Mass genocide of all developing countries humans then use that now vacant land to plant the trees. Your idea has merit, but it would be far, far more efficient to kill the rich, as we spew out orders of magnitude more pollution per capita than the poor.
It's tricky to sell machines without an OS because MS have some kind of conspiracy going, not because consumers generally just want the machine to come with the current Windows OS?
That's exactly correct. I'm surprised you would act incredulous, because the fact of Microsoft's abuse of its monopoly position has been clearly documented in a court of law. One of the things it did in the normal course of its business was to tell manufacturers that they could sell Windows only, or not at all.
Are you ok with driving a car while the odds of having an accident are > 0.01%?
Ack! Car analogy! Run away! 8^)
Okay, seriously. The comparison is invalid. Virus infection represents total compromise of a running system, and it's not just my car - it's every car that my company operates, all at once. And in answer to your question: No, I do not think that total failure of a last line of defense once every ten thousand unique attempts is an acceptable risk. Not when I have other options available that offer lower risk and lower cost.
But systems integration and management is a game of compromise and balancing competing factors. I can understand perfectly if someone else could justify it.
Forget about the theft angle - the surpisingly large rate of mobile phone adoption in the third world shows valuble bits of easily stolen electronics are not all going to suddenly get sold back to westerners.
I don't have mod points right now, so I'll just write in support of your statement.
I live in what the UN calls a Least Developed Country. Average monthly income among the minority who are employed is less than USD 200. Yet cell phones are everywhere. They're one of the first acquisitions someone makes once they have a bit of cash. When cell phones do get stolen (it happens a lot), they get re-sold on the local market.
Phones and credit get shared widely here, and with the recent introduction of SMS ("Least Developed", remember?), communications has improved drastically. There is every reason to believe that the same or similar effects would occur with widespread access to Internet via the OLPC machines.
Live One care failed the test because it only detected 99.91% of the malware rather than 100%.
So you're okay with having all of your Vista machines get fucked up 0.01% of the time?
That's a legitimate question, by the way. There are good reasons to answer 'yes' to it, but we need to be clear that relying on that service implies an acceptance of risk that is greater than that of some of its competitors.
And I'm saying that even that is pretty meaningless. Five vulnerabilities were fixed in Mozilla last week, and two in Opera. Which is more secure? Twelve new vulnerabilities have been discovered in Firefox, and one in Opera. Which is more secure?
Your point's well taken, but your conclusion (here and in your first post above) are hopelessly fatalistic.
You don't give nearly enough credit to the analytical process. Instead you focus on points that might philosophically be true (e.g. "no app is open and closed at once, so comparison is pointless"). In practical terms this is meaningless and finicky. It's perfectly straightforward to perform a comparison between the suitability for use of two different applications that perform largely the same task. Assessing the security risks inherent in using one or the other is also a rather finite (if not entirely methodical) task. Experienced and professional analysts do this consistently well.
Security analysts aren't (or shouldn't be) blind to the limitations you allude to, but somehow they do manage to render a useful service. My suggestion to you is that you show a little more optimism, and at the same time, forget about certainty. Security analysis is not like mathematics, there's no proof; only evidence and the wisdom of experience.
Schneier's point that security is a process, not a product, comes into play here. You can't say, "This product has 14.2% more security than that one!" But you can say, "Experience shows us that this application is exploited less than that one, and our attempts to break it were less successful."
Actually, slashdot is full of groupthink itself which often annoys me.
I would argue that 'groupthink' is not at all a helpful term, as it indulges in the very thing it objects to.
But without it, I would have a hard time describing the individual(s) who modded me 'over-rated' in retaliation for having an unpopular point of view. 8^/
We value conf.....listen stinkynuts, standards have nothing to do with conformity, and everything to do with making day-to-day life possible.
Precisely. And that's why I didn't say a word about standards.
If, however, you accept that the de facto 'let's use this format because everyone else does' way of working constitutes a sufficiently complete definition of 'standard', and if you are going to claim that the risks, in terms of security, cost and flexibility, cannot be mitigated by mere virtue of the inertial force of this standard, then I can't come to any other conclusion than that you value conformity over your own (or in this case your company's) security.
There are processes in place to determine and enforce workable standards in computing. Virtually none of those mechanisms is being used in the area of office documents.
[I]ts got nothing to do with conformity. Its [sic] to do with *being able to share documents with your business partners*.
It has everything to do with conformity. I have no problem with the importance of being able to 'share documents with your business partners'. That's reasonable and universally appealing. I do find it unfortunate, though, that people continue to do it in a way that is neither secure, sustainable nor cost-effective, and then refuse to make any effort whatsoever to mitigate the problems inherent in the system they've created, because 'everyone does it this way'.
Again, the statement isn't against standards, it's about an innate shortcoming in our societal make-up, one which I am prepared to accommodate, even if I don't think it makes sense. So I'm not arguing against your reality; I'm actually saying there's no point in arguing against it.
I suppose if in real life you're always the victim and never have the courage to stand up to anyone you need somewhere to vent, eh?
I have no idea where this came from, but I can assure you that one thing I have never been is a victim. 8^)
businesses need to be able to share documents with their business partners and clients, thusly, they must support the same file formats as their business partners and clients.
The moral of the story is: If everyone else jumped off a cliff, why yes, we would jump too.
It's an unfortunate but inescapable aspect of human societies that we value conformity above our individual safety.
In my own experience with free software, about 1 in 1000 downloads pay up. The large companies almost always pay. Small one man businesses sometimes pay. Europeans usually pay. Russians and Indians never pay...
In Soviet Russia, YOU pay the customers!
(Shit, I just made a Soviet Russia joke. Now I feel dirty....)
AJAX is a silly name, but we're probably stuck with it.
Well, if you ask me, it's just a blatant wannabe move. Wa-ay back in the mists of 2001, the inimitable Damian Conway created the Acme::Bleach Perl module. Part of the stunningly [sic] inspired Acme series of Perl modules, it creates the cleanest code ever in the history of programming.
Now some web wanker with a re-tread idea from the nineties indulges in a bit of shameless self-promotion, whoring himself first to Microsoft, then to Google, and when he needs to come up with a name, he - again, shamelessly - stands on the shoulders of Giants like Professor Conway and dilutes the namespace with a pale echo of Damian's greatest masterpiece since his translation of Perl into Klingon.
Note to the humour-impaired: Follow links before modding Troll or Flamebait.
Interesting. That datum made me decide to check something a little more relevant: The status of Apple in Computer hardware sales. Given that Apple doesn't focus on selling its operating system off the shelf, it seem more appropriate to check the GP's assertion that people are 'stampeding' to the Mac by seeing how Apple computers are selling.
Now, this list is updated hourly, so it's subject to change, but when I checked, Apple had the top 3 positions in the best-seller list, and a total of five entries in the top ten.
So, according to this unscientific metric (albeit chosen by you): The majority of new computer buyers are buying Apple products. Sounds like a stampede to me.
<robot-voice>IT IS QUIET HERE. . . . TOO QUIET.</robot-voice>
You've spotted the problem:
SNIPER INSTRUCTION BOOK (REVISED)
Shoot sniper bot first
Continue as before
Seriously, though, one of the 'benefits' (sorry) of an urban insurgency is that the sniper can shoot and displace with ease. Those videos released from the insurgents in Baghdad show snipers firing out the back of a parked car. One shot is fired, and the car drives away.
"In technical circles, this approach is known as 'New Bugs For Old', wherein you trade a host of new (but unknown) problems for a heap of old and all-too-familiar problems."
This coming from the guy heading out to buy a version 1.0 Apple product...
Ah, no sense of irony. How rustic! You might find this link useful. 8^)
We're considering making the switch to Vista in summer 2008. Two very good reasons:
1) We need a way to pressure the school board into buying about 500 new PCs....
2) We tested a number of our aging and poorly-written edutainment titles on RC2, and most of them didn't work....
In technical circles, this approach is known as 'New Bugs For Old', wherein you trade a host of new (but unknown) problems for a heap of old and all-too-familiar problems. The beauty of this approach is that no one can fault the logic of the switch until after the deployment is under way and the new problems begin to emerge. It has been effective for as long as humanity has had a weakness for shiny new things.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go. I'm trying to pre-purchase my new iPhone. 8^)
He doesnt know the full story but he quit his job in protest? If I were going to quit my job to make some kind of a statement I would want to be able to give an interview about it that started with something other than "My guess is that..."
Yeah, because if I saw management making what I thought was a terrible strategic decision, and nobody was willing to provide an adequate explanation, nor even a proper recounting of events, I'd feel no motivation whatsoever to leave.
I believe that attitudes such as this are actually holding back the adoption of Linux. It creates a sense that the proponents of Linux are all driven by their hatred of Microsoft rather than a cool-headed and objective choice of which operating system is better for a given situation.
Why do you assume that the two are mutually exclusive? You don't think people are capable of making a decision based on years of frustration and pain, and deriving a logical solution to their problem?
Let me tell you something: I loathe Microsoft professionally. I avoid it whenever I can. I use their products as little as possible, to the extent that I will invest time and effort in creating an alternative rather than to use theirs.
That said, I'm objective enough to give credit where credit is due. Some of their products, for better or for worse, are the best available right now. Where that's the case, I either advocate using their products or creating something better, or both.
But when I look at what Microsoft has done - and continues to do - to the world of software, I cringe. I get really angry. I actively work to oppose them, and to find viable alternatives. The fact that I apply myself with a passion doesn't take anything away from my objectivity. So kindly leave your Platonic false dichotomies at the door, and accept that people can on occasion walk and chew bubble gum at the same time.
(P.S. If you don't think there's any reason to have strong feelings about Microsoft, you haven't been in the business long enough.)
Slashdot Mirror
Don't think we haven't thought of this....
signed,
The Developing World
That's exactly correct. I'm surprised you would act incredulous, because the fact of Microsoft's abuse of its monopoly position has been clearly documented in a court of law. One of the things it did in the normal course of its business was to tell manufacturers that they could sell Windows only, or not at all.
Ack! Car analogy! Run away! 8^)
Okay, seriously. The comparison is invalid. Virus infection represents total compromise of a running system, and it's not just my car - it's every car that my company operates, all at once. And in answer to your question: No, I do not think that total failure of a last line of defense once every ten thousand unique attempts is an acceptable risk. Not when I have other options available that offer lower risk and lower cost.
But systems integration and management is a game of compromise and balancing competing factors. I can understand perfectly if someone else could justify it.
So, like, I should invade Iraq again?
I don't have mod points right now, so I'll just write in support of your statement.
I live in what the UN calls a Least Developed Country. Average monthly income among the minority who are employed is less than USD 200. Yet cell phones are everywhere. They're one of the first acquisitions someone makes once they have a bit of cash. When cell phones do get stolen (it happens a lot), they get re-sold on the local market.
Phones and credit get shared widely here, and with the recent introduction of SMS ("Least Developed", remember?), communications has improved drastically. There is every reason to believe that the same or similar effects would occur with widespread access to Internet via the OLPC machines.
So you're okay with having all of your Vista machines get fucked up 0.01% of the time?
That's a legitimate question, by the way. There are good reasons to answer 'yes' to it, but we need to be clear that relying on that service implies an acceptance of risk that is greater than that of some of its competitors.
Your point's well taken, but your conclusion (here and in your first post above) are hopelessly fatalistic.
You don't give nearly enough credit to the analytical process. Instead you focus on points that might philosophically be true (e.g. "no app is open and closed at once, so comparison is pointless"). In practical terms this is meaningless and finicky. It's perfectly straightforward to perform a comparison between the suitability for use of two different applications that perform largely the same task. Assessing the security risks inherent in using one or the other is also a rather finite (if not entirely methodical) task. Experienced and professional analysts do this consistently well.
Security analysts aren't (or shouldn't be) blind to the limitations you allude to, but somehow they do manage to render a useful service. My suggestion to you is that you show a little more optimism, and at the same time, forget about certainty. Security analysis is not like mathematics, there's no proof; only evidence and the wisdom of experience.
Schneier's point that security is a process, not a product, comes into play here. You can't say, "This product has 14.2% more security than that one!" But you can say, "Experience shows us that this application is exploited less than that one, and our attempts to break it were less successful."
I would argue that 'groupthink' is not at all a helpful term, as it indulges in the very thing it objects to.
But without it, I would have a hard time describing the individual(s) who modded me 'over-rated' in retaliation for having an unpopular point of view. 8^/
Precisely. And that's why I didn't say a word about standards.
If, however, you accept that the de facto 'let's use this format because everyone else does' way of working constitutes a sufficiently complete definition of 'standard', and if you are going to claim that the risks, in terms of security, cost and flexibility, cannot be mitigated by mere virtue of the inertial force of this standard, then I can't come to any other conclusion than that you value conformity over your own (or in this case your company's) security.
There are processes in place to determine and enforce workable standards in computing. Virtually none of those mechanisms is being used in the area of office documents.
And lastly, stop sniffing my nuts.... 8^)
It has everything to do with conformity. I have no problem with the importance of being able to 'share documents with your business partners'. That's reasonable and universally appealing. I do find it unfortunate, though, that people continue to do it in a way that is neither secure, sustainable nor cost-effective, and then refuse to make any effort whatsoever to mitigate the problems inherent in the system they've created, because 'everyone does it this way'.
Again, the statement isn't against standards, it's about an innate shortcoming in our societal make-up, one which I am prepared to accommodate, even if I don't think it makes sense. So I'm not arguing against your reality; I'm actually saying there's no point in arguing against it.
I have no idea where this came from, but I can assure you that one thing I have never been is a victim. 8^)
HTH HAND
"I hear purple is faster."
Actually, that's a replacement for the Jell-o Tree, which had to be locked all the time to keep those darned kids out of it.
Come on, mod me Informative. I dare you.... 8^)
The moral of the story is: If everyone else jumped off a cliff, why yes, we would jump too.
It's an unfortunate but inescapable aspect of human societies that we value conformity above our individual safety.
Dry Remarks: MicroSoft
Deftness Rarely Manifests;
Detractors Reap Malice.
Don't Risk Mastication.
You missed the obvious one:
Donkey Rape, Motherfucker!
In Soviet Russia, YOU pay the customers!
(Shit, I just made a Soviet Russia joke. Now I feel dirty....)
Indeed. I think this is where the phrase 'An idea whose time has come' originated.
Well, if you ask me, it's just a blatant wannabe move. Wa-ay back in the mists of 2001, the inimitable Damian Conway created the Acme::Bleach Perl module. Part of the stunningly [sic] inspired Acme series of Perl modules, it creates the cleanest code ever in the history of programming.
Now some web wanker with a re-tread idea from the nineties indulges in a bit of shameless self-promotion, whoring himself first to Microsoft, then to Google, and when he needs to come up with a name, he - again, shamelessly - stands on the shoulders of Giants like Professor Conway and dilutes the namespace with a pale echo of Damian's greatest masterpiece since his translation of Perl into Klingon.
Note to the humour-impaired: Follow links before modding Troll or Flamebait.
Interesting. That datum made me decide to check something a little more relevant: The status of Apple in Computer hardware sales. Given that Apple doesn't focus on selling its operating system off the shelf, it seem more appropriate to check the GP's assertion that people are 'stampeding' to the Mac by seeing how Apple computers are selling.
Now, this list is updated hourly, so it's subject to change, but when I checked, Apple had the top 3 positions in the best-seller list, and a total of five entries in the top ten.
So, according to this unscientific metric (albeit chosen by you): The majority of new computer buyers are buying Apple products. Sounds like a stampede to me.
People criticize MS for ActiveX, so...
They remove ActiveX; now there's less of a push for it but existing ActiveX systems are screwed.
People criticize MS for removing ActiveX, so...
PROFIT?
I believe the technical term for this situation is 'Hoist by their own petard.' (Reference here for the literarily challenged.)
You've spotted the problem:
SNIPER INSTRUCTION BOOK (REVISED)
Seriously, though, one of the 'benefits' (sorry) of an urban insurgency is that the sniper can shoot and displace with ease. Those videos released from the insurgents in Baghdad show snipers firing out the back of a parked car. One shot is fired, and the car drives away.
Okay, that is just way too freudian for me. Look, son, the only way you're going to get over your oedipus complex is to move out of the basement!
This coming from the guy heading out to buy a version 1.0 Apple product...
Ah, no sense of irony. How rustic! You might find this link useful. 8^)
1) We need a way to pressure the school board into buying about 500 new PCs....
2) We tested a number of our aging and poorly-written edutainment titles on RC2, and most of them didn't work....
In technical circles, this approach is known as 'New Bugs For Old', wherein you trade a host of new (but unknown) problems for a heap of old and all-too-familiar problems. The beauty of this approach is that no one can fault the logic of the switch until after the deployment is under way and the new problems begin to emerge. It has been effective for as long as humanity has had a weakness for shiny new things.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go. I'm trying to pre-purchase my new iPhone. 8^)
Yeah, because if I saw management making what I thought was a terrible strategic decision, and nobody was willing to provide an adequate explanation, nor even a proper recounting of events, I'd feel no motivation whatsoever to leave.
Why do you assume that the two are mutually exclusive? You don't think people are capable of making a decision based on years of frustration and pain, and deriving a logical solution to their problem?
Let me tell you something: I loathe Microsoft professionally. I avoid it whenever I can. I use their products as little as possible, to the extent that I will invest time and effort in creating an alternative rather than to use theirs.
That said, I'm objective enough to give credit where credit is due. Some of their products, for better or for worse, are the best available right now. Where that's the case, I either advocate using their products or creating something better, or both.
But when I look at what Microsoft has done - and continues to do - to the world of software, I cringe. I get really angry. I actively work to oppose them, and to find viable alternatives. The fact that I apply myself with a passion doesn't take anything away from my objectivity. So kindly leave your Platonic false dichotomies at the door, and accept that people can on occasion walk and chew bubble gum at the same time.
(P.S. If you don't think there's any reason to have strong feelings about Microsoft, you haven't been in the business long enough.)