This is totally untrue. The speed increases aren't "massive". On G4 and G5 systems, Tiger is a bit quicker in most things, and a little slower in a few things. On G3s, it seems a tad bit slower.
While I love and use Tiger daily (I'm an ADC member), I can't stand mistruths. There's nothing massive about the speed increase. On the other side of the page, Tiger isn't merely "2 new features". There's a bunch of new and cool stuff both on top and under the hood.
Don't scream at Microsoft, they're merely listening to customer demands and trying to make Windows more secure.
If you want someone to scream at, scream at the vendors who make shoddy, ill-written software that won't work under SP2, who still haven't released product updates that are compatible with SP2.
PS: I didn't realize you were a part of the ReactOS project. So let me say thanks for all the work, and while its not usable (for me, yet), I certainly keep a constant eye on the project's progress and am very impressed.
Uhm, while I love OS X, the kernel is a complete clusterf*ck.
The NT kernel itself is quite mature, quite stable, and quite well-designed. The Linux kernel isn't all that bad either, but really probably better than OS X.
2003 has always had a firewall, ICF. NT, since at least version 4.0 has always had a firewall, but unfortunately, it was wrapped in the "IPSec Policy" functionality at the time.
I would expect a clueless MS basher to actually look before flaming, though.
So he believes in working within a system he doesn't believe should exist? While I understand that anarchists can have moral beliefs I just can't imagine that he would be so tolerant of the way the system is built to just put up with it.
On the other side of the coin, because of his beliefs, he MUST hold those beliefs above his wife and daughter and sacrifice everything?
Turns out, Europeans are pretty "me-centric" too. Many of them only know about the immediately specific area around them.
This is a good thing, not a bad thing. People need to worry about "their own shit" and stop being so "globally aware".
"Globally aware" people are the kinds that voice thier uneducated opinions about something they don't know. See also the DMCA, privacy, anti-gun rights people, etc.
If more people just stuck to being "me-centric" the world would be a better place.
It's a well known fact that the term "hacker" did not originally apply to the people that media now calls hackers.
Uhm, no it isn't. I just schooled you on the facts. Just because someone creates a Wikipedia entry (probably ESR, or an ESR-fanboy), does not instantly make it a "well-known fact".
A hack is a hack is a hack. Whether it's legal or illegal, a mchine break-in, or a cool software/hardware/social hack. It's all hacking.
The facts are what I stated previously. This is why 2600 isn't known as the "cracker's quarterly" and no hacking group since the beginning of hacking called itself a "cracking group" or themselves crackers.
Please refrain from falling prey to false assumptions based on media in the future.
This is funny. Sorry, I'm assuming you're around 27, and I'm certain you weren't ever intimately involved in the "Scene", otherwise you'd know that ESR's attempts at revisionism is false tripe.
It's always been "hacking", sorry. Don't fall for the ESR lie.
Re:Probably worth mentioning...
on
Hacking Mac OS X
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
FYI, no hackers ever referred to their "hobby" as cracking and they never referred to themselves as "crackers". Crackers are people who crack software copy protection.
Unfortunately, ESR began a strange, revisionist compaign to try and rewrite history, which has all but failed.
I'm not your typical Slashdot-fanatic, M$-hating, L1nux d00d. I love most of the latest MS products and think they're solid (as long as you're clued).
However, I literally laughed out loud when I read the following comment by the blogger:
As we develop IE we go through very thorough and stringent security reviews to ensure that every change is secure and does not expose the user to attack.
Which version of IE is this?! Nearly every released version of IE has had laughable (keep in mind, I'm not a Linux bigot) security flaws. I'm sorry, but you can't feed the sheep their own shit. They know, they KNOW.
He goes on to say:
The security of any browser is irrelevant to if it is part of the operating system.
That seems to be Microsoft's mantra. However, any security engineer or person with common sense would disagree.
If we are to debate security of browsers then let's bring in relevant arguments and accurate details about different possible attacks rather than rely on the irrational fear that because IE is part of the operating system it must be exposing OS functionality to the web.
Are you fucking joking? There is documented exploit after exploit demonstrating this. People aren't pulling it out of their asses. It's backed by fact, something you appear to be ignoring.
I'm a somewhat-loyal MS customer, but I've got to say I don't like reading tripe like this. What I do like reading is "we're going to fix IE's security model and this is how we're going to do it, what does the community think?".
Perhaps the IE team needs to review their security procedures, because they fuckin' suck hard.
Actually, I mostly use UNIX/Linux/BSD, I'm just not a nerd that bigoted about something as stupid as operating systems. So I guess it probably says something about UNIX users overall, just as it would for Windows.
And yes, what you said was complete bullshit. If what you say is actually true, and I seriously doubt it is, you need to fire "whoever" is administering your Windows servers, because they aren't doing an adequate job.
I'd also fire the firewall administrator for being incompetent and not competently managing their risks.
Then you are fucking stupid and not properly administering your Windows servers. There is no legitimate reason why they should be getting 1.) hacked, and 2.) hacked so often... if what you're even claiming isn't just a complete lie.
How does moronic tripe like this get modded up? I think the mods have "Insightful" confused with "Ignorant".
Unlike Windows wich is secure (XP SP1 box is compromised in 18 min when online)
Contrary to what some Linux bigot's "scientific test" says, millions of people are using uncompromised Windows XP SP1.
It's smart to keep these behind a firewall. Of course, it's smart to keep a Linux/BSD/etc box behind a firewall, also. Especially with Sendmail, Apache, Bind, PHP, and SSH's "stellar" security record.
scalable (try running ANY version of windows on more then 2 processors)
You mean "than", not "then". And I have "tried" running it on more than 2 processors and it runs fine. Many large corporations are running Windows 2003 Data Center Edition on nodes with dozens of processors.
and has never been forked into multiple flavors (NT, 95/98, ME, XP Home/Pro/Corp)
Windows NT and Windows 9x are different operating systems altogether. They were never "forked".
The various "flavors" of Windows NT/XP/2003 are just that, different flavors. Different services installed, different kernel parameters, whoah wait a sec, what free OS does that remind me of?
Is there something wrong with that? Most people would consider having unneeded cruft banished a feature.
However, there IS something wrong with the lack of coherent standards amongst Linux distros. Do I put stuff in/opt?/usr/local?/usr?/usr/local/etc?/etc?/var/db?/var/www?/var/local?
Well, it all depends on the distribution I use, oh and it depends on the software I'm using, too. Wow, what a stellar setup.
The poster you responded to was rightfully pointing out that Microsoft has a poor record at implementing secure browser-based full app solutions
Uhm, perhaps years ago, when they were dicking with losers like VBScript, ASP, and ActiveX. But those are all old technologies, ones MS is no longer pushing.
Even if they use XAML as a replacement for ASP.NET, it will completely render to industry standards on the front end, just like ASP.NET.
Microsoft's track record with browser-based applications is one security disaster after another. Their existing browser-centric security model is fragile that I can't see a way to fix it without changing the API and breaking every application that uses it.
Uhm, ever heard of.NET? (hint: its wtf we're talking about). It is by no means browser-centric and in fact, Visual Studio contain schemas for different browser platforms. Don't create idiotic and uninformed FUD.
Wtf? Apparently he has forgoten to use PHP for web development.
Apparently, you've forgotten that in.NET, this is a matter of a few lines of code and a databind to accomplish. Unlike PHP where this is not object-oriented, is many lines of code, is kludgy and involves a foreach loop and manually pumping out a lot of HTML.
Indeed, he's probably referring to PHP directly. But if you want to code with that piece of shit, duct-tape, brick building language, go for it.
This incident is just another example which demonstrates the importance that KDE, Mozilla & Mozilla Firefox's open source culture places on security. Hasn't anyone at Mozilla and KDE ever heard about regression testing?
This incident is just another example which demonstrates the importance (or more accurately, the lack thereof) that Linux's open source culture places on security. Hasn't anyone at Linux ever heard about regression testing?
Open source has consistantly (sic) demonstrated that, regardless of what their press releases say, security is NOT one of their priorities. People need to start waking up and realizing this before they entrust their critical infrastructure to open source products.
See how stupid your comment is? No? Didn't think so.
And BASIC, it was only a stepping stone in learning COBOL. How come it is used to deploy anything more than a prototype? Don't get me started with excuses.
Perhaps because VB != Visual Basic/VB.NET.
Additionally, VB.NET is now fully OO. You're still stuck in the VB 4/5/6 days. Same language structure (with additions), different platform entirely.
Personally, I abhor VB/VB.NET's syntax and code entirely in C#, but it has its place... mainly for entry-level programmers to stumble about their code.
It is high time managers and programmers get real and start using languages designed to do what they want. COBOL, Pascal, Smalltalk, Lisp... each in their niche, they are better than C or BASIC and their overextended derivatives.
Yes, because every programmer should have to learn a billion programming languages. Each tailored to a specific task he needs to accomplish. Get real, not every programmer lives, breaths, eats, reads-before-bed programming.
Slashdot Mirror
This is totally untrue. The speed increases aren't "massive". On G4 and G5 systems, Tiger is a bit quicker in most things, and a little slower in a few things. On G3s, it seems a tad bit slower.
While I love and use Tiger daily (I'm an ADC member), I can't stand mistruths. There's nothing massive about the speed increase. On the other side of the page, Tiger isn't merely "2 new features". There's a bunch of new and cool stuff both on top and under the hood.
Don't scream at Microsoft, they're merely listening to customer demands and trying to make Windows more secure.
If you want someone to scream at, scream at the vendors who make shoddy, ill-written software that won't work under SP2, who still haven't released product updates that are compatible with SP2.
PS: I didn't realize you were a part of the ReactOS project. So let me say thanks for all the work, and while its not usable (for me, yet), I certainly keep a constant eye on the project's progress and am very impressed.
Uhm, while I love OS X, the kernel is a complete clusterf*ck.
The NT kernel itself is quite mature, quite stable, and quite well-designed. The Linux kernel isn't all that bad either, but really probably better than OS X.
Does the phrase "give me liberty or give me death" mean nothing to people anymore?
When you have a family to support, death isn't an easy choice. It doesn't make someone a coward. It makes them a man with something to lose.
No, you're both wrong.
2003 has always had a firewall, ICF. NT, since at least version 4.0 has always had a firewall, but unfortunately, it was wrapped in the "IPSec Policy" functionality at the time.
I would expect a clueless MS basher to actually look before flaming, though.
So he believes in working within a system he doesn't believe should exist? While I understand that anarchists can have moral beliefs I just can't imagine that he would be so tolerant of the way the system is built to just put up with it.
On the other side of the coin, because of his beliefs, he MUST hold those beliefs above his wife and daughter and sacrifice everything?
My two cents: STFU and mind your own business.
Turns out, Europeans are pretty "me-centric" too. Many of them only know about the immediately specific area around them.
This is a good thing, not a bad thing. People need to worry about "their own shit" and stop being so "globally aware".
"Globally aware" people are the kinds that voice thier uneducated opinions about something they don't know. See also the DMCA, privacy, anti-gun rights people, etc.
If more people just stuck to being "me-centric" the world would be a better place.
Interesting comment though, thanks!
PS, apologies for the gross grammatical errors.
It's a well known fact that the term "hacker" did not originally apply to the people that media now calls hackers.
Uhm, no it isn't. I just schooled you on the facts. Just because someone creates a Wikipedia entry (probably ESR, or an ESR-fanboy), does not instantly make it a "well-known fact".
A hack is a hack is a hack. Whether it's legal or illegal, a mchine break-in, or a cool software/hardware/social hack. It's all hacking.
The facts are what I stated previously. This is why 2600 isn't known as the "cracker's quarterly" and no hacking group since the beginning of hacking called itself a "cracking group" or themselves crackers.
Please refrain from falling prey to false assumptions based on media in the future.
This is funny. Sorry, I'm assuming you're around 27, and I'm certain you weren't ever intimately involved in the "Scene", otherwise you'd know that ESR's attempts at revisionism is false tripe.
It's always been "hacking", sorry. Don't fall for the ESR lie.
FYI, no hackers ever referred to their "hobby" as cracking and they never referred to themselves as "crackers". Crackers are people who crack software copy protection.
Unfortunately, ESR began a strange, revisionist compaign to try and rewrite history, which has all but failed.
I'm not your typical Slashdot-fanatic, M$-hating, L1nux d00d. I love most of the latest MS products and think they're solid (as long as you're clued).
However, I literally laughed out loud when I read the following comment by the blogger:
As we develop IE we go through very thorough and stringent security reviews to ensure that every change is secure and does not expose the user to attack.
Which version of IE is this?! Nearly every released version of IE has had laughable (keep in mind, I'm not a Linux bigot) security flaws. I'm sorry, but you can't feed the sheep their own shit. They know, they KNOW.
He goes on to say:
The security of any browser is irrelevant to if it is part of the operating system.
That seems to be Microsoft's mantra. However, any security engineer or person with common sense would disagree.
If we are to debate security of browsers then let's bring in relevant arguments and accurate details about different possible attacks rather than rely on the irrational fear that because IE is part of the operating system it must be exposing OS functionality to the web.
Are you fucking joking? There is documented exploit after exploit demonstrating this. People aren't pulling it out of their asses. It's backed by fact, something you appear to be ignoring.
I'm a somewhat-loyal MS customer, but I've got to say I don't like reading tripe like this. What I do like reading is "we're going to fix IE's security model and this is how we're going to do it, what does the community think?".
Perhaps the IE team needs to review their security procedures, because they fuckin' suck hard.
Actually, I mostly use UNIX/Linux/BSD, I'm just not a nerd that bigoted about something as stupid as operating systems. So I guess it probably says something about UNIX users overall, just as it would for Windows.
And yes, what you said was complete bullshit. If what you say is actually true, and I seriously doubt it is, you need to fire "whoever" is administering your Windows servers, because they aren't doing an adequate job.
I'd also fire the firewall administrator for being incompetent and not competently managing their risks.
Great explanation, thanks.
So what would happen if you theoretically held one of these miniscule black holes in your hand for a week? Would you eventually die?
Ever consider using paragraphs? No one wants to read all of that jammed into one big pile.
No, actually you're wrong. While I love .NET, it basically is a set of wrappers around Win32 at this time. Even in Longhorn, last I checked.
The eventual goal is to write them from scratch -- for real, and eliminate the dependency on Win32.
Then you are fucking stupid and not properly administering your Windows servers. There is no legitimate reason why they should be getting 1.) hacked, and 2.) hacked so often... if what you're even claiming isn't just a complete lie.
How does moronic tripe like this get modded up? I think the mods have "Insightful" confused with "Ignorant".
/opt? /usr/local? /usr? /usr/local/etc? /etc? /var/db? /var/www? /var/local?
Unlike Windows wich is secure (XP SP1 box is compromised in 18 min when online)
Contrary to what some Linux bigot's "scientific test" says, millions of people are using uncompromised Windows XP SP1.
It's smart to keep these behind a firewall. Of course, it's smart to keep a Linux/BSD/etc box behind a firewall, also. Especially with Sendmail, Apache, Bind, PHP, and SSH's "stellar" security record.
scalable (try running ANY version of windows on more then 2 processors)
You mean "than", not "then". And I have "tried" running it on more than 2 processors and it runs fine. Many large corporations are running Windows 2003 Data Center Edition on nodes with dozens of processors.
and has never been forked into multiple flavors (NT, 95/98, ME, XP Home/Pro/Corp)
Windows NT and Windows 9x are different operating systems altogether. They were never "forked".
The various "flavors" of Windows NT/XP/2003 are just that, different flavors. Different services installed, different kernel parameters, whoah wait a sec, what free OS does that remind me of?
Is there something wrong with that? Most people would consider having unneeded cruft banished a feature.
However, there IS something wrong with the lack of coherent standards amongst Linux distros. Do I put stuff in
Well, it all depends on the distribution I use, oh and it depends on the software I'm using, too. Wow, what a stellar setup.
I wish.
I check daily to see if its opened up again. Hopefully it will before Mother's Day, but not bloody likely.
Too bad there's no cover to jump behind when a heli flies by up on the mountain.
The poster you responded to was rightfully pointing out that Microsoft has a poor record at implementing secure browser-based full app solutions
Uhm, perhaps years ago, when they were dicking with losers like VBScript, ASP, and ActiveX. But those are all old technologies, ones MS is no longer pushing.
Even if they use XAML as a replacement for ASP.NET, it will completely render to industry standards on the front end, just like ASP.NET.
Actually, I just went and read his past comments. Not too hard, is it?
Microsoft's track record with browser-based applications is one security disaster after another. Their existing browser-centric security model is fragile that I can't see a way to fix it without changing the API and breaking every application that uses it.
.NET? (hint: its wtf we're talking about). It is by no means browser-centric and in fact, Visual Studio contain schemas for different browser platforms. Don't create idiotic and uninformed FUD.
Uhm, ever heard of
Wtf? Apparently he has forgoten to use PHP for web development.
.NET, this is a matter of a few lines of code and a databind to accomplish. Unlike PHP where this is not object-oriented, is many lines of code, is kludgy and involves a foreach loop and manually pumping out a lot of HTML.
Apparently, you've forgotten that in
Indeed, he's probably referring to PHP directly. But if you want to code with that piece of shit, duct-tape, brick building language, go for it.
This incident is just another example which demonstrates the importance that KDE, Mozilla & Mozilla Firefox's open source culture places on security. Hasn't anyone at Mozilla and KDE ever heard about regression testing?
This incident is just another example which demonstrates the importance (or more accurately, the lack thereof) that Linux's open source culture places on security. Hasn't anyone at Linux ever heard about regression testing?
Open source has consistantly (sic) demonstrated that, regardless of what their press releases say, security is NOT one of their priorities. People need to start waking up and realizing this before they entrust their critical infrastructure to open source products.
See how stupid your comment is? No? Didn't think so.
And BASIC, it was only a stepping stone in learning COBOL. How come it is used to deploy anything more than a prototype? Don't get me started with excuses.
Perhaps because VB != Visual Basic/VB.NET.
Additionally, VB.NET is now fully OO. You're still stuck in the VB 4/5/6 days. Same language structure (with additions), different platform entirely.
Personally, I abhor VB/VB.NET's syntax and code entirely in C#, but it has its place... mainly for entry-level programmers to stumble about their code.
It is high time managers and programmers get real and start using languages designed to do what they want. COBOL, Pascal, Smalltalk, Lisp... each in their niche, they are better than C or BASIC and their overextended derivatives.
Yes, because every programmer should have to learn a billion programming languages. Each tailored to a specific task he needs to accomplish. Get real, not every programmer lives, breaths, eats, reads-before-bed programming.