Fines won't eliminate SPAM. When one spammer folds, another starts up. It costs almost nothing to start a SPAM operation and they make tons of money. These people are parasites. They should be charging them with mail fraud and racketeering, freezing all their assets and sending them to jail.
Here's a question for you. How much SPAM would be eliminated if people's home computer could not be compromised by trojan SPAM agents that spammers use to send out their e-mails?
It seems that spam is difficult to stop because it comes from SO MANY sources. If home computers could not be compromised, spammers would have to send their mass e-mails from a very limited number of systems. That would make those systems easy to identify and shutdown (disconnect) via their ISPs. It also would make it easy to identify the originators of the SPAM, freeze their assets and incarcerate them.
Hello, Microsoft. Are you listening? You own 80 to 90 percent of the world's desktops and home computers. I don't care if it takes until 2010 for Vista to be released. Fix the f*ing security issues that permit these spammers to infect the average user's home computer.
Forget all the cutsie bells and whistles you want to add, scratch the MS Office updates that no one is going to use anyway, and sink your resources for the next 2-3 years into making one fortress release of Windows. Start over from scratch and redesign Windows from the bottom up with security as the central focus if you have to.
Imagine an Internet with 70 to 80 less traffic than it has today. That is what you would have if we eliminated SPAM. Imagine how fast your BitTorrent or FTP download would run with so much less congestion on the Internet. We really need to put the pressure on the OS vendors (Microsoft especially because of the sheer percent of the desktops they own). SPAM can be killed. Once spammers have no where to hide, and their risks become significantly higher than their returns, spammers will go away.
It seems like Microsoft could nearly single handedly kill SPAM just by fixing Windows. Am I dreaming or am I on the right track?
He's not an ex-con. He appealed his case and won. That clears him of all charges for which he was convicted. An ex-con is someone who serves their time and gets out when their time is up. Their conviction stands, but they have paid their debt to society.
Microsoft does this to try and bend the ear of corporate executives who don't have the detailed expertise of daily systems administration to be able to discern when MS is blowing smoke vs. talking facts. In the current environment of Sarbanes-Oxley and corporate accountability, all MS needs to do is put enough doubt and fear in upper level management. This is their way of mitigating the Linux threat. Since they were served a dose of reality in their anti-trust suit, they can no longer use the same practices they did in the past to monopolize the industry. So this is what they resort to doing - trying to make corporate CIOs and CTOs have a little fear and doubt about Linux. This won't last. Enough very intelligent former system admins will make their way into the management ranks of corporate America that the tide will eventually change.
We see articles all the time about European and Asian countries pledging their allegiance to Linux. Linux is already in so many corporate data centers in the US, but you don't see the same press about it - not yet! You will. Look at the Commonwealth of Massachussets. Others will follow. And now that Microsoft has been practically forced to file their Office 12 document file formats with the standards bodies and open them up, I imagine that the pace will quicken because OO.o and other packages will be able to interchangably support these file formats, allowing users to exchange documents seamlessly with other organizations who use the MS products.
I think we need to also split the MS vs. Linux into two conversations - data center and desktop. They require vastly different tools. I think it is much easier for Linux to infiltrate the data center because UNIX as a whole already as a strong foothold there due to Solaris, HP-UX, AIX, etc. Most of the third party software vendors already support Linux. The real challenge is the desktop where Microsoft has a major stronghold. That is their bread and butter. Losing that would be a much more significant blow to them financially. If you look at all their anti-trust appeals, it is all centered around the desktop with things like media player and office and opening up their API's and file formats to competing products.
linux executable sizes are larger than these of the other OSes, (whatever that means, more good coding, or less bad code SCNR)
I imagine this is because Windows includes everything but the kitchen sink in DLLs in the kernel whereas *nix variants do not. I bet if you include the size of all the DLLs required to actually make a Windows application run, it is as large or larger than a *nix application.
This probably also explains why it takes more than 5 times the number of kernel cycles to start a process in Windows as it does on *nix variants.
Some Epson printers' print heads can be replaced. I own an Epson Photo Stylus 2200 for my photography business and the print heads are replaceable in that printer.
It isn't their first laptop, especially if it is just a repackaged Tadpole. The did that back in the mid 1990's. It was a SPARC-based laptop that ran SunOS 4 I believe.
Instead of worrying about getting "submarined", as the author says, why doesn't Microsoft preempt that by searching the patent records for great ideas, finding the patent owners, and partnering with them to turn the idea into something beneficial for all of us. That would combine the spirit of innovation and capitalism, and would keep these rediculous, multi-year, anti-trust trials out of the court system. Perhaps more people would publish their ideas knowing that a big company with good financial backing could make their idea come to life and the patent owner could still be fairly compensated.
Slashdot Mirror
Here's a question for you. How much SPAM would be eliminated if people's home computer could not be compromised by trojan SPAM agents that spammers use to send out their e-mails?
It seems that spam is difficult to stop because it comes from SO MANY sources. If home computers could not be compromised, spammers would have to send their mass e-mails from a very limited number of systems. That would make those systems easy to identify and shutdown (disconnect) via their ISPs. It also would make it easy to identify the originators of the SPAM, freeze their assets and incarcerate them.
Hello, Microsoft. Are you listening? You own 80 to 90 percent of the world's desktops and home computers. I don't care if it takes until 2010 for Vista to be released. Fix the f*ing security issues that permit these spammers to infect the average user's home computer.
Forget all the cutsie bells and whistles you want to add, scratch the MS Office updates that no one is going to use anyway, and sink your resources for the next 2-3 years into making one fortress release of Windows. Start over from scratch and redesign Windows from the bottom up with security as the central focus if you have to.
Imagine an Internet with 70 to 80 less traffic than it has today. That is what you would have if we eliminated SPAM. Imagine how fast your BitTorrent or FTP download would run with so much less congestion on the Internet. We really need to put the pressure on the OS vendors (Microsoft especially because of the sheer percent of the desktops they own). SPAM can be killed. Once spammers have no where to hide, and their risks become significantly higher than their returns, spammers will go away.
It seems like Microsoft could nearly single handedly kill SPAM just by fixing Windows. Am I dreaming or am I on the right track?
He's not an ex-con. He appealed his case and won. That clears him of all charges for which he was convicted. An ex-con is someone who serves their time and gets out when their time is up. Their conviction stands, but they have paid their debt to society.
We see articles all the time about European and Asian countries pledging their allegiance to Linux. Linux is already in so many corporate data centers in the US, but you don't see the same press about it - not yet! You will. Look at the Commonwealth of Massachussets. Others will follow. And now that Microsoft has been practically forced to file their Office 12 document file formats with the standards bodies and open them up, I imagine that the pace will quicken because OO.o and other packages will be able to interchangably support these file formats, allowing users to exchange documents seamlessly with other organizations who use the MS products.
I think we need to also split the MS vs. Linux into two conversations - data center and desktop. They require vastly different tools. I think it is much easier for Linux to infiltrate the data center because UNIX as a whole already as a strong foothold there due to Solaris, HP-UX, AIX, etc. Most of the third party software vendors already support Linux. The real challenge is the desktop where Microsoft has a major stronghold. That is their bread and butter. Losing that would be a much more significant blow to them financially. If you look at all their anti-trust appeals, it is all centered around the desktop with things like media player and office and opening up their API's and file formats to competing products.
Thanks - I needed that laugh!
Some Epson printers' print heads can be replaced. I own an Epson Photo Stylus 2200 for my photography business and the print heads are replaceable in that printer.
It isn't their first laptop, especially if it is just a repackaged Tadpole. The did that back in the mid 1990's. It was a SPARC-based laptop that ran SunOS 4 I believe.
Instead of worrying about getting "submarined", as the author says, why doesn't Microsoft preempt that by searching the patent records for great ideas, finding the patent owners, and partnering with them to turn the idea into something beneficial for all of us. That would combine the spirit of innovation and capitalism, and would keep these rediculous, multi-year, anti-trust trials out of the court system. Perhaps more people would publish their ideas knowing that a big company with good financial backing could make their idea come to life and the patent owner could still be fairly compensated.