Yeah, I know that most *nix lover simply love it. But let's face it : this language, which is still the most important one in a unix environment, is really aging. It is possible to develop big software in pure C, but it takes much, much time, and the risk of introducing bugs and security flows is huge.
Only the minimal low-level core of the system should be based on C ; the rest should be developed in a modern, high-level language.
It's not April 27, it's April 1st. =)
Hey guys, don't worry... I don't think this patent can be used by Microsoft to destroy Open Source. So, it's better to laugh at it.
Now, we have got one more example to show people how ridiculous software patents are.
If Joe Average ran GNU/linux.. we'd see just as many worms, just as many viruses, just as many spam boxes..
If you only knew how many times I heard that argument... Go learn what a security model is, and how design-time decisions can make an OS much more secure than another one.
Taken from Linus post (talking about SCO claims) :
People have been pretty good (understatement of the year) at debunking
those claims, but the fact is that part of that debunking involved
searching kernel mailing list archives from 1992 etc. Not much fun.
I suppose having lawyers read your private mail in order to find some clue about the origine of a piece of code make you a much more careful man.
if this was a Microsoft problem the amount of bitching and conspiracy theories would never end. Lets see how it plays out.
Stop trolling, and let people speak. I am bored of Microsoft / Linux zealots bashing each other before they even post.
By the way, there is a Microsoft problem, as the Windows installer destroys the MBR where lilo/grub is usually installed - at least, it was true in win2k and XP. And I didn't see any slashdot story about that.
All the experiments generally end up failing for one simple reason: your body has an immune system. And the immune system will attack the good virus and eliminiate it quickly.
And your immune system fails to ever completely eliminate the HIV. And the 'good' virus is based on the HIV.
If I read well, the treatment is based on a tweaked HIV. What if the 'good' virus evolves and become another very offensive one ?
Hey, I'm not kidding. One of the difficulties researchers encounter is the constantly-changing nature of HIV. I don't know if this a very trustable approach.
The GPU are very fast... at performing vector and matrix calculations. This is the whole point. If general computing CPUs were capable of doing vector or matrix calcs very efficiently, we would probably not have GPUs.
Yes. But 3D graphics are not the only use of these mathematical objects ; I wonder if it would be possible to use a GPU to perform video encoding or digital sound manipulation at a higher speed, as both operations require matrices. I'm also sure they could take advantage of these processors vector manipulation capabilities.
... if we replaced the posts of this thread with the messages posted after a previous worm-announcement, would anyone notice ?:)
Linux_Zealot says : 5 Insightful - I am using Linux now !
M$_wizard : 5 Interesting - Worms always appear after a security notice from Microsoft Knowledge Base ; so, openness is bad !
security_Teacher : 5 Insightful - Of course, no one should run anything as root but cricital administration tasks, and a firewall is essential.
n00b : -1 Troll - Windows Sucks !!!
Isn't it ironic that China's Ministry of Culture has the purpose of restricting culture? Like Orwell's Ministry of Truth, which had the sole purpose of changing history.
I always hated the principle to sue a few people, 'as an example', with in mind the idea that if they are severely punished, nobody else will do it again.
It only shows one thing : the RIAA does not care about people. They could destroy one's life, they don't care if it can bring them $$$.
Of course, just to be safe, it might be wise for the GIMP developers (as well as all other open source image processing projects which use JPG) to volunteer to donate a percentage of their revenues to Forgent Networks.
Just to be safe... because of course, we wouldn't like something bad to happen to you...
Boy I can't wait to see how everybody takes this as a creative writing exercise to tell us about how this is proof Microsoft is evil.
And this is modded "insightful" ? Well, I don't know what's worse, to claim everything Microsoft does is evil, or to judge people before they even say anything;-)
Meanwhile, criminal hackers have become more sophisticated
Sure, it was easier to write an assembler program adding it's own code to a software, while keeping the infected program executable, than scripting 15 lines of VB Script.
The kinds of threats are evolving too. Blaster, for example, hijacked individual computers, turning innocent users into unknowing and innocent worm propagators.
Oh, those poor and innocent individual users. What a wonderful way to make them think they are only victims, and never responsible of the spread of a virus, even if they don't make any effort to secure their system.
Central to our security efforts is preventing malicious code from being able to exploit a vulnerability by isolating such code, providing more effective control over what computer processes can talk to or work with, and making systems more resilient so they are able to identify and stop suspicious or bad behavior in its tracks.
Of course, the idea that a malicious program shouldn't be able to do much damage, because it has very restrictive rights is a strong innovation.
Memory Protection: Malicious software designed to exploit buffer overruns can allow too much data to be copied into areas of the computer's memory. Although no single technique can completely eliminate this type of vulnerability, Microsoft is employing a number of security technologies to mitigate these attacks.
Wonderful ! Microsoft OSs will (at last) have memory protection ! Let me remember, how old is Unix ? Nearly 40, isn't it ?
Could someone explain me how Microsoft can be seen innovative by so many people ? And how they can so proudly try to make us believe they always were (and will be) on the right way ?
-----
What about the argument that, given the nature of the language and the design goals, that of course you'd end up with similar structures. I mean, how many efficient ways are there to write 'hello world' [the canonical beginner's program]? [...] Sontag: Sure, there may be some of that, but look at dynamic shared libraries; different operating systems implement these very differently. But in Linux and System V, they're implemented in exactly the same way. They could have been done very differently and still accomplish the same thing.
Of course, there are many ways to program the same thing. But very often, only one is both elegant and efficient. Unix is has been programmed by very talented hackers, and so has been Linux ; so, it's not surprising at all if Linux hackers find the same solutions that Unix hackers did decades ago.
Go away, SCO. You obviously don't have the point. ----
McBride: When I look at our case, I think anyone who has a rational mind would come down to the same conclusions I do.
He is right : everyone with a rational mind would understand SCO initial claims were so silly that it was worth for Darl McBride to change his strategy.
[DISCLAIMER] I do not intend to troll [/DISCLAIMER]
If you want a whole bunch of perfectly useless features, filling the user's screen of coloured icons disturbing him in his job or activity, simply use KDE. In my opinion, a "simpler interface" is a good thing.
XChat can be optionally compiled to use Gnome, but is by no mean a part of the Gnome project.
You don't -need- to compile packages from source with Gentoo!
I know. But then the interest of the distro is nearly the same as debian or redhat.
Plus, binary packages don't exist for every software. So, sometimes, yes, you -need- to compile;-)
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, I know that most *nix lover simply love it. But let's face it : this language, which is still the most important one in a unix environment, is really aging. It is possible to develop big software in pure C, but it takes much, much time, and the risk of introducing bugs and security flows is huge. Only the minimal low-level core of the system should be based on C ; the rest should be developed in a modern, high-level language.
It's not April 27, it's April 1st. =)
Hey guys, don't worry... I don't think this patent can be used by Microsoft to destroy Open Source. So, it's better to laugh at it.
Now, we have got one more example to show people how ridiculous software patents are.
So what, guys ? He didn't say he wanted his browser to be stable too.
You may read the lkml thread and Linus post on kerneltrap.
Just thought it could be interesting...
By the way, there is a Microsoft problem, as the Windows installer destroys the MBR where lilo/grub is usually installed - at least, it was true in win2k and XP. And I didn't see any slashdot story about that.
If I read well, the treatment is based on a tweaked HIV. What if the 'good' virus evolves and become another very offensive one ?
Hey, I'm not kidding. One of the difficulties researchers encounter is the constantly-changing nature of HIV. I don't know if this a very trustable approach.
... if we replaced the posts of this thread with the messages posted after a previous worm-announcement, would anyone notice ? :)
;-)
Linux_Zealot says : 5 Insightful - I am using Linux now !
M$_wizard : 5 Interesting - Worms always appear after a security notice from Microsoft Knowledge Base ; so, openness is bad !
security_Teacher : 5 Insightful - Of course, no one should run anything as root but cricital administration tasks, and a firewall is essential.
n00b : -1 Troll - Windows Sucks !!!
Well... That's just a little... repetitive
Just like the iraki information minister
I always hated the principle to sue a few people, 'as an example', with in mind the idea that if they are severely punished, nobody else will do it again. It only shows one thing : the RIAA does not care about people. They could destroy one's life, they don't care if it can bring them $$$.
Just to be safe... because of course, we wouldn't like something bad to happen to you...
And this is modded "insightful" ? Well, I don't know what's worse, to claim everything Microsoft does is evil, or to judge people before they even say anything
---
Sure, it was easier to write an assembler program adding it's own code to a software, while keeping the infected program executable, than scripting 15 lines of VB Script.
Oh, those poor and innocent individual users. What a wonderful way to make them think they are only victims, and never responsible of the spread of a virus, even if they don't make any effort to secure their system.
Of course, the idea that a malicious program shouldn't be able to do much damage, because it has very restrictive rights is a strong innovation.
Wonderful ! Microsoft OSs will (at last) have memory protection ! Let me remember, how old is Unix ? Nearly 40, isn't it ?
Could someone explain me how Microsoft can be seen innovative by so many people ? And how they can so proudly try to make us believe they always were (and will be) on the right way ?
-----
What about the argument that, given the nature of the language and the design goals, that of course you'd end up with similar structures. I mean, how many efficient ways are there to write 'hello world' [the canonical beginner's program]?
[...]
Sontag: Sure, there may be some of that, but look at dynamic shared libraries; different operating systems implement these very differently. But in Linux and System V, they're implemented in exactly the same way. They could have been done very differently and still accomplish the same thing.
Of course, there are many ways to program the same thing. But very often, only one is both elegant and efficient. Unix is has been programmed by very talented hackers, and so has been Linux ; so, it's not surprising at all if Linux hackers find the same solutions that Unix hackers did decades ago.
Go away, SCO. You obviously don't have the point.
----
He is right : everyone with a rational mind would understand SCO initial claims were so silly that it was worth for Darl McBride to change his strategy.
-----
I hope nothing serious will happen and be reported on /. today, or everybody will find it very funny...
Now, I am going to drink another hundredth of coffee cups. ---
Is looks like looking for security flaws is increasingly seen as an illegal action by both companies and governments.
Would I be sued if I told a company manufacturing bicycles that their products are not solid enough, and then can be dangerous ? Probably not.
It will soon be forbidden to even talk about flaws. As a french citizen I feel very sad about it...
[DISCLAIMER] I do not intend to troll [/DISCLAIMER]
If you want a whole bunch of perfectly useless features, filling the user's screen of coloured icons disturbing him in his job or activity, simply use KDE. In my opinion, a "simpler interface" is a good thing.
XChat can be optionally compiled to use Gnome, but is by no mean a part of the Gnome project.