What happened to Apple? They charge too high for their hardware and so they will never get a majority of the market. OK, Microsoft also charge a lot, but you can pirate Windows and run it on a cheap PC if you need to.
If linux is to get more of a market share, then linux needs to improve.
Linux already is getting more market share. If Microsoft wants to keep their market share, they need to improve at least as fast as Linux.
Yes, you are correct. The law which forced Microsoft to do this is completely stupid. But Microsoft is a strong supporter of the law, because it might save their business model. They agree to it because they plan to use the exact same law to cripple their opponents.
That would mean the solution is to forget adding to the "Microsoft so bad" arguments and start pressuring lawmakers to punish companies that are negligent and exposing consumers to harm.
Lawmakers?!
Vote with your wallet. We have enough laws already, and there is a simpler solution here.
China also has a lot of people. How about giving a percentage, and how about giving a percentage for other countries, so that we can compare. I'm sure that the problem is not as bad in China as you try to make out.
Besides you cannot stop all scientific research until all disease is eliminated. If we did that, we would still be rubbing sticks together to make fire.
I remember that one. The reason why they downgraded it is not because they fixed the vulnerability, but because according to Secunia's definitions, the only difference between a Highly Critical and Extremely Critical vulnerability, is that the latter has a working PoC or exploit in the wild. From Secunia's webpage:
Extremely Critical:
Typically used for remotely exploitable vulnerabilities, which can lead to system compromise. Successful exploitation does not normally require any interaction and exploits are in the wild.
These vulnerabilities can e.g. exist in services like FTP, HTTP, and SMTP or in certain client systems like email programs or browsers.
Highly Critical:
Typically used for remotely exploitable vulnerabilities, which can lead to system compromise. Successful exploitation does not normally require any interaction but there are no known exploits available at the time of disclosure.
Such vulnerabilities can e.g. exist in services like FTP, HTTP, and SMTP or in client systems like email programs or browsers.
The fact that there are lots of critical bugs wouldn't be an issue, if the vendor patched the bugs *before* the exploits are made public. They were aware of the bug for a long time, long before this exploit was developed.
That's all very well......but would it recognise if you visited a site that had a real exploit, or is it only the proof of concept that it can detect and block?
If people can change their exploits faster than the anti-malware vendors can update their databases, it means you are still vulnerable. Maybe it is easier to just get the exploit patched. If the vendor refuses to patch within a reasonable timeframe, find a new vendor.
Lots of people have recommended NoScript, and it works great, but still it is stupid that an accidental error in a Javascript can disable the entire program!
Even links has this feature!
Please, please add this in Firefox too! Javascript is not so important that it should take control over the whole user interface. Is there a bug filed on this already, I want to vote for it to be fixed.
The great thing about having $0 competition is that it will eventually force Microsoft to reduce its prices. So everyone will benefit from Linux being more widely used, even people that will never want to try Linux!
This time the MPAA wants "as much as $600,000" in damages. The article also claims that "illegal downloading" costs the industry $5.4 billion per year.
It is obvious how they got their figures. 9000 people caught, sued for $600,000 in damages each, makes a total amount of damages to the industry of $5.4b.
Of course this means that all the other file downloaders are doing no damage at all.
I think I would be quicker and easier just to charge everyone on the planet $5 a year and let them download as much as they want. Then they would quickly get their $5.4 billion, plus more. And happy customers.
Behind every one of them is a malicious programmer.
Actually, the programmer is not the one doing wrong. Writing, studying and understanding computer viruses is an interesting and useful thing to do. The largest benefit is probably in the anti-virus field, but like any other abstract subject, progresses made can be translated into break-throughs in other areas.
It's the person that deliberately releases the virus from a controlled environment it into the wild that is the malicious one.
Somewhere for Microsoft to start...
on
How Zombies Work
·
· Score: 1
they need a reason to SWITCH, not a reason to stay where they are.
And the reason to switch, if I remember the original poster correctly, was that in his opinion, LaTeX is better than anything available in Windows. Whether or not this is true is irrelevant, and possibly even a matter of opinion rather than fact.
Even so, he *has* the right to switch! No-one should say to him he is stupid to use Linux because the software available in Windows is *nearly* as good. Why shouldn't he be allowed to use the best software, instead of something that just comes close?
Whether *you* think it is just as good is not going to change his mind.
first of all sorry for the unscheduled and long lasting down time. We had an hardware failure and are currently moving the site to a new location. The new location is a managed server so we expect better uptime for the future.
We hope to have the page up again at 1st of November.
we hope that the new server will solve a lot of our problems with the forum. Stay tuned for informations from Your OPERating system.
Bandwidth is very cheap and getting cheaper and faster. It won't be long before it is faster to download a film than it is to walk to the video store and back. In some places it already is that fast. Besides, most people have unlimited bandwidth deals where if you *aren't* using it, you are wasting more money than if you use it to it's full potential. Most programs can download in the background so that they do not disturb your browsing etc.
'the time to burn it to DVD'
You can do this in the background. If you use a modern OS like Ubuntu with built in support for burning to DVD, burning to disc is such a trivial exercise that it's hard to understand how Windows makes it so hard to do this simple task quickly. Even if you don't want to burn it, you can watch the film directly from your hard disk and then delete it when you are done.
'my drive space'
Because drive space is a scarce commodity? All you need is a gigabyte or two free for the twenty minutes it takes to burn.
It's not that I condone copyright infringement, but you will have a hard time convincing other people that they should go out in the rain/snow, etc. to buy a film rather than download it from the comfort of their own home.
Wouldn't it be simpler if the music industry just decided that downloading films via the internet was a viable business strategy?
Slashdot Mirror
What happened to Apple? They charge too high for their hardware and so they will never get a majority of the market. OK, Microsoft also charge a lot, but you can pirate Windows and run it on a cheap PC if you need to.
If linux is to get more of a market share, then linux needs to improve.
Linux already is getting more market share. If Microsoft wants to keep their market share, they need to improve at least as fast as Linux.
Yes, you are correct. The law which forced Microsoft to do this is completely stupid. But Microsoft is a strong supporter of the law, because it might save their business model. They agree to it because they plan to use the exact same law to cripple their opponents.
Wait a week or two and there will be a story where they did a sudden surprise turnaround and chose Microsoft anyway....
I said eventually, not today.
Go after the people selling the pirated music!
Just because its ridiculously expensive doesn't mean that you can call it 'pirated music'. Jeez, people these days call anything at all 'piracy'.
The correct term for this crime is 'price-fixing'.
That would mean the solution is to forget adding to the "Microsoft so bad" arguments and start pressuring lawmakers to punish companies that are negligent and exposing consumers to harm.
Lawmakers?!
Vote with your wallet. We have enough laws already, and there is a simpler solution here.
China also has a lot of people. How about giving a percentage, and how about giving a percentage for other countries, so that we can compare. I'm sure that the problem is not as bad in China as you try to make out.
Besides you cannot stop all scientific research until all disease is eliminated. If we did that, we would still be rubbing sticks together to make fire.
The fact that there are lots of critical bugs wouldn't be an issue, if the vendor patched the bugs *before* the exploits are made public. They were aware of the bug for a long time, long before this exploit was developed.
That's all very well... ...but would it recognise if you visited a site that had a real exploit, or is it only the proof of concept that it can detect and block?
If people can change their exploits faster than the anti-malware vendors can update their databases, it means you are still vulnerable. Maybe it is easier to just get the exploit patched. If the vendor refuses to patch within a reasonable timeframe, find a new vendor.
From 2005-09-20: Firefox Command Line URL Shell Command Injection
Lots of people have recommended NoScript, and it works great, but still it is stupid that an accidental error in a Javascript can disable the entire program!
Even links has this feature!
Please, please add this in Firefox too! Javascript is not so important that it should take control over the whole user interface. Is there a bug filed on this already, I want to vote for it to be fixed.
The great thing about having $0 competition is that it will eventually force Microsoft to reduce its prices. So everyone will benefit from Linux being more widely used, even people that will never want to try Linux!
I use NoScript.
One recent exploit that worked even with NoScript enabled was the highly critical 'Firefox IDN URL Domain Name Buffer Overflow'.
http://secunia.com/advisories/16764/
This time the MPAA wants "as much as $600,000" in damages. The article also claims that "illegal downloading" costs the industry $5.4 billion per year.
It is obvious how they got their figures. 9000 people caught, sued for $600,000 in damages each, makes a total amount of damages to the industry of $5.4b.
Of course this means that all the other file downloaders are doing no damage at all.
I think I would be quicker and easier just to charge everyone on the planet $5 a year and let them download as much as they want. Then they would quickly get their $5.4 billion, plus more. And happy customers.
What is the best to protect your privacy with regard to location with a cell?
Leave it at home.
What Bill does with his money is greater then the distributed good.
So you think if you give all your money to Bill Gates, he will spend it better than you can?
Do you think he will remember to buy you food?
Behind every one of them is a malicious programmer.
Actually, the programmer is not the one doing wrong. Writing, studying and understanding computer viruses is an interesting and useful thing to do. The largest benefit is probably in the anti-virus field, but like any other abstract subject, progresses made can be translated into break-throughs in other areas.
It's the person that deliberately releases the virus from a controlled environment it into the wild that is the malicious one.
... with their Zombie investigation!
5 6236&tid=111&tid=123
http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/10/28/19
they need a reason to SWITCH, not a reason to stay where they are.
And the reason to switch, if I remember the original poster correctly, was that in his opinion, LaTeX is better than anything available in Windows. Whether or not this is true is irrelevant, and possibly even a matter of opinion rather than fact.
Even so, he *has* the right to switch! No-one should say to him he is stupid to use Linux because the software available in Windows is *nearly* as good. Why shouldn't he be allowed to use the best software, instead of something that just comes close?
Whether *you* think it is just as good is not going to change his mind.
LaTeX is not limited to Linux. LaTeX is NOT a reason to switch.
So... wanting to use Latex is not a good reason to switch to Linux because similar applications are available for Windows...
...but wanting to use Microsoft Office and Internet Explorer is a good reason to stick with Windows even though similar applications exist for Linux?
Double-standards anyone?
I would love to hear the music industry decide that downloading films via the internet was a viable business strategy!
;)
<blush>Errr.. I meant film industry. Sorry!</blush>
'I don't have to waste bandwidth downloading it'
Bandwidth is very cheap and getting cheaper and faster. It won't be long before it is faster to download a film than it is to walk to the video store and back. In some places it already is that fast. Besides, most people have unlimited bandwidth deals where if you *aren't* using it, you are wasting more money than if you use it to it's full potential. Most programs can download in the background so that they do not disturb your browsing etc.
'the time to burn it to DVD'
You can do this in the background. If you use a modern OS like Ubuntu with built in support for burning to DVD, burning to disc is such a trivial exercise that it's hard to understand how Windows makes it so hard to do this simple task quickly. Even if you don't want to burn it, you can watch the film directly from your hard disk and then delete it when you are done.
'my drive space'
Because drive space is a scarce commodity? All you need is a gigabyte or two free for the twenty minutes it takes to burn.
It's not that I condone copyright infringement, but you will have a hard time convincing other people that they should go out in the rain/snow, etc. to buy a film rather than download it from the comfort of their own home.
Wouldn't it be simpler if the music industry just decided that downloading films via the internet was a viable business strategy?
It sounds like you could use that suggestion to deliberately get your competitors delisted from google by spamming links to their site in blogs.
Dangerous.