As far as I read the article, the problem wasn't that Linus or Andrew didn't think the bug was serious enough, the problem rather lies in the way that they read their email.
If you read the comments on the bottom of the article, you can see that a few years ago, Linus and Andrew decided to have some 'trusted' people; people who will contact them about security issues. This includes people from SuSE and Debian... this was done, plainly because they received way too many emails.
Now, in ''the scene'', this is a well-known fact. However, the PaX guys didn't know this, and plainly submitted the bug reports to Linus and Andrew... who didn't respond, since they probably have some sort of email filter for it. Now, the PaX guys are all insulted and oohhh and aahhh, while in fact, Linus probably didn't even see the email once.
The actual issue here rather is people not knowing about this procedure, and is only able to be retrieved through Google... and ofcourse the PaX guys opening up an unfixed exploit because they were all pissed because they didn't understand it...
I can understand both point of views, but imho, one should never ever ever open up an exploit when only having sent two emails to the direct top. Do your research first, find out how you submit bug reports. Everyone has had their first meeting with the netiquette on newsgroups/mailinglists too, and for a lot of people, this might have been an unpleasant experience too. This shouldn't necessary mean it is wrong to have those rules, they're there for a reason. The same thing goes for bug reports...
If movies were simultaneously released on DVD and in theaters, would anyone even go anymore ? I sure wouldn't. Between the cell phones, commercials, children climbing the back of my chair, and the dude smoking in front of me, I think it's a safe bet I'd rather stay home.
And if the movie would be on tv at the same time as on dvd, would you still buy the dvd ?
My point is, there is a reason that movies first appear in theater, and that a dvd is released before it airs on tv.
These days one person goes into the theater and copies the movie and distributes it in DVD or VCD format so all their friends can watch it from the comfort of their own couches. Which are much nicer than those cramped movie theater seats, don't you think?
The difference is that these 'friends' are tens of millions of people online. There only needs to be one guy capturing the movie, and the entire world has access within a matter of hours. That's the difference.
Due to very irritating interstitial advertisements, here is the text of the second article:
French Government To Protect Ubisoft From EA?
December 30, 2004 - An AFX Financial report suggests that the French government may take steps to protect Ubisoft from acquisition by EA, should they decide to expand their 19.9% ownership:
The heads of the studios fear that a purchase of Ubisoft by EA would lead to the disappearance of the last decision making centre in France for the video games industry, La Tribune added.
Ubisoft said last night it is not in talks 'at present' with EA about the US company's recent purchase of a stake. 'In light of recent news spread by the press, Ubisofts board of directors reiterates that, in the absence of information from Electronic Arts regarding its intentions, the latter's acquisition of 19.9 pct of the groups capital is unsolicited and currently considered as hostile,' the company said.
Les Echos newspaper reported yesterday that Ubisoft will gather together some of its largest shareholders next week in a bid to convince them not to throw their weight behind EA.
Just a paragraph below your quote. And it's not like he dictates every move for Linux. If there are (and on Solaris/SPARC there sure are) better things in Solaris than Linux, I'm sure he'd welcome any improvement suggestions.
That doesn't take away it's downright arrogant to say you don't need anything the competitors might offer, and really, any other commercial-software spokesman would be modded +5 Ignorant.
When Sun releases Solaris as open-source software, will you take a peek? Probably not. Not because of any animosity, but simply because I don't have the time or the interest. Linux has never been about "others," it's been about getting better than itself, so I don't really have any motivation to play around with Solaris.
Hmmm, I'm pretty sure that if that quote came from some executive at a Redmond-based company, the reactions would be outrageous. What ever happened to the concept of looking at your neighbours what they're doing better than you, instead of isolating your own development ?
I really can't imagine neither of these sites would say something naughty about the MPAA if they would be the reason the sites has to shut down, so what *could* the reason be ?
Simple bandwidth usage or server load ? To me, that looks like about the only option left, and sounds very plausible after reading Suprnova's message...
It's all very very weird, especially both sites going down at the same time...
... FYI: The total value of all the shares is 10.3 billion dollar... seriously, does Oracle really think to make $2 out of every living being on earth by acquiring Peoplesoft?
It might sound bad that some applications might miss out on being certified - but from RH and IBM's point of view, having the best apps working for your customers means keeping the customers happy - so to me it's unlikely much "perfectly good for the job" software is going to lose out.
That, and probably security elements will be taken into consideration. Perhaps it will mean that they will require projects to have a good QA policy and force them to actively protect that, something that some projects don't... it might all work out for the best and perhaps, perhaps will lead to better quality software...
Who knows, maybe they will finally make open source developers spend more time on user interface design and documentation/user manual... I can easily see that as a requirement, so that their [redhat, ibm] customers will call for support less often...
Re:Cool! Just like form AutoComplete
on
Google Suggest
·
· Score: 1
Sheesh, the amount of servers at slashdot is like at least one thousand times less than the amount of servers at google... what do you expect ?
Magazine ads don't animate and attempt to distract and annoy you and are successful; so web site ads can follow this model too.
I don't completely agree with this. Magazine ads do differ from website advertisements in the way people look at them. Website banners are usually simply ignored by visitors; how much do you actually look at the top banner here at slashdot ? I personally don't even *notice* it no more... people who use the internet frequently tend to ignore the advertisements, simply because visiting websites is so much of a routine.
In traditional magazine advertisements, you usually look over the page to look wether there's something interresting in there, and notice the (possible) advertisement(s). Now, with a website, you just click back, and watch the list of things, click what you like, read the article and can ignore the rest of the space.
I think websites should rather be compared with television advertisements, and I think the trend is moving towards full-page advertisements, simply because people will be using advertisement blockers way too much. Advertisements don't get seen anymore, unless you put a page between the pages you visit with a full page interstitial, which sites such as yahoo are already using...
Please don't speak for me when I don't agree with you. I don't use Firefox because it blocks ads, I use it because Firefox simply does the job under Linux... could just as well be using Opera, if it was free and open-source.
... isn't it rather that the people who use Firefox generally are more 'technical' than the people who use IE, spend more time online, etc, and therefor simply are less likely to click on the advertisements, rather than it being due to Firefox' ad-blocking technology ?
It looks like the entire DNS server is down... now that sounds like something Slashdot is *not* resposible for - how much load should a DNS server require for a single domain ?
Non-authoritative answer:
*** Can't find gocc.gov: No answer
That's a good one, then we can all start paying per search on Google...
No really, I rather have the (somewhat) related advertising near my results... the way Google handles its advertising (in a non-blinking, agressive way) should be an example for other businesses, rather than saying they should get rid of it. It would make the web a lot better:)
A few years ago, they began allowing the crazy private tld ".123.nl" and such. This wasn't much of a success (hey, the person who owned '123.nl' could even do that), so they decided to allow it alll..
Right now, it's pretty easy for a company to claim a domain name that is 'truely' theirs over here, which is a big advantage. However, you are able to register it without any proof of being a legit company. Your information is outdated..:P
Slashdot Mirror
As far as I read the article, the problem wasn't that Linus or Andrew didn't think the bug was serious enough, the problem rather lies in the way that they read their email.
If you read the comments on the bottom of the article, you can see that a few years ago, Linus and Andrew decided to have some 'trusted' people; people who will contact them about security issues. This includes people from SuSE and Debian... this was done, plainly because they received way too many emails.
Now, in ''the scene'', this is a well-known fact. However, the PaX guys didn't know this, and plainly submitted the bug reports to Linus and Andrew... who didn't respond, since they probably have some sort of email filter for it. Now, the PaX guys are all insulted and oohhh and aahhh, while in fact, Linus probably didn't even see the email once.
The actual issue here rather is people not knowing about this procedure, and is only able to be retrieved through Google... and ofcourse the PaX guys opening up an unfixed exploit because they were all pissed because they didn't understand it...
I can understand both point of views, but imho, one should never ever ever open up an exploit when only having sent two emails to the direct top. Do your research first, find out how you submit bug reports. Everyone has had their first meeting with the netiquette on newsgroups/mailinglists too, and for a lot of people, this might have been an unpleasant experience too. This shouldn't necessary mean it is wrong to have those rules, they're there for a reason. The same thing goes for bug reports...
If movies were simultaneously released on DVD and in theaters, would anyone even go anymore ? I sure wouldn't. Between the cell phones, commercials, children climbing the back of my chair, and the dude smoking in front of me, I think it's a safe bet I'd rather stay home.
And if the movie would be on tv at the same time as on dvd, would you still buy the dvd ?
My point is, there is a reason that movies first appear in theater, and that a dvd is released before it airs on tv.
These days one person goes into the theater and copies the movie and distributes it in DVD or VCD format so all their friends can watch it from the comfort of their own couches. Which are much nicer than those cramped movie theater seats, don't you think?
The difference is that these 'friends' are tens of millions of people online. There only needs to be one guy capturing the movie, and the entire world has access within a matter of hours. That's the difference.
"Those poor smugglers..." ... and yet you post the article on Slashdot to give those companies extra exposure ? :)
Due to very irritating interstitial advertisements, here is the text of the second article:
French Government To Protect Ubisoft From EA?
December 30, 2004 - An AFX Financial report suggests that the French government may take steps to protect Ubisoft from acquisition by EA, should they decide to expand their 19.9% ownership:
The heads of the studios fear that a purchase of Ubisoft by EA would lead to the disappearance of the last decision making centre in France for the video games industry, La Tribune added.
Ubisoft said last night it is not in talks 'at present' with EA about the US company's recent purchase of a stake. 'In light of recent news spread by the press, Ubisofts board of directors reiterates that, in the absence of information from Electronic Arts regarding its intentions, the latter's acquisition of 19.9 pct of the groups capital is unsolicited and currently considered as hostile,' the company said.
Les Echos newspaper reported yesterday that Ubisoft will gather together some of its largest shareholders next week in a bid to convince them not to throw their weight behind EA.
-- Andrew Burnes
Just a paragraph below your quote. And it's not like he dictates every move for Linux. If there are (and on Solaris/SPARC there sure are) better things in Solaris than Linux, I'm sure he'd welcome any improvement suggestions.
That doesn't take away it's downright arrogant to say you don't need anything the competitors might offer, and really, any other commercial-software spokesman would be modded +5 Ignorant.
From TFA:
When Sun releases Solaris as open-source software, will you take a peek?
Probably not. Not because of any animosity, but simply because I don't have the time or the interest. Linux has never been about "others," it's been about getting better than itself, so I don't really have any motivation to play around with Solaris.
Hmmm, I'm pretty sure that if that quote came from some executive at a Redmond-based company, the reactions would be outrageous. What ever happened to the concept of looking at your neighbours what they're doing better than you, instead of isolating your own development ?
I really can't imagine neither of these sites would say something naughty about the MPAA if they would be the reason the sites has to shut down, so what *could* the reason be ?
Simple bandwidth usage or server load ? To me, that looks like about the only option left, and sounds very plausible after reading Suprnova's message...
It's all very very weird, especially both sites going down at the same time...
HA! Obviously you aren't teh l33t, otherwise you would understand...
Woohoo, even Bill Gates has a mug shot! :)
... so, since they've discovered that many bugs, where's the patch? :)
... FYI: The total value of all the shares is 10.3 billion dollar... seriously, does Oracle really think to make $2 out of every living being on earth by acquiring Peoplesoft?
Wasn't there some sort of blog link service of NYT so bloggers could link to their articles without having the visitors having to register ?
It might sound bad that some applications might miss out on being certified - but from RH and IBM's point of view, having the best apps working for your customers means keeping the customers happy - so to me it's unlikely much "perfectly good for the job" software is going to lose out.
That, and probably security elements will be taken into consideration. Perhaps it will mean that they will require projects to have a good QA policy and force them to actively protect that, something that some projects don't... it might all work out for the best and perhaps, perhaps will lead to better quality software...
Who knows, maybe they will finally make open source developers spend more time on user interface design and documentation/user manual... I can easily see that as a requirement, so that their [redhat, ibm] customers will call for support less often...
Sheesh, the amount of servers at slashdot is like at least one thousand times less than the amount of servers at google... what do you expect ?
And what's wrong with a little redistribution of wealth ?
Go ahead moderators, mod me down, i'll take the punishment for such a communist idea :),/p>
Hehe, myeah, accidently overread that part... already posted reply, and well, slashdot doesn't allow editing/deleting posts...
Magazine ads don't animate and attempt to distract and annoy you and are successful; so web site ads can follow this model too.
I don't completely agree with this. Magazine ads do differ from website advertisements in the way people look at them. Website banners are usually simply ignored by visitors; how much do you actually look at the top banner here at slashdot ? I personally don't even *notice* it no more... people who use the internet frequently tend to ignore the advertisements, simply because visiting websites is so much of a routine.
In traditional magazine advertisements, you usually look over the page to look wether there's something interresting in there, and notice the (possible) advertisement(s). Now, with a website, you just click back, and watch the list of things, click what you like, read the article and can ignore the rest of the space.
I think websites should rather be compared with television advertisements, and I think the trend is moving towards full-page advertisements, simply because people will be using advertisement blockers way too much. Advertisements don't get seen anymore, unless you put a page between the pages you visit with a full page interstitial, which sites such as yahoo are already using...
Please don't speak for me when I don't agree with you. I don't use Firefox because it blocks ads, I use it because Firefox simply does the job under Linux... could just as well be using Opera, if it was free and open-source.
... isn't it rather that the people who use Firefox generally are more 'technical' than the people who use IE, spend more time online, etc, and therefor simply are less likely to click on the advertisements, rather than it being due to Firefox' ad-blocking technology ?
Sheesh, when you're doing that, can't you just make gocc.gov a ServerAlias of www.gocc.gov ?
Sounds a lot better to me, and is far more commonly used...
... go to www.gocc.gov instead - they apparantly don't know how to set DNS servers at the government, and require a www. in front... :)
It looks like the entire DNS server is down... now that sounds like something Slashdot is *not* resposible for - how much load should a DNS server require for a single domain ?
That's a good one, then we can all start paying per search on Google...
No really, I rather have the (somewhat) related advertising near my results... the way Google handles its advertising (in a non-blinking, agressive way) should be an example for other businesses, rather than saying they should get rid of it. It would make the web a lot better :)
4 years ago yes...
A few years ago, they began allowing the crazy private tld ".123.nl" and such. This wasn't much of a success (hey, the person who owned '123.nl' could even do that), so they decided to allow it alll..
Right now, it's pretty easy for a company to claim a domain name that is 'truely' theirs over here, which is a big advantage. However, you are able to register it without any proof of being a legit company. Your information is outdated.. :P