I believe Javascript is client-side and PHP is server-side. PHP is an excellent replacement for Active Server Pages, CGI programming and Java Servlets.
IMO, Javascript will never be replaced on the client-side. It's the only thing that all browsers can agree on (thanks to the DOM and the W3C). It will take a serious rethinking of browsers before a new language is needed (and then made a standard by the W3C) on the client side.
The bigger gaff is that they designed the OS to say "hack me" (or words to that effect) whenever some other device--any other device--asks to fondle, as it were, the OS's drivers. That this is a huge security exposure is obvious to anyone who is old enough to remember the early days of hacking. Some hotshot designers at Microsoft, (probably with degrees in marketing, not computing) designed this "hack me" feature into the OS intentionally.
Deja vu? This reminds me of Outlook virii. Can someone remind me why my e-mail program has the ability (or need for that matter) via Visual Basic to DELETE THE CONTENTS OF MY HARD DRIVE? Stupidity, plain and simple. Secondarily it is absolutely terrible marketing-driven software engineering.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: If you are designing for Joe Public, you have to keep in mind how ignorant Joe Public may be and PROTECT HIS ASS.
These are made by various national and international companies in 14 different countries.
Microsoft spokesman Harry Manback maintains these steps are necessary to protect Microsoft's ability to innovate. "If we can't claim words from English and other languages as our own, how can we possibly sell a product to the public?".
When asked about the possibility that Windows could become so popular that the public interprets Windows as a generic term, not unlike Kleenex, Manback replied "Kleenex has competitors. The issue is moot if the product in question has no competitors. We believe that Windows has no serious competitors now and absolutely will not in the future. The Windows name will be synonymous with operating systems."
When told that what he just said was a contradiction, Manback exclaimed "Gimme that notebook or I'll sue your ass!".
>> On the web page it's TG, but shouldn't it be WG?
>wang grabbing?
>wookie grease?
>womanly grunts?
*sigh*... W is the chemical symbol for the element Tungsten - incidentally, the W stands for wolfram. Don't they teach basic chemistry in high school these days? Maybe I'm just biting a troll...
Personally, I prefer the capitalist take on this issue. I'd like to let the market decide what the effort that goes into programming is worth. And I'd like the market to decide what the value of mass producing digital content is worth. But we don't get to see that happen, because these industries are propped up by government regulations that circumvent the proper operation of the market.
What I think you're saying is that Linux shouldn't allow proprietary software because the existence of which would use patents and be a detriment to free software.
I like the idea of sharing software ideas and not allowing ridiculous patents, but creating software is a lot of work, and people have to get paid somehow in order to survive (not forgetting that programmers/software designers are very educated people with student loans). If they are going to get paid, they have to be able to depend on the fact that their original (new) idea is protected, so some other company (or even free software) can come along and steal the idea.
I'm not saying that the current patent process is in any way fair, but there has to be some way of protecting business interests once a large sum of money is put down on someone's new bright idea to ensure someone else won't steal it and use it.
I know this is against free software ideals, but the idea that free software will dominate the world is almost ludicrous, only because I can't picture millions of current and future programmers and software designers working for absolutely nothing. I think it's fair to say that most free software writers (besides those hired by the likes of Red Hat et. al) have day jobs in the proprietary software industry. If it goes, how do these free software guys make a buck? As far as I'm concerned, it's Utopian and it will never happen in the near future.
What we need is something on an Internet time scale. A software 'patent' that lasts 3-5 years and after that the idea can be used by anyone. That amount of time is enough to get a good head start to profit on the idea, but still releases the idea to the public in a timely mannor.
I don't see any way around this copyright issue: - programmers need money to survive --> programmers need to get paid --> software needs to be bought by someone --> software contains orignal idea --> original idea can be protected.
In the end, proprietary software should (and will) exist on the Linux OS. Mixing this issue with the flawed software copyrighting system only confuses people. One endless argument at a time, please.;)
You're forgetting, or failing to mention, that people advocate GNU/Linux for other reasons than toppling Microsoft. If software freedom is your goal, then migrating proprietary software from one OS to another doesn't really accomplish a thing.
.... except bring a larger market share to a free OS. I think it's obviously naive to think that the software industry as a whole will just keel over and start giving its software away.
Maybe in the future there will be no 'software industry', but I think exactly the opposite will happen: the software industry will only get larger. Proprietary software has a right to exist and people deserve to get paid for their work.
If the Linux community at least supports a way for it to exist in the OS (which is does, but it often frowns upon non-free software), maybe proprietary software and open source software will compete in an equal market (for once) and Linux will be brought to the masses because of the availability of more software. Wouldn't that be interesting....
But the whole thing about software freedom is interesting as well. Should a free OS run non-free software? Sure, why not? The OS is still free. Let's let the market dictate success or failure of a piece of software instead of having this endless debate on freedom. If people want free software, they'll choose it on its merits.
Perpetuating the use of Windows software on Linux
on
What's up with Lindows?
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Besides, what if Lindows does succeed: do we really want to perpetuate the use of Windows software on a linux platform.
What kind of comment is this? Software is software, and right now some of the new, great software is a heck of a lot easier to write for the Windows platform.
The community's way of dealing with that should be to create a way to run all of this software on the Linux OS. It is doing this well, IMO.
The problem with some of these anti-MS advocats is that they think they can take over the market in one fell swoop. Well, I'm sorry it's just not going to happen that way... people aren't just going to switch from Windows to Linux because there's no software, and there will continue to be no software if there is no people to sell/give it to.
Making Windows software run on Linux is a perfect bridge here, even if Lindows is not free, it still solves a problem... a solution to which would be a benefit to us all, whether we'd like to admit it or not.
...wasn't there a company using this for a fast file download application? User would go to download a game demo or something, receive pieces from several different places, and knit them together?
michael, this is not what the product does. From the article:
By translating a packet stream into mathematical elements, the company eliminates the back-and-forth transactions that confirm whether data has reached its destination. In the Digital Fountain approach, the receiving end waits until it has received a certain number of packets, then signals the transmitting side to stop sending. The operation doesn't require a network processor, but relies instead on the computational power of standard PC processors.
The quirk is that none of the data is ever transmitted; the receiving end creates its own copy of a file based on a complete set of mathematical equations.
It appears as though the singal is broken down into equations, that when combined produce the original data. These equations are all sent from the same server to the destination client. The speed increase then comes from the fact that the size of the equations is less than the size of the data.
The article does not mention that the equations come from multiple servers, which is a very big difference! IMO, this technology is much more newsworthy than yet another multi-server downloading tool like Kazaa.
So contrary to capitalism, in which increasing automation always destroys the work places for people and thus their means to live, in a GPL Society maximum automation would be an important aim of the whole society.
Once things are wonderfully automated, what do the people that used their braun instead of their brains for a living do then? I think maybe smart people forget that not everyone can support themselves by sitting in some office micromanaging or writing code for the greater good of the new economy.
There always has to be jobs for the bottom half. This is just a reality of society.
... or are we assuming their usefulness will be just as passé as capitalism when that time comes?
Outlook doesn't "transform" anything. What, it turns non-executable, attachments into executables?
If I send someone a VBScript file by e-mail, someone using pine will only see the source of the file. Benign.
In Outlook, the file will be executed. This is how Outlook virii spread. Where have you been the last 18 months?
The situation is no different than if you were mailed a package with a piece of candy in it, ate the candy, got sick, and then blamed the USPS.
This analogy is wrong. A proper analogy would be if someone sent you a bomb in mail and when the postman brought it and you signed for it, the postman opens it and detonates it on your front porch. The USPS would be held accountable through their employee. Just like MS should be held accountable through their software.
Having hard drives erased, files deteled and bandwidth used up is not equivalent to 'getting sick', for a business it sometimes means nothing can get done for an entire day or more.
IMO, MS should protect against this and be accountable for what their software does.
You realize that you don't even have to have email for this worm to infect and damage your system, right?
Aren't you just splitting hairs? Receiving vbscript/outlook virii in e-mail (through Outlook) is the most common way and it's also, by far, the fastest method of distribution of these virii.
You could go around with a floppy disk and distribute it that way, but... someone could follow behind you with their own disk installing the patches at the same speed.:P
Regardless, it's the fact that Outlook transforms normally benign e-mail attachments into executable virus scripts that is the problem. Bottom line.
If our users had listened to the rules, this wouldn't have been a problem.
Same old argument, right? It's the user's fault.
I really don't like this conclusion. Truth be told, this is a major security flaw in Outlook (and derivatives). The bottom line is if Microsoft is going to market to the technically ignorant, they need to protect these users from themselves for the sake of the businesses these employees work for. This is only good software engineering! Design the software for the target audience - everyone.
Now I know MS probably doesn't think it owes the businesses that buy its software anything - "you get what you pay for". But this flaw - allowing e-mails to execute scripts - is absolutely unnecessary and costly to ANY business connected to the Internet. No amount of policy can protect businesses from this flaw. There will always been a few ignorant weak-link-in-the-chain employees that don't know any better.
So say what you want about the virus writers, they are putting MS under a very important spotlight. How many virii have to exploit various Outlook holes before businesses demand something better, if only to save money in IT costs? It makes you wonder where the breaking point is...
Besides, most reasonable employers know that their employees do things not directly related to work fairly often.
Yes, but expecting to have privacy at work is ridiculous because it's not your property, it's your employer's. That was what I was trying to say.
As an extension to that, if you don't have anything personal at work, you'll never worry about anyone finding your personal information at work. So you can bring a picture of your family, just don't bring a copy of your will and leave it in your desk drawer.
Haven't you ever heard of companies that layoff their employees at lunch and mail their stuff to them? Do you really think those employees have a chance to remove personal e-mails and data from their computers? Of course not.
Using time is reasonable and allowed by most companies, you just have to be aware you are using company time and should do so wisely. It does not give you permission to use company resources for this, with a few exceptions like local phone calls.
Incidentally, I would consider having a love letter from my wife on my work computer inappropriate. A difference of opinion, sure but management is usually on the safe (read: restrictive) side of any argument. If you don't want it to be read, don't bring/send it to work (or use a Hotmail account instead).
This brings up an interesting point, though: should Congress make it illegal for companies to give up your personal information to law enforcement without your consent (or a court order)?
Personal information? What is the guy doing keeping ANY personal information on his work PC? Last I heard, you're at work TO WORK.
If a guy is using company time to rip people off on e-bay, look at child porn or do ANYTHING not related to the job, he should be attentive to the fact that the company owns his time there. Which means they own his PC, his e-mail messages and his HR file... and they can do anything they want with those things - including save their own asses.
If people don't like those rules, they should probably start their own companies. Of course, with all of these 'privacy' rules in place you might have problems with employees that never get anything done. That is precisely why you'll never see a law like that passed.
I work in the It department for my school and all the teachers have laptops. They break the screen, break the dongles, drop them, one actually ran over his with his car, and these are all PhD's, imagine what these kids are going to do with these things!
In my experience, I've noticed that smart (ie. PhD), non-hitech people are the worst with technology. This is probably because they think like "why doesn't this work like I think?" instead of "why don't I try to figure this out?". This is how they end up breaking hardware (and software!).
It's hard, I know. But smart people sometimes have to get past their egos and realise they don't know everything. They NEED training, probably more than kids. For kids, computers have been around almost all of their lives. They are natural. To adults, these seemingly fragile pieces of equipment are clumsy, heavy and ugly. No wonder the guy is using it as a speed bump.
Kids, on the other hand... they'll treat those computers like gold. That is, if you let them.
Yeager is named in the agreement document as the principle developer/inventor, and received 85% of the royalty distribution (which he contributed to the SUMEX project to support further research).... Still, Yeager never benefited from that venture (nor was he given an opportunity to by the organizers of Cisco Systems). Nor has he received public recognition for his major contribution to Cisco's founding and success.
Giving Yeager public credit is all fine and good and well deserved, however he DID receive money from Cisco in 1986 (85% of $150,000 as far as I can tell) and gave it away! IMO, he (or anyone else) is not allowed to comment about not being adequately paid for his efforts.
A few of the people involved even admitted that Cisco's success was questionable. To get a lump sum of money like that from a company that could very well be vapour in a short amount of time is quite an accomplishment.
Now just think that if he had used his technical knowledge to invest that cheque in 2 dozen or so hi-tech companies of that time, he could have been a rich man.
All he gets out of the deal is a clear conscience and thereby revokes his license to complain about the fact he didn't get paid for it.
</devils-advocate>
That said, it's obvious that his contributions were large and he will be forever known as one of the few 'good guys' of the 'Internet Revolution'. A little bit of humility and hard work can go a long way. Let's just hope that more people are motivated by technology instead of corporate greed in the future. Yeager sets quite an example for all of us.
Although administration and programming must overlap when it comes to real security there's only so much you can do if you're not deeply involved with the code.
I disagree here. Strict policy to include security MUST come from upper management. Otherwise, people down the line will dismiss it as less important and end up taking short cuts. If management allows the time for the design and development of security policies, they will have a better chance of being implemented.
Software engineers (or anyone for that matter) won't do anything extra that hasn't been earmarked by their bosses.
Of course, you could argue that adding security is basic common sense - however, given that most programs look identical from the outside with and without security, if you were in a hurry what would you implement? It's a sad state of affairs, but in these days of relatively high turnover and when speed is important, sometimes the 'little' (seemingly) unimportant things get neglected.
Bottom line is, it's not a few dozen individual software engineers that make this call, it's the CTO or other upper level manager that does - by corporate policy.
I think you're still missing the point. People who have no idea what dragging their OS to the recycle bin does shouldn't have permission to do it, permissions or no permissions.
There is a good chance they have no idea what having these permissions entails and that they can do real damamge to their OS. This should be prevented in a overlaying GUI in the very least.
I don't see Apple letting a person (with appropriate permissions) being able to drag the entire operating system to the rubbish bin as being a problem. It's their computer - not OSX's.
Sometimes people need to be protected from their own ignorance. If I didn't know I was root (and what being root meant) I could do things to damage the OS. Apple caters to the computer-ignorant, and as such should protect its users against the eccentricities of Unix - an OS clearly not made for newbies.
The thing is if MOST Linux users have a Windows install handy.
I've been debating the usefulness of my Win32 install... and if it weren't for games, I probably wouldn't have it at all. True, there are some bleeding edge things released for Win32 first (ie. Napster) but quickly they are picked up by open source and sometimes even made better.
I think having this Win32 install around just for games is pretty common among technophiles that also use Linux - if they only had to have one OS, they'd have only Linux.
We could quickly digress into a conversation about how Linux could get increased market share, but we usually get a post like that once a month so I'll save it for that topic.:)
... but it is true that the desperate cries for people to buy the Linux version of Q3 just because it was Linux was pretty sad and silly. It was a not-so subtle suggestion to screw with the numbers, which probably wouldn't have benefitted anyone.
Some good points there (too bad you posted as AC). It's definitely hard to compare Windows to Linux when most gamers that use Linux (have to) buy Windows games...
As for weeding out the Windows-using people, it might be fair to assume that most technophile-gamers-Linux users either run two boxes or double-boot. Either way, they'd buy the Win32 version first if they are anxious. Honestly, what gamer geek would wait two weeks for the Linux version when they have Windows and their friends are already kicking some Q3 ass on the net? Granted, the test was out and they could play that, but weren't the test and the full version 'net incompatible?
Any way you slice it, reading the numbers will never quite be fair. It may just come down to pressure from the market (ie. an increase in Linux users) that dictates when the switch from proprietary to open comes - but it will come.
Why Microsoft is trying to deny the inevitable is beyond me... of course, they have done it before when it benefits them...... IIRC.;)
WINEX is great. We need to accept the fact that people will continue to write games exclusively for Windows (and that they should!). And we need to find ways to make those games work on other platforms if we want to use other platforms to play them.
I think that it's a good temporary solution, sure. But the reality is that we need a good gaming API or library that works well on ANY platform and is OPEN. This should be organized by people in the industry for the sake of the gaming industry.
Sure, developing a game for one platform is good for consoles - but why consistently be controlled by the direction that one company (MS in this case) wants to go?
In order to keep the best interests of the industry and consumers ahead of monopolistic (this is no longer opinion) companies, they need to create (or amalgamate and improve) existing OPEN libraries for use in HIGH PERFORMANCE, BLEEDING EDGE modern games.
Put MS in the loop, of course - they already know a lot about this sort of thing. Heck, it might even be in their best interests to open up DirectX. Wouldn't that be mighty nice (and unlikely) of them?
They had to justify making the Linux port. So they released a Linux version in its own box to see how it would sell on its own.
If I recall correctly, Linux supporters were asked to buy the Linux version and download the Win32 executables from the web site - so you were essentially paying for 3 versions. Also IIRC, the Linux version was released later. That didn't help sales much (since most people who actually want to game buy it quickly), and it makes you wonder if id took that into account...
I disagree with the statement "id fucked up" because it was probably pressure from their publisher (Activision?) that made them release the Win32 version ahead of the Linux version and skewing the numbers. I'd like to see a less biased (but similar) test done again in the future. Unfortunately, it probably won't happen at id, one of the more influential developing houses in the games biz.
Slashdot Mirror
PHP practically replaces Javascript
I believe Javascript is client-side and PHP is server-side. PHP is an excellent replacement for Active Server Pages, CGI programming and Java Servlets.
IMO, Javascript will never be replaced on the client-side. It's the only thing that all browsers can agree on (thanks to the DOM and the W3C). It will take a serious rethinking of browsers before a new language is needed (and then made a standard by the W3C) on the client side.
The bigger gaff is that they designed the OS to say "hack me" (or words to that effect) whenever some other device--any other device--asks to fondle, as it were, the OS's drivers. That this is a huge security exposure is obvious to anyone who is old enough to remember the early days of hacking. Some hotshot designers at Microsoft, (probably with degrees in marketing, not computing) designed this "hack me" feature into the OS intentionally.
Deja vu? This reminds me of Outlook virii. Can someone remind me why my e-mail program has the ability (or need for that matter) via Visual Basic to DELETE THE CONTENTS OF MY HARD DRIVE? Stupidity, plain and simple. Secondarily it is absolutely terrible marketing-driven software engineering.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: If you are designing for Joe Public, you have to keep in mind how ignorant Joe Public may be and PROTECT HIS ASS.
Microsoft has submitted 19 other trademark infringement complaints .... they include the products:
Bindows
Cindows
Dindows
Findows
Gindows
Hindows
Jindows
Kindows
Mindows
Nindows
Pindows
Qindows
Rindows
Sindows
Tindows
Vindows
Xindows
Yindows
Zindows
These are made by various national and international companies in 14 different countries.
Microsoft spokesman Harry Manback maintains these steps are necessary to protect Microsoft's ability to innovate. "If we can't claim words from English and other languages as our own, how can we possibly sell a product to the public?".
When asked about the possibility that Windows could become so popular that the public interprets Windows as a generic term, not unlike Kleenex, Manback replied "Kleenex has competitors. The issue is moot if the product in question has no competitors. We believe that Windows has no serious competitors now and absolutely will not in the future. The Windows name will be synonymous with operating systems."
When told that what he just said was a contradiction, Manback exclaimed "Gimme that notebook or I'll sue your ass!".
>> On the web page it's TG, but shouldn't it be WG?
... W is the chemical symbol for the element Tungsten - incidentally, the W stands for wolfram. Don't they teach basic chemistry in high school these days? Maybe I'm just biting a troll ...
>wang grabbing?
>wookie grease?
>womanly grunts?
*sigh*
Personally, I prefer the capitalist take on this issue. I'd like to let the market decide what the effort that goes into programming is worth. And I'd like the market to decide what the value of mass producing digital content is worth. But we don't get to see that happen, because these industries are propped up by government regulations that circumvent the proper operation of the market.
;)
What I think you're saying is that Linux shouldn't allow proprietary software because the existence of which would use patents and be a detriment to free software.
I like the idea of sharing software ideas and not allowing ridiculous patents, but creating software is a lot of work, and people have to get paid somehow in order to survive (not forgetting that programmers/software designers are very educated people with student loans). If they are going to get paid, they have to be able to depend on the fact that their original (new) idea is protected, so some other company (or even free software) can come along and steal the idea.
I'm not saying that the current patent process is in any way fair, but there has to be some way of protecting business interests once a large sum of money is put down on someone's new bright idea to ensure someone else won't steal it and use it.
I know this is against free software ideals, but the idea that free software will dominate the world is almost ludicrous, only because I can't picture millions of current and future programmers and software designers working for absolutely nothing. I think it's fair to say that most free software writers (besides those hired by the likes of Red Hat et. al) have day jobs in the proprietary software industry. If it goes, how do these free software guys make a buck? As far as I'm concerned, it's Utopian and it will never happen in the near future.
What we need is something on an Internet time scale. A software 'patent' that lasts 3-5 years and after that the idea can be used by anyone. That amount of time is enough to get a good head start to profit on the idea, but still releases the idea to the public in a timely mannor.
I don't see any way around this copyright issue: - programmers need money to survive --> programmers need to get paid --> software needs to be bought by someone --> software contains orignal idea --> original idea can be protected.
In the end, proprietary software should (and will) exist on the Linux OS. Mixing this issue with the flawed software copyrighting system only confuses people. One endless argument at a time, please.
You're forgetting, or failing to mention, that people advocate GNU/Linux for other reasons than toppling Microsoft. If software freedom is your goal, then migrating proprietary software from one OS to another doesn't really accomplish a thing.
....
.... except bring a larger market share to a free OS. I think it's obviously naive to think that the software industry as a whole will just keel over and start giving its software away.
Maybe in the future there will be no 'software industry', but I think exactly the opposite will happen: the software industry will only get larger. Proprietary software has a right to exist and people deserve to get paid for their work.
If the Linux community at least supports a way for it to exist in the OS (which is does, but it often frowns upon non-free software), maybe proprietary software and open source software will compete in an equal market (for once) and Linux will be brought to the masses because of the availability of more software. Wouldn't that be interesting
But the whole thing about software freedom is interesting as well. Should a free OS run non-free software? Sure, why not? The OS is still free. Let's let the market dictate success or failure of a piece of software instead of having this endless debate on freedom. If people want free software, they'll choose it on its merits.
Besides, what if Lindows does succeed: do we really want to perpetuate the use of Windows software on a linux platform.
... people aren't just going to switch from Windows to Linux because there's no software, and there will continue to be no software if there is no people to sell/give it to.
... a solution to which would be a benefit to us all, whether we'd like to admit it or not.
What kind of comment is this? Software is software, and right now some of the new, great software is a heck of a lot easier to write for the Windows platform.
The community's way of dealing with that should be to create a way to run all of this software on the Linux OS. It is doing this well, IMO.
The problem with some of these anti-MS advocats is that they think they can take over the market in one fell swoop. Well, I'm sorry it's just not going to happen that way
Making Windows software run on Linux is a perfect bridge here, even if Lindows is not free, it still solves a problem
If you had such an algorithm in hand, what could you do with it?
... ;)
I'd memorize it and then try to figure out how the guy did it
michael, this is not what the product does. From the article:
It appears as though the singal is broken down into equations, that when combined produce the original data. These equations are all sent from the same server to the destination client. The speed increase then comes from the fact that the size of the equations is less than the size of the data.
The article does not mention that the equations come from multiple servers, which is a very big difference! IMO, this technology is much more newsworthy than yet another multi-server downloading tool like Kazaa.
So contrary to capitalism, in which increasing automation always destroys the work places for people and thus their means to live, in a GPL Society maximum automation would be an important aim of the whole society.
Once things are wonderfully automated, what do the people that used their braun instead of their brains for a living do then? I think maybe smart people forget that not everyone can support themselves by sitting in some office micromanaging or writing code for the greater good of the new economy.
There always has to be jobs for the bottom half. This is just a reality of society.
... or are we assuming their usefulness will be just as passé as capitalism when that time comes?
Outlook doesn't "transform" anything. What, it turns non-executable, attachments into executables?
If I send someone a VBScript file by e-mail, someone using pine will only see the source of the file. Benign.
In Outlook, the file will be executed. This is how Outlook virii spread. Where have you been the last 18 months?
The situation is no different than if you were mailed a package with a piece of candy in it, ate the candy, got sick, and then blamed the USPS.
This analogy is wrong. A proper analogy would be if someone sent you a bomb in mail and when the postman brought it and you signed for it, the postman opens it and detonates it on your front porch. The USPS would be held accountable through their employee. Just like MS should be held accountable through their software.
Having hard drives erased, files deteled and bandwidth used up is not equivalent to 'getting sick', for a business it sometimes means nothing can get done for an entire day or more.
IMO, MS should protect against this and be accountable for what their software does.
You realize that you don't even have to have email for this worm to infect and damage your system, right?
... someone could follow behind you with their own disk installing the patches at the same speed. :P
Aren't you just splitting hairs? Receiving vbscript/outlook virii in e-mail (through Outlook) is the most common way and it's also, by far, the fastest method of distribution of these virii.
You could go around with a floppy disk and distribute it that way, but
Regardless, it's the fact that Outlook transforms normally benign e-mail attachments into executable virus scripts that is the problem. Bottom line.
If our users had listened to the rules, this wouldn't have been a problem.
...
Same old argument, right? It's the user's fault.
I really don't like this conclusion. Truth be told, this is a major security flaw in Outlook (and derivatives). The bottom line is if Microsoft is going to market to the technically ignorant, they need to protect these users from themselves for the sake of the businesses these employees work for. This is only good software engineering! Design the software for the target audience - everyone.
Now I know MS probably doesn't think it owes the businesses that buy its software anything - "you get what you pay for". But this flaw - allowing e-mails to execute scripts - is absolutely unnecessary and costly to ANY business connected to the Internet. No amount of policy can protect businesses from this flaw. There will always been a few ignorant weak-link-in-the-chain employees that don't know any better.
So say what you want about the virus writers, they are putting MS under a very important spotlight. How many virii have to exploit various Outlook holes before businesses demand something better, if only to save money in IT costs? It makes you wonder where the breaking point is
Besides, most reasonable employers know that their employees do things not directly related to work fairly often.
Yes, but expecting to have privacy at work is ridiculous because it's not your property, it's your employer's. That was what I was trying to say.
As an extension to that, if you don't have anything personal at work, you'll never worry about anyone finding your personal information at work. So you can bring a picture of your family, just don't bring a copy of your will and leave it in your desk drawer.
Haven't you ever heard of companies that layoff their employees at lunch and mail their stuff to them? Do you really think those employees have a chance to remove personal e-mails and data from their computers? Of course not.
Using time is reasonable and allowed by most companies, you just have to be aware you are using company time and should do so wisely. It does not give you permission to use company resources for this, with a few exceptions like local phone calls.
Incidentally, I would consider having a love letter from my wife on my work computer inappropriate. A difference of opinion, sure but management is usually on the safe (read: restrictive) side of any argument. If you don't want it to be read, don't bring/send it to work (or use a Hotmail account instead).
This brings up an interesting point, though: should Congress make it illegal for companies to give up your personal information to law enforcement without your consent (or a court order)?
... and they can do anything they want with those things - including save their own asses.
Personal information? What is the guy doing keeping ANY personal information on his work PC? Last I heard, you're at work TO WORK.
If a guy is using company time to rip people off on e-bay, look at child porn or do ANYTHING not related to the job, he should be attentive to the fact that the company owns his time there. Which means they own his PC, his e-mail messages and his HR file
If people don't like those rules, they should probably start their own companies. Of course, with all of these 'privacy' rules in place you might have problems with employees that never get anything done. That is precisely why you'll never see a law like that passed.
I work in the It department for my school and all the teachers have laptops. They break the screen, break the dongles, drop them, one actually ran over his with his car, and these are all PhD's, imagine what these kids are going to do with these things!
... they'll treat those computers like gold. That is, if you let them.
In my experience, I've noticed that smart (ie. PhD), non-hitech people are the worst with technology. This is probably because they think like "why doesn't this work like I think?" instead of "why don't I try to figure this out?". This is how they end up breaking hardware (and software!).
It's hard, I know. But smart people sometimes have to get past their egos and realise they don't know everything. They NEED training, probably more than kids. For kids, computers have been around almost all of their lives. They are natural. To adults, these seemingly fragile pieces of equipment are clumsy, heavy and ugly. No wonder the guy is using it as a speed bump.
Kids, on the other hand
That quote was actually from this article written by Tom Rindfleisch, linked in a +5 post ... forgot to mention that ...
Yeager is named in the agreement document as the principle developer/inventor, and received 85% of the royalty distribution (which he contributed to the SUMEX project to support further research) .... Still, Yeager never benefited from that venture (nor was he given an opportunity to by the organizers of Cisco Systems). Nor has he received public recognition for his major contribution to Cisco's founding and success.
Giving Yeager public credit is all fine and good and well deserved, however he DID receive money from Cisco in 1986 (85% of $150,000 as far as I can tell) and gave it away! IMO, he (or anyone else) is not allowed to comment about not being adequately paid for his efforts.
A few of the people involved even admitted that Cisco's success was questionable. To get a lump sum of money like that from a company that could very well be vapour in a short amount of time is quite an accomplishment.
Now just think that if he had used his technical knowledge to invest that cheque in 2 dozen or so hi-tech companies of that time, he could have been a rich man.
All he gets out of the deal is a clear conscience and thereby revokes his license to complain about the fact he didn't get paid for it.
</devils-advocate>
That said, it's obvious that his contributions were large and he will be forever known as one of the few 'good guys' of the 'Internet Revolution'. A little bit of humility and hard work can go a long way. Let's just hope that more people are motivated by technology instead of corporate greed in the future. Yeager sets quite an example for all of us.
Although administration and programming must overlap when it comes to real security there's only so much you can do if you're not deeply involved with the code.
I disagree here. Strict policy to include security MUST come from upper management. Otherwise, people down the line will dismiss it as less important and end up taking short cuts. If management allows the time for the design and development of security policies, they will have a better chance of being implemented.
Software engineers (or anyone for that matter) won't do anything extra that hasn't been earmarked by their bosses.
Of course, you could argue that adding security is basic common sense - however, given that most programs look identical from the outside with and without security, if you were in a hurry what would you implement? It's a sad state of affairs, but in these days of relatively high turnover and when speed is important, sometimes the 'little' (seemingly) unimportant things get neglected.
Bottom line is, it's not a few dozen individual software engineers that make this call, it's the CTO or other upper level manager that does - by corporate policy.
I think you're still missing the point. People who have no idea what dragging their OS to the recycle bin does shouldn't have permission to do it, permissions or no permissions.
There is a good chance they have no idea what having these permissions entails and that they can do real damamge to their OS. This should be prevented in a overlaying GUI in the very least.
And we are talking about Apple here, not Debian.
I don't see Apple letting a person (with appropriate permissions) being able to drag the entire operating system to the rubbish bin as being a problem. It's their computer - not OSX's.
Sometimes people need to be protected from their own ignorance. If I didn't know I was root (and what being root meant) I could do things to damage the OS. Apple caters to the computer-ignorant, and as such should protect its users against the eccentricities of Unix - an OS clearly not made for newbies.
The thing is if MOST Linux users have a Windows install handy.
... and if it weren't for games, I probably wouldn't have it at all. True, there are some bleeding edge things released for Win32 first (ie. Napster) but quickly they are picked up by open source and sometimes even made better.
:)
...
I've been debating the usefulness of my Win32 install
I think having this Win32 install around just for games is pretty common among technophiles that also use Linux - if they only had to have one OS, they'd have only Linux.
We could quickly digress into a conversation about how Linux could get increased market share, but we usually get a post like that once a month so I'll save it for that topic.
... but it is true that the desperate cries for people to buy the Linux version of Q3 just because it was Linux was pretty sad and silly. It was a not-so subtle suggestion to screw with the numbers, which probably wouldn't have benefitted anyone.
... but again, I digress
Some good points there (too bad you posted as AC). It's definitely hard to compare Windows to Linux when most gamers that use Linux (have to) buy Windows games ...
... of course, they have done it before when it benefits them ...... IIRC. ;)
As for weeding out the Windows-using people, it might be fair to assume that most technophile-gamers-Linux users either run two boxes or double-boot. Either way, they'd buy the Win32 version first if they are anxious. Honestly, what gamer geek would wait two weeks for the Linux version when they have Windows and their friends are already kicking some Q3 ass on the net? Granted, the test was out and they could play that, but weren't the test and the full version 'net incompatible?
Any way you slice it, reading the numbers will never quite be fair. It may just come down to pressure from the market (ie. an increase in Linux users) that dictates when the switch from proprietary to open comes - but it will come.
Why Microsoft is trying to deny the inevitable is beyond me
WINEX is great. We need to accept the fact that people will continue to write games exclusively for Windows (and that they should!). And we need to find ways to make those games work on other platforms if we want to use other platforms to play them.
I think that it's a good temporary solution, sure. But the reality is that we need a good gaming API or library that works well on ANY platform and is OPEN. This should be organized by people in the industry for the sake of the gaming industry.
Sure, developing a game for one platform is good for consoles - but why consistently be controlled by the direction that one company (MS in this case) wants to go?
In order to keep the best interests of the industry and consumers ahead of monopolistic (this is no longer opinion) companies, they need to create (or amalgamate and improve) existing OPEN libraries for use in HIGH PERFORMANCE, BLEEDING EDGE modern games.
Put MS in the loop, of course - they already know a lot about this sort of thing. Heck, it might even be in their best interests to open up DirectX. Wouldn't that be mighty nice (and unlikely) of them?
Id's problem was this:
...
They had to justify making the Linux port. So they released a Linux version in its own box to see how it would sell on its own.
If I recall correctly, Linux supporters were asked to buy the Linux version and download the Win32 executables from the web site - so you were essentially paying for 3 versions. Also IIRC, the Linux version was released later. That didn't help sales much (since most people who actually want to game buy it quickly), and it makes you wonder if id took that into account
I disagree with the statement "id fucked up" because it was probably pressure from their publisher (Activision?) that made them release the Win32 version ahead of the Linux version and skewing the numbers. I'd like to see a less biased (but similar) test done again in the future. Unfortunately, it probably won't happen at id, one of the more influential developing houses in the games biz.