?
The security issues mentioned above make that kind of thing pointless, however.
What is pointless is your stupid "M$" bashing that is based more on your wet computing dreams than on fact.
Slashdot Mirror
ROFL, thanks for coming in here and "telling us like it is".
Same guy, right? Yeah, I'm sold.
Unsafe refers to pointer operations, not security. The code is still managed and under the effective permissions "bucket" under which the assembly is being executed. "unsafe" doesn't mean "unsecure".
Do you even know what you're talking about? Do you know how the .NET security model works? Let me guess - the answer is "no".
If the same thing was a "feature" of some open source framework and I were making the same argument as you I'm sure someone (like you) would come along and use exactly the same point I'm making to prove how wonderful open source is, but always remember that you have to be responsible with how you configure security and so on.
If .NET didn't allow these things someone else would be holding that up as proof that "it sucks".
With Microsoft, it's always dammed if they do, and dammed if they don't, so why try to sound like you're rationalizing something you a) dislike on principal; and b) don't understand.
Really? Would you like to produce some proof of that, or are you just going through your "I hate M$" mantra"? Here, read this and enlighten yourself.
You're just a troll, and not a very good one at that.
ROFL, aren't you quite the piece of work.
Debian unstable is pretty effin' stable. The distro had nothing to do with his problems, it was his inexperience. I could have handed him a perfectly configured SuSE box and the end result would have been the same.
Besides, all our internal Linux servers are Debian so I went with it because I could get support from the sysadmins, who never touch the Windows desktops.
Spare me the theatrics, I hadn't visited the bug page in a long time. It was first denied, then tacked on Windows (see the other duplicates) and then finally fixed and never merged into the 1.0 release. On irc.mozilla.org the whole thing was even worse.
Too much of Mozilla goes like that. They make a good browser, but sometimes they can be hard to deal with.
Instead of fixing things for him I showed him what the problems were to the best of my ability - I'm a 6-year Linux "power user" if you will but far from an expert, so the rest of the stuff we just Googled. Eventually he got to the point where he was coding, doing his daily check-in and builds and demoing the app, which is working pretty well now. His changes are then backported to the main Windows trunk to ensure everything works. We're thinking of also supporting BSD at this point.
It just takes time. Even the most savvy PC users will have problems. I can't believe IBM would be that different, especially when trying to move their less technical folks to a brand new environment. Just give them time.
There are two problems here. One is Slashdot's table-laden circa 1996 crappy HTML, which if nothing else should be fixed. They've already been shown how they can save gigabytes of bandwidth (and ergo, $$$) by moving to a cleaner layout + CSS that looks exactly the same. But they know better than everyone else and they drink gin and tonic, so what do I know.
Second it's the Firefox people's position that there is no bug, because they can't reproduce it. We are all suffering from mass hallucination or we're just trying to "damage FF's reputation", as someone told me on IRC a couple of weeks ago (I shit you not).
The browser brings absolutely nothing, the users clicking "OK" when they shouldn't (because they just have to look at this cool page on teh interweb) and installing crap that in turn installs more crap ad nauseaum - that's what "brings the crap".
I'm tempted to give kudos to M$ for the effort, but I fear I would get modded Troll for doing so
No, no, your use of "M$" is prolific enough to warrant at least a +1, Sheepbot. Kudos to you.
Otherwise I have to say... PwN3D
Surely you mean BerkeleyDB, right? If you used the embedded version of MySQL you would be restricted with how you could sell Mozilla, restrictions which I belive the Mozilla license does not have. And I hope you're not expecting people to install a database server for a browser =)
In any case the Moz folks are known for their megarrific case "not invented here" syndrome, so they'll just write one. XML is a good alternative, too.
You are so cool.
What did you expect, with that ridiculous demeanor? You attack someone for saying they have no problem using "Windoze" and then you turn around and make an equivalent proclamation about free software being the end-all of computing.
I doubt you've even ever used Windows after 1996. 2000, XP and 2003 are perfectly stable and secure if you patch them and don't do stupid things with them. No different than Linux or FreeBSD, all of which I run every day.
I swear I'd enjoy using free software even more if it wasn't for people like you.
boa, yes. I bet you write exciting enterprise applications with boa.
The FSF didn't know anything was happening for four months.
A local user was involved with the FSF crack
So what you're saying is they're "less worse"? Mmmkay.
The FSF ftp site was a repository that could easily be checked
Of course, assuming you knew it was actually compromised from March to August. Ouch.
Please don't try to compare the Microsoft monoculture disaster to free software
I wasn't, and "monoculture" has nothing to do with it. BTW, I'd recommend revising your use of the "monoculture" term given the latest trojan attack on RedHat users and the PHP/Apache/Google worm making the rounds.
No, just GNU.org http://uk.builder.com/manage/work/0,39026594,20277 728,00.htm
Looks like some people are a bit touchy on this subject.
I would have never guessed 'u' 'r' indian. 'u' had me fooled for sure. "Pity on u" indeed.
Similarly, telling all the stories about how Linux is so wonderful and easy to use isn't going to mean a lot.
The simple fact is that many of the people on this board have to work with windows (from 95 to 2003) everyday and can tell you horror stories
The "people on this board" have an amazingly high (statistically speaking) number of horror stories to tell about, surprise, Microsoft products.
about machines that have been secured, reside behind a natting firewall, etc etc but still they get slapped down by the newest virus which has snuck in through a vulnerability which was patched three months ago.
I suggest you put up or shut up - are you saying that the machine was magically infected with something even though it had been patched? Care to share your horror story on this?
The other area you seem to be missing is the inate ability of users to fuck things up, no matter how secure you make it. All it takes is one innocent click on a link and all of a sudden you have spyware coming out your nose.
Yes, and we all know Linux cures stupidity and increases the user's IQ by about 100 points after install.
Oh, and I love how you call people "astroturfers" because they're sharing the fact that they haven't had the same sheer number of horrific experiences with spyware and the like. I guess that makes everyone else a fanboy, eh?
Bottom line is that much as I enjoy reading Slashdot, it seems its sole purpose has turned from being really "news for nerds" to "let's bash Microsoft" day in and day out, most of the time putting out hysterical-sounding headlines that do no justice to the actual topic being covered. It saddens me because Slashdot has become the mouthpiece for the zealots that used to be confined to the advocacy groups on Usenet. We are doing the same things we accuse Microsoft of: spreading FUD. When the balancing POV gets nailed as "astroturfers" then you start having problems with fairness.
Your user name is quite appropriate given the dumbness of your comment. There are thousands - thousands - of software companies producing commercial "closed-source" products. You and everyone else around here have somehow decided that the only entity in the planet producing commercial software is Microsoft, and that the only software used by people and companies is a kernel, the desktop, a web browser and an office suite. So you can't see the forest for the trees.
BTW - Microsoft isn't "pushing" anything. The people who "push" open source are the ones on which the onus falls to prove that it is viable. Commercial licensed software was working fine before Stallman had his Jolt-induced vision. You may not like how it worked (or how it works now), but that doesn't mean open source somehow magically invented the software market last year.
Yes, but when the polls favour your POV/platform/chosen candidate/party/etc... then they're fantastically accurate and a good indication that the other side 'sucks', ad nauseam.
Several Librarians I know have not told me that. See how that works?
I seriously doubt you can carry many users with it, AS I KNOW YOU CAN WITH ANY DECENT LINUX DISTRO.
This is besides the point anyway - if you want something like that you *are* better off using Linux, if you can deal with it. Windows was never designed that way, but that doesn't make it inferior to Linux. If anything, Linux has been and will continue to be hobbled as a desktop OS by that 30 year-old client/server graphics system that was designed to function as a terminal server, and not as something you write cool GUIs and games against. The right tool for the job, eh?
The security issues mentioned above make that kind of thing pointless, however.
What is pointless is your stupid "M$" bashing that is based more on your wet computing dreams than on fact.