Getting the email client to run it in one click. Also, thanks to setuid binaries and a long term security model granny can actually use linux without knowing the admin password, which is simply not possible on windows due to things like CD burning and lots of win9x apps that need write access to the registry. (If you can socially engineer her into chmod +xing your perl script, I can socially engineer her into entering her admin password when I ask for it)
The point is we do now have some eggs. IIRC there was a cups exploit a couple of weeks back which would do for the ham. So if a cracker had this vulnerability 2 weeks ago, he would have a remote root. And realistically, given the amount of servers there are, he probably does have a remote access vulnerability in *something*, giving him a remote root.
But combine it with a remote exploit that gives unpriviliged user access - such as the recent cups vulnerability if you haven't patched it - and you have your remote root.
What about where they have alarms connected to the casing? Most systems are 0wned as soon as you have physical access, but in that case it's not so easy. Of course no alarm is perfect, but you'd have to be pretty good to know how to get around the alarm and how to use that to take control of the system.
In Python a lie is actually a line, as in it ends with a carriage return. 13 lines in a language with syntactically significant whitespace is, to my mind, a very good achievement, even though I hate to see Python abused so.
However, surely any link from a non-trusted site could contain a virus just as easily if it was in the location it appears? I mean, if a hack^H^H^H^Hcracker has access to www.nicesite.com, does it matter if he makes a fake link that really downloads from www.nastysite.com or just replaces the file at www.nicesite.com?
How many of those laptops is it impossible to get a battery for from third parties? And how many of the manufacturers have changed their design to stop the third party batteries from working after they've started being made?
At the point when MS did that, there hadn't been a case determining that they had an illegal monopoly either. This *is* the case, I can't cite it until it's been decided. Whilst there are alternatives, that doesn't make it impossible for them to have a monopoly. There were always alternatives to MS too.
The product space is major-label music, and there you have to sell with DRM. It's like MS blocking out Lotus etc. and then claiming there's no problem because they allow swahili office suites from third parties to run on windows, just not english ones.
It is a monopoly, as much as MS's OS monopoly. Your parts analogy is wrong because music is more general than specific parts. It's more akin to suing Ford because they only let you use "special Ford gas" for ford cars, and make sure their cars won't work with anyone else's gas. I don't know about you, but if I get music from a music store I expect to be able to play it on a variety of players, not just that store's own one, and I expect a music player I buy to be able to play all sorts of music. It's not a case of components of the same product like the examples you list. The music and the player are different products and being sold as such. iTMS doesn't say it's selling "music for the ipod", nor does the ipod call itself a player for iTMS music.
They're competing, which is fair enough, but no excuse for apple to be abusing their position. And yes, Apple is supposed to sit there and be happy about the ipod having been hacked.
Umm. I can still go buy from Napster, Rhapsody, Walmart, or whoever I want to. Apple isn't stopping me from doing that. I can't play it on my iPod, oh well. Burn it on a CD or buy another music player.
Good for you if you can afford to just go out and buy another one. I can't.
How is that borderline anti-competitive? I make a music player, and I put support in for several formats. I don't put support in for WMV because I don't like it, and it will cost me money to license. I've already spent money on a perfectly good protective format, why license two when up to now, there has been no demand?
The problem is they won't license their protective format to other music stores
Right. I'm sure Apple is supposed to do QA Testing for Real. The Apple engineers sit down and think before they make a change: "Will this change break Real's support?". No. They don't do that. They fix bugs, they make slight modifications to improve security, and because Real reverse engineered it and only has part of the picture of what the DRM does, their implementation breaks.
I wouldn't have a problem if that was what had happened, but that wasn't it at all. Apple made a single deliberate change that had no other purpose, just to break Real's DRM.
None of the others have the same style. What if I get it as a present? And if iPod owners don't want to get their music elsewhere, why is apple so afraid of allowing them to do so?
No, that's exactly what they're doing. The only reason they support mp3 etc. is because no one would buy something they couldn't play their gigabytes of pirated music on. Real came to them and offered them money to be able to use the same DRM. Then apple wouldn't have to have done any more work at all, and what's more, they'd have got money for it. So it's not just them wanting to avoid supporting other people's files.
Slashdot Mirror
Getting the email client to run it in one click. Also, thanks to setuid binaries and a long term security model granny can actually use linux without knowing the admin password, which is simply not possible on windows due to things like CD burning and lots of win9x apps that need write access to the registry. (If you can socially engineer her into chmod +xing your perl script, I can socially engineer her into entering her admin password when I ask for it)
The point is we do now have some eggs. IIRC there was a cups exploit a couple of weeks back which would do for the ham. So if a cracker had this vulnerability 2 weeks ago, he would have a remote root. And realistically, given the amount of servers there are, he probably does have a remote access vulnerability in *something*, giving him a remote root.
But combine it with a remote exploit that gives unpriviliged user access - such as the recent cups vulnerability if you haven't patched it - and you have your remote root.
What about where they have alarms connected to the casing? Most systems are 0wned as soon as you have physical access, but in that case it's not so easy. Of course no alarm is perfect, but you'd have to be pretty good to know how to get around the alarm and how to use that to take control of the system.
-funroll-all-loops usually slows things down compared to -funroll-loops.
Like I've said before, kernel 2.6 is simply not stable yet. Wait until they fork off 2.7, then with luck it will settle down.
Have you tried buying a major-label cd within the past few months?
In Python a lie is actually a line, as in it ends with a carriage return. 13 lines in a language with syntactically significant whitespace is, to my mind, a very good achievement, even though I hate to see Python abused so.
I do, because my mousewheel doesn't work in Adobe Acrobat and I can't read long texts very well without my wheel.
Yes. A friend had a fileserver running on it. More importantly, it is definitely non-vapor, in that the code is there and does work.
Because we've given up hoping for MS to fix things soon. Sad but true.
But can't you use -Wpointer-arith etc?
Sorry, but 2. is a serious bug. Just because you don't go on usenet, doesn't mean no-one does. Any link should be safe.
Erm, your code has a bug. Main needs to return int, not void. Try compiling it and you'll get a warning.
When you have to pay to upgrade, it's a different matter.
However, surely any link from a non-trusted site could contain a virus just as easily if it was in the location it appears? I mean, if a hack^H^H^H^Hcracker has access to www.nicesite.com, does it matter if he makes a fake link that really downloads from www.nastysite.com or just replaces the file at www.nicesite.com?
How many of those laptops is it impossible to get a battery for from third parties? And how many of the manufacturers have changed their design to stop the third party batteries from working after they've started being made?
At the point when MS did that, there hadn't been a case determining that they had an illegal monopoly either. This *is* the case, I can't cite it until it's been decided. Whilst there are alternatives, that doesn't make it impossible for them to have a monopoly. There were always alternatives to MS too.
The product space is major-label music, and there you have to sell with DRM. It's like MS blocking out Lotus etc. and then claiming there's no problem because they allow swahili office suites from third parties to run on windows, just not english ones.
It is a monopoly, as much as MS's OS monopoly. Your parts analogy is wrong because music is more general than specific parts. It's more akin to suing Ford because they only let you use "special Ford gas" for ford cars, and make sure their cars won't work with anyone else's gas. I don't know about you, but if I get music from a music store I expect to be able to play it on a variety of players, not just that store's own one, and I expect a music player I buy to be able to play all sorts of music. It's not a case of components of the same product like the examples you list. The music and the player are different products and being sold as such. iTMS doesn't say it's selling "music for the ipod", nor does the ipod call itself a player for iTMS music.
It's apples fault for refusing to license the DRM. There was no legitimate reason to do so.
They're competing, which is fair enough, but no excuse for apple to be abusing their position. And yes, Apple is supposed to sit there and be happy about the ipod having been hacked.
Good for you if you can afford to just go out and buy another one. I can't.
How is that borderline anti-competitive? I make a music player, and I put support in for several formats. I don't put support in for WMV because I don't like it, and it will cost me money to license. I've already spent money on a perfectly good protective format, why license two when up to now, there has been no demand?
The problem is they won't license their protective format to other music stores
Right. I'm sure Apple is supposed to do QA Testing for Real. The Apple engineers sit down and think before they make a change: "Will this change break Real's support?". No. They don't do that. They fix bugs, they make slight modifications to improve security, and because Real reverse engineered it and only has part of the picture of what the DRM does, their implementation breaks.
I wouldn't have a problem if that was what had happened, but that wasn't it at all. Apple made a single deliberate change that had no other purpose, just to break Real's DRM.
None of the others have the same style. What if I get it as a present? And if iPod owners don't want to get their music elsewhere, why is apple so afraid of allowing them to do so?
No, that's exactly what they're doing. The only reason they support mp3 etc. is because no one would buy something they couldn't play their gigabytes of pirated music on. Real came to them and offered them money to be able to use the same DRM. Then apple wouldn't have to have done any more work at all, and what's more, they'd have got money for it. So it's not just them wanting to avoid supporting other people's files.