By that reasoning, there should be a proportional amount of viruses/worms/trojans for Linux and OS X. If 5% of desktop computers are Unix (OS X is Unix) or Linux , then 5% of the viruses should affect Unix or Linux. Somehow I don't see that. The reason that so much malware exists on Windows is that the Windows architecture makes it so easy to do. Linux and Unix makes it harder to do.
The virus in question (like most Windows viruses) spreads because the user is running Virus.exe, thinking its something else.
The proportion of Windows users vulnerable to that attack (IE: people who are clueless about security) is vastly higher then the proportion of Linux users who are vulnerable to that attack.
What you're saying might make sense if actual OS holes were being used in remote exploits. What we've actually got is a user education problem, which exists more in Windows land then anywhere else.
As soon as someone creates a big pool of clueless Linux users, someone else will create a virus to target them.
I agree with you there. If the extensions were on by default still, its something we can educate against. "Don't run anything that ends in.exe and comes by email" is fairly easy to understand.
Without them, its a lot harder to tell just what you're clicking on. Turning it back on is the first thing I do whenever I install Windows.
When your "security" is based entirely on reactive methods and file signatures (like standard AV products), obscurity is extremely effective.
When your security is based on not giving every user local admin rights, and educating them not to run random.exe files (oh, and changing the settings to actually show the extension is helpful too), obscurity doesn't work so well.
I mean really, this thing would never have started if people could learn to not run Image.exe.
So no, this is not Apple's fault. It's Adobe's and I look forward to seeing any counter-arguments! TFA said that Apple promised Carbon would get 64 bit support in 2006, then changed their minds and cancelled it in 2007.
If Adobe expects Carbon to get 64 bit support (because Apple said so) and then it suddenly doesn't, its pretty easy to see how that is going to screw things up. That part is Apple's fault.
So since their Carbon version isn't going to ever be 64 bit, they need to do a Cocoa port to get there. Thats only necessary because of Apple's cancellation of 64 bit Carbon, so its Apple's fault.
(Though I tend to agree with TFA that Apple's decision to do that was right, in the long term.)
If you simply mailed every household a short form with the questions that they could return with free postage, you'd get most of the same people counted, at far less cost.
Actually having people go door to door to do this seems pretty archaic.
Thats how I hope they take it. If it works as well as they claim though, this isn't good just for ISPs. Its good for people using it to download stuff too. I mean, getting data from the other side of the city usually has lower latency then getting it across a trans-atlantic cable.
The fact that Microsoft is even attempting to do it says something about the Mozilla dev team. They were quite content to sit around for years with no real browser development until Firefox got popular.
Except what you'll see is 50 million computer users running Linux as root all the time because an OEM configured it that way rather then be annoyed with support calls asking how to install some new program. Those 50 million people then get an email about free XXX videos, run an attachment that installs various kinds of malware, and we're right back where we started.
Clueless users given the ability to become administrators (which they can if they own the machine) will defeat any OS security.
I like how they didn't even bother tagging this article with any of the useful tags, like say "php". Usually a new article starts with a few practical tags, then "slashdottagsmakemesmile" type things show up.
I guess this is the forward progression of Slashdot tags: no attempt at useful tags.
Yes, I do. I don't often have something running in the background thats really active though, like a compiler. A typical setup would be something like World of Warcraft, Ventrillo, Firefox, Wireshark (watching WoW traffic is a hobby during wipe recovery), and stuff like that. The second core still isn't particularily taxed.
In order to spike both cores, I need to start something like a compiler or video encoder, which is going to also eat I/O time. Its the I/O that slows down WoW more then the CPU usage. Since adding four more cores drastically increases my parallel processing power (which I don't need more of now), and doesn't do a thing for my I/O throughput (which I do need more of), its not really all that helpful.
Thats why this doesn't excite me a whole lot. We were already at a spot where a single core is more then fast enough for a majority of mainstream users, and now we're going to give out six of them? Other then being able to run spyware more effeciently, whats actually being gained?
(There are people who will benefit from this type of thing, of course. I just don't see the mainstream market as part of that group.)
Cores are the new gigahertz. Where Intel previously raced to get the GHz up higher then AMD (no matter if it was useful or if anybody really wanted it that way), now they race to get more cores then AMD (no matter if it was useful or if anybody really wanted it that way).
This is great for many computing environments, but my home system is not one of them. Honestly there isn't much software I use on a regular basis that really taxes the second core, let alone six of them.
The ISPs themselves aren't connected to the rest of the Internet using DOCSIS. It doesn't matter how much they upgrade their "ISP to customer" connection speed if their infrastructure and pipes only allow 1Gb/s of traffic between them and the rest of the Internet.
Thats the part where the extra expense is cropping up.
If the first post is "FIRST!", Redundant isn't bad. I mean thats been done how many zillions of times already? At this point it is redundant, but in the context of the site as a whole rather then one individual article.
Of course if they gave me "-1 (Idiot)", I'd use that on the "FIRST!" people instead.
Somebody posting to Slashdot says that somebody at The Register says that an Opera blogger screeches about Mozilla. Even for Slashdot, this is a pretty weak title.
What they actually say is that they only had a day between notification and public disclosure. He's actually happy that Mozilla told them at all (hence the:) ), but not happy that there was only a day before it was made public. Nobody is particularly happy when they only have a day from learning there's a security hole to everybody else learning about it, thats not enough time to get a fix rolled out, so this is hardly surprising.
I know Mozilla can do no wrong around here, but come on. Even the Mozilla devs would be happier getting more then one day before public disclosure of a security hole.
I can't wait until my options are cable monopoly throttling, or phone monopoly throttling.
There are some problems the Government actually is capable of solving better then the market. The market in this case dictates that throttling is good for the bottom line, and ending net neutrality is even better for the bottom line.
No, I got the magic working copy too. As do some other people I know. The only things they have in common are that they all have the 64 bit version with recent hardware that has had driver updates.
Nothing breaks Vista faster then crappy drivers, and when it first came out there were tons of those around.
(The 32 bit version should never have existed, IMO. Microsoft should have used that as the dividing line. "Want a computer with less resources? Use XP. Want to use 4GB of RAM? Use Vista." Its not like Vista on a 1GB Laptop is going to work worth a damn anyway.)
"The above definition excludes all players under free promotional subscriptions, expired or cancelled subscriptions, and expired prepaid cards."
What part of "excludes expired or cancelled subscriptions" don't you understand? Subscribers are people who are currently paid up to play the game, or just bought it and are in the free month.
People keep spewing off this nonsense about how the numbers are fake with absolutely no evidence to back it up. The game really is as popular as they say it is. Anybody hitting a queue while trying to login in the last month despite there being something like 200 servers in the US alone.
The only count active subscriptions. They do count multiple accounts from the same people as multiple subscriptions (since thats exactly what they are), but thats not very uncommon.
I'm not sure how common multi-account people actually are, aside from dual boxers. I've seen people do it far more in other games, but in WoW you get so many characters (and bank space, and bank alts) anyway that there isn't much reason to do it without dual boxing.
The numbers seem pretty accurate. There's been server queues again lately for the first time in months, and EVERYWHERE has been busy. The low and mid level areas were full of players over the holidays, which is really something for a game out this long. Its also a regular on the weekly PC best seller list.
Slashdot Mirror
By that reasoning, there should be a proportional amount of viruses/worms/trojans for Linux and OS X. If 5% of desktop computers are Unix (OS X is Unix) or Linux , then 5% of the viruses should affect Unix or Linux. Somehow I don't see that. The reason that so much malware exists on Windows is that the Windows architecture makes it so easy to do. Linux and Unix makes it harder to do.
The virus in question (like most Windows viruses) spreads because the user is running Virus.exe, thinking its something else.The proportion of Windows users vulnerable to that attack (IE: people who are clueless about security) is vastly higher then the proportion of Linux users who are vulnerable to that attack.
What you're saying might make sense if actual OS holes were being used in remote exploits. What we've actually got is a user education problem, which exists more in Windows land then anywhere else.
As soon as someone creates a big pool of clueless Linux users, someone else will create a virus to target them.
I agree with you there. If the extensions were on by default still, its something we can educate against. "Don't run anything that ends in .exe and comes by email" is fairly easy to understand.
Without them, its a lot harder to tell just what you're clicking on. Turning it back on is the first thing I do whenever I install Windows.
When your "security" is based entirely on reactive methods and file signatures (like standard AV products), obscurity is extremely effective.
.exe files (oh, and changing the settings to actually show the extension is helpful too), obscurity doesn't work so well.
When your security is based on not giving every user local admin rights, and educating them not to run random
I mean really, this thing would never have started if people could learn to not run Image.exe.
If Adobe expects Carbon to get 64 bit support (because Apple said so) and then it suddenly doesn't, its pretty easy to see how that is going to screw things up. That part is Apple's fault.
So since their Carbon version isn't going to ever be 64 bit, they need to do a Cocoa port to get there. Thats only necessary because of Apple's cancellation of 64 bit Carbon, so its Apple's fault.
(Though I tend to agree with TFA that Apple's decision to do that was right, in the long term.)
But why is most of that necessary?
If you simply mailed every household a short form with the questions that they could return with free postage, you'd get most of the same people counted, at far less cost.
Actually having people go door to door to do this seems pretty archaic.
Definitely. Its sad that Slashdot didn't even try this year.
Thats how I hope they take it. If it works as well as they claim though, this isn't good just for ISPs. Its good for people using it to download stuff too. I mean, getting data from the other side of the city usually has lower latency then getting it across a trans-atlantic cable.
The fact that Microsoft is even attempting to do it says something about the Mozilla dev team. They were quite content to sit around for years with no real browser development until Firefox got popular.
Maybe they decided potential compatibility problems a fix would cause (TFA says that memory access is a feature) weren't worth it?
Not saying its good reasoning, but we don't know how just how badly other things would break if they fixed this.
Except what you'll see is 50 million computer users running Linux as root all the time because an OEM configured it that way rather then be annoyed with support calls asking how to install some new program. Those 50 million people then get an email about free XXX videos, run an attachment that installs various kinds of malware, and we're right back where we started.
Clueless users given the ability to become administrators (which they can if they own the machine) will defeat any OS security.
I like how they didn't even bother tagging this article with any of the useful tags, like say "php". Usually a new article starts with a few practical tags, then "slashdottagsmakemesmile" type things show up.
I guess this is the forward progression of Slashdot tags: no attempt at useful tags.
Yes, I do. I don't often have something running in the background thats really active though, like a compiler. A typical setup would be something like World of Warcraft, Ventrillo, Firefox, Wireshark (watching WoW traffic is a hobby during wipe recovery), and stuff like that. The second core still isn't particularily taxed.
In order to spike both cores, I need to start something like a compiler or video encoder, which is going to also eat I/O time. Its the I/O that slows down WoW more then the CPU usage. Since adding four more cores drastically increases my parallel processing power (which I don't need more of now), and doesn't do a thing for my I/O throughput (which I do need more of), its not really all that helpful.
Thats why this doesn't excite me a whole lot. We were already at a spot where a single core is more then fast enough for a majority of mainstream users, and now we're going to give out six of them? Other then being able to run spyware more effeciently, whats actually being gained?
(There are people who will benefit from this type of thing, of course. I just don't see the mainstream market as part of that group.)
Cores are the new gigahertz. Where Intel previously raced to get the GHz up higher then AMD (no matter if it was useful or if anybody really wanted it that way), now they race to get more cores then AMD (no matter if it was useful or if anybody really wanted it that way).
This is great for many computing environments, but my home system is not one of them. Honestly there isn't much software I use on a regular basis that really taxes the second core, let alone six of them.
The ISPs themselves aren't connected to the rest of the Internet using DOCSIS. It doesn't matter how much they upgrade their "ISP to customer" connection speed if their infrastructure and pipes only allow 1Gb/s of traffic between them and the rest of the Internet.
Thats the part where the extra expense is cropping up.
If the first post is "FIRST!", Redundant isn't bad. I mean thats been done how many zillions of times already? At this point it is redundant, but in the context of the site as a whole rather then one individual article.
Of course if they gave me "-1 (Idiot)", I'd use that on the "FIRST!" people instead.
Somebody posting to Slashdot says that somebody at The Register says that an Opera blogger screeches about Mozilla. Even for Slashdot, this is a pretty weak title.
:) ), but not happy that there was only a day before it was made public. Nobody is particularly happy when they only have a day from learning there's a security hole to everybody else learning about it, thats not enough time to get a fix rolled out, so this is hardly surprising.
What they actually say is that they only had a day between notification and public disclosure. He's actually happy that Mozilla told them at all (hence the
I know Mozilla can do no wrong around here, but come on. Even the Mozilla devs would be happier getting more then one day before public disclosure of a security hole.
Actually, it'd be more like how they didn't see a difference between a site written for Netscape-HTML vs. a site written for IE-HTML.
Oh wait...
I can't wait until my options are cable monopoly throttling, or phone monopoly throttling.
There are some problems the Government actually is capable of solving better then the market. The market in this case dictates that throttling is good for the bottom line, and ending net neutrality is even better for the bottom line.
I care quite a lot when the game's check fails due to some weird SecuROM system that determines my drive isn't really a drive due to a bug.
It is. Every account on Livejournal is also an OpenID account. It makes sense since the founder of LJ is also the founder of OpenID.
Seems to be a fair number of jobs for those, so long as you don't want to call yourself an engineer.
No, I got the magic working copy too. As do some other people I know. The only things they have in common are that they all have the 64 bit version with recent hardware that has had driver updates.
Nothing breaks Vista faster then crappy drivers, and when it first came out there were tons of those around.
(The 32 bit version should never have existed, IMO. Microsoft should have used that as the dividing line. "Want a computer with less resources? Use XP. Want to use 4GB of RAM? Use Vista." Its not like Vista on a 1GB Laptop is going to work worth a damn anyway.)
You could always, oh I don't know... not buy it? SMS is not essential to survival.
"The above definition excludes all players under free promotional subscriptions, expired or cancelled subscriptions, and expired prepaid cards."
What part of "excludes expired or cancelled subscriptions" don't you understand? Subscribers are people who are currently paid up to play the game, or just bought it and are in the free month.
People keep spewing off this nonsense about how the numbers are fake with absolutely no evidence to back it up. The game really is as popular as they say it is. Anybody hitting a queue while trying to login in the last month despite there being something like 200 servers in the US alone.
The only count active subscriptions. They do count multiple accounts from the same people as multiple subscriptions (since thats exactly what they are), but thats not very uncommon.
I'm not sure how common multi-account people actually are, aside from dual boxers. I've seen people do it far more in other games, but in WoW you get so many characters (and bank space, and bank alts) anyway that there isn't much reason to do it without dual boxing.
The numbers seem pretty accurate. There's been server queues again lately for the first time in months, and EVERYWHERE has been busy. The low and mid level areas were full of players over the holidays, which is really something for a game out this long. Its also a regular on the weekly PC best seller list.