Try reading the definitions for the classifications. You CAN'T turn a "from local" into a "from remote". Vulnerability is also measured with respect to the average, so it doesn't really matter what you use or don't use personally.
From these sites, "Statistics for 2011", Criticality: Windows 33% Highly 67% Less; Linux 33% Less 67% Not; Where: Windows 67% From remote; 17% from local network; 17% Local system; Linux 100% Local System.
Looks like Windows is much more vulnerable to remote, critical attacks than Linux. The impact graph also makes Windows look bad. Going back to 2010 doesn't help Windows case either.
Really?!? Are you saying large office printers wouldn't have *nix support?!? Most office printers still have OS/2 support! Besides which, the link you posted had Linux drivers...or are you just advertising?
Another example in the USA is the Microsoft antitrust trial. The appeal crossed the boundary of a Democratic controlled White House to a Republican controlled White House, along with the requisite DOJ appointment changes. Many of the Republicans don't believe that monopolies are a bad thing, because they believe that they arise fairly out of a free market. The fact that Microsoft even ended up with a slap on the wrist, in the appeals environment, shows how strong a case was made against them.
All of Judge Jackson's findings still remain relevant with respect to Microsoft's entrenchment in the market. The market still needs some external adjustment to allow other operating systems to compete on the desktop.
People posting nonsensical comments anonymously. Is Microsoft quit no longer making money? Did they lose their monopoly?
Actually what's really sad are the comments: consumers have a choice; alternative OSes would be just as vulnerable as Windows, if they had a large market share; Bill Gates' past misdeeds are no longer relevant since he is now engaged in philanthropy; and Windows market share is proof of Bill Gates' technical competence. Only the second one would be hard to disprove, but it has no basis in logic. All of the rest are easily disproved by reviewing the findings of the Microsoft antitrust trial.
The anti-union sentiment in the USA is only going to further depress the wages of teachers. Indiana is one of the states leading the charge to idiocracy.
Daily desktop use is subjective. For gamers, Windows is the only alternative right now, but for internet and office usage most Linux distributions work perfectly fine out of the box. The "I tried Linux once, and now I'm qualified to generalize about it." stance is pretty disingenuous. It makes the time comment irrelevant. The IT guy qualifier also means practically nothing; there are many levels and types of IT capability.
Anonymously posted FUD. There are a lot of Linux distributions that are very user friendly. The lack of commercial applications is due to low market share rather than platform instability.
Probably most of them, because Microsoft still has an applications barrier to entry. Judge Jackson's remedies were overturned, and replaced with a slap on the wrist.
And when that project starts running 9 months over, your customer learns that your management doesn't know about the true costs of software development. In most cases, a new hire fresh out of college won't have the project experience to deliver on time. You'd better hope your experienced developers are dumb enough to ignore the implied message of their unimportance from management, and help get the project out the door.
The over forty crowd is where you get the users who tried to avoid Windows in the first place. We remember when there used to be choice, and the term PC wasn't associated with Windows.
Computer science also has nothing to do with carefully crafting Powerpoint presentations. Leave that to the management majors. Most everyone using MS Office shows a lack of curiosity and critical thinking skills. Please post your university's name, so I can make sure my kids don't apply there.
Assuming we're not talking about assasination, the way to "eliminate competitors" in a free market is to have a better product. If your product is so good that no one else can compete, then who cares? If you start trying to abuse your monopoly position, new competition will come.
This totally ignores history. Microsoft for example managed to eliminate consumer choice through anti-competitive means. Even today, they still have the "applications barrier to entry" that Judge Jackson attempted to remedy.
Here's some highlights from the Microsoft trial:
... the Court concludes that Microsoft maintained its monopoly power by anticompetitive means and attempted to monopolize the Web browser market, both in violation of 2. Microsoft also violated 1 of the Sherman Act by unlawfully tying its Web browser to its operating system.
- from "CONCLUSIONS OF LAW" from UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v.
MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Defendant. Civil Action No. 98-1232 (TPJ)
Microsoft has responded to competitive challenges, not by persuading customers to select Microsoft products based on price and quality, but by curtailing customer choice or eliminating consumer influence altogether.
- from "BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE OF THE SOFTWARE AND INFORMATION INDUSTRY
ASSOCIATION, IN SUPPORT OF THE UNITED STATES" UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff, v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Defendant.
Civil Action No. 98-1232 (TPJ)
Compaq wanted to use OS/2 but opted not to out of fear of retaliation from Microsoft. Hewlett-Packard made a similar decision about OS/2 for the same reason
- Garry Norris, IBM, about securing the Windows licensing agreements from Microsoft in a DOJ vs. MS deposition.
Why would anyone who is disliked by slashdot bother to read it then? What insight can they gain from it? What will they come away with, other than the opinion that they cannot get any useful criticism from this site, and they cannot ever 'win' over this crowd, so why even try?
You obviously have never explored the history of the comp.os.os2.* newsgroups. Microsoft used to pay people to post FUD in those newsgroups, and outside of that, there were plenty of people who just wanted to troll.
"effective office" cubicle is an oxymoron. There have been many studies over the years that show that open office spaces are counter-productive. The book, Peopleware, by DeMarco and Lister covers this and other topics, related to the management of knowledge workers. At the time Peopleware was written, DeMarco and Lister couldn't find a single productivity study that supported the installation of cubicles.
People not found at their desks are often practicing the productivity enhancement called, "hiding from the boss". It is often the only way to get work done around a micro-manager.
Programmers, who want to characterize themselves as artists or craftsmen, are just too lazy to put in the engineering time. (Although, they do end up spending more time patching, fixing, and refactoring.) They don't want to document their requirements assumptions, provide adequate design documentation for reuse by other parties, be measured against their peers, and capture lessons learned by others. They tend to point to heavy-handed software management (another seriously delusional bunch) techniques as proof that the aforementioned doesn't work. The software industry as a whole needs a serious wake-up call, which will probably come from the rising amount of litigation, spawned by poor practices. The beauty of art is subjective, but software correctness is subject to scientific measurement.
Slashdot Mirror
It still applies.
vs. WebEx
Lines not words. You need to multiply by at least two.
Try reading the definitions for the classifications. You CAN'T turn a "from local" into a "from remote". Vulnerability is also measured with respect to the average, so it doesn't really matter what you use or don't use personally.
KNOWN Windows 7 security vulnerabilities, IN ITS ENTIRETY Gui shell & all (02/22/2011) = 11% (6 of 57 Secunia advisories)
http://secunia.com/advisories/product/27467/
---
KNOWN Linux 2.6 security vulnerabilities, kernel ALONE, & not counting GUI shells ones too (02/22/2011) = 5% (13 of 247 Secunia advisories)
http://secunia.com/advisories/product/2719/?task=advisories
---
From these sites, "Statistics for 2011", Criticality: Windows 33% Highly 67% Less; Linux 33% Less 67% Not; Where: Windows 67% From remote; 17% from local network; 17% Local system; Linux 100% Local System.
Looks like Windows is much more vulnerable to remote, critical attacks than Linux. The impact graph also makes Windows look bad. Going back to 2010 doesn't help Windows case either.
Really?!? Are you saying large office printers wouldn't have *nix support?!? Most office printers still have OS/2 support! Besides which, the link you posted had Linux drivers...or are you just advertising?
Another example in the USA is the Microsoft antitrust trial. The appeal crossed the boundary of a Democratic controlled White House to a Republican controlled White House, along with the requisite DOJ appointment changes. Many of the Republicans don't believe that monopolies are a bad thing, because they believe that they arise fairly out of a free market. The fact that Microsoft even ended up with a slap on the wrist, in the appeals environment, shows how strong a case was made against them.
All of Judge Jackson's findings still remain relevant with respect to Microsoft's entrenchment in the market. The market still needs some external adjustment to allow other operating systems to compete on the desktop.
People posting nonsensical comments anonymously. Is Microsoft quit no longer making money? Did they lose their monopoly?
Actually what's really sad are the comments: consumers have a choice; alternative OSes would be just as vulnerable as Windows, if they had a large market share; Bill Gates' past misdeeds are no longer relevant since he is now engaged in philanthropy; and Windows market share is proof of Bill Gates' technical competence. Only the second one would be hard to disprove, but it has no basis in logic. All of the rest are easily disproved by reviewing the findings of the Microsoft antitrust trial.
they would rather write a buggy version of asp.net (using asp.net no less) than let .net developers do things correctly.
Where can I escape retarded senior developers???
Escape them? It sounds like you are on your way to becoming one.
The anti-union sentiment in the USA is only going to further depress the wages of teachers. Indiana is one of the states leading the charge to idiocracy.
Are you wondering how an engineer could take such a non-conservative stance like supporting evolution? >;->
Daily desktop use is subjective. For gamers, Windows is the only alternative right now, but for internet and office usage most Linux distributions work perfectly fine out of the box.
The "I tried Linux once, and now I'm qualified to generalize about it." stance is pretty disingenuous. It makes the time comment irrelevant. The IT guy qualifier also means practically nothing; there are many levels and types of IT capability.
Anonymously posted FUD. There are a lot of Linux distributions that are very user friendly. The lack of commercial applications is due to low market share rather than platform instability.
Probably most of them, because Microsoft still has an applications barrier to entry. Judge Jackson's remedies were overturned, and replaced with a slap on the wrist.
And when that project starts running 9 months over, your customer learns that your management doesn't know about the true costs of software development. In most cases, a new hire fresh out of college won't have the project experience to deliver on time. You'd better hope your experienced developers are dumb enough to ignore the implied message of their unimportance from management, and help get the project out the door.
...is a joke that writes itself.
The over forty crowd is where you get the users who tried to avoid Windows in the first place. We remember when there used to be choice, and the term PC wasn't associated with Windows.
Computer science also has nothing to do with carefully crafting Powerpoint presentations. Leave that to the management majors. Most everyone using MS Office shows a lack of curiosity and critical thinking skills. Please post your university's name, so I can make sure my kids don't apply there.
What did Bill Gates do that was evil?
Seriously... evil?
He took away people's freedom of choice.
Assuming we're not talking about assasination, the way to "eliminate competitors" in a free market is to have a better product. If your product is so good that no one else can compete, then who cares? If you start trying to abuse your monopoly position, new competition will come.
This totally ignores history. Microsoft for example managed to eliminate consumer choice through anti-competitive means. Even today, they still have the "applications barrier to entry" that Judge Jackson attempted to remedy.
Here's some highlights from the Microsoft trial:
... the Court concludes that Microsoft maintained its monopoly power by
anticompetitive means and attempted to monopolize the Web browser market,
both in violation of 2. Microsoft also violated 1 of the Sherman Act by
unlawfully tying its Web browser to its operating system.
- from "CONCLUSIONS OF LAW" from UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v.
MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Defendant. Civil Action No. 98-1232 (TPJ)
Microsoft has responded to competitive challenges, not by persuading
customers to select Microsoft products based on price and quality, but by
curtailing customer choice or eliminating consumer influence altogether.
- from "BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE OF THE SOFTWARE AND INFORMATION INDUSTRY
ASSOCIATION, IN SUPPORT OF THE UNITED STATES" UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff, v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Defendant.
Civil Action No. 98-1232 (TPJ)
Compaq wanted to use OS/2 but opted not to out of fear of retaliation from
Microsoft. Hewlett-Packard made a similar decision about OS/2 for the same
reason
- Garry Norris, IBM, about securing the Windows licensing
agreements from Microsoft in a DOJ vs. MS deposition.
Why would anyone who is disliked by slashdot bother to read it then? What insight can they gain from it? What will they come away with, other than the opinion that they cannot get any useful criticism from this site, and they cannot ever 'win' over this crowd, so why even try?
You obviously have never explored the history of the comp.os.os2.* newsgroups. Microsoft used to pay people to post FUD in those newsgroups, and outside of that, there were plenty of people who just wanted to troll.
But ... make sure you have a backup in case the person gets hit by a bus.
"effective office" cubicle is an oxymoron. There have been many studies over the years that show that open office spaces are counter-productive. The book, Peopleware, by DeMarco and Lister covers this and other topics, related to the management of knowledge workers. At the time Peopleware was written, DeMarco and Lister couldn't find a single productivity study that supported the installation of cubicles.
People not found at their desks are often practicing the productivity enhancement called, "hiding from the boss". It is often the only way to get work done around a micro-manager.
Programmers, who want to characterize themselves as artists or craftsmen, are just too lazy to put in the engineering time. (Although, they do end up spending more time patching, fixing, and refactoring.) They don't want to document their requirements assumptions, provide adequate design documentation for reuse by other parties, be measured against their peers, and capture lessons learned by others. They tend to point to heavy-handed software management (another seriously delusional bunch) techniques as proof that the aforementioned doesn't work. The software industry as a whole needs a serious wake-up call, which will probably come from the rising amount of litigation, spawned by poor practices. The beauty of art is subjective, but software correctness is subject to scientific measurement.
Part of the reason Windows was successful was that it supported a lot of hardware, with only one API.
One API??? Then how was Microsoft ever able to keep breaking application support in Win-OS2?