I had this thought right after I posted, however the inroads they are making into that sector could be less than they envision. It is speculative business to gauge market penetration before ubiquity.
When it comes to large institutions and licensing with Linux vendors, a number of important questions are raised.
Is it profitable? While it can be said that the costs of usage in the corporate workplace of Linux is less than other environments, it can also be said the support costs are higher. The relevant quote in this case: "unlimited access, upgrade protection and technical support". While seemingly a good thing for bolstering Linux in this market, who knows in the end if that will cost Novell more than they can handle, and thereby discourage other vendors in this market from the kind of aggressive marketing they should be engaging in if they wish to expand.
The way in which this agreement is done could harm Linux in this environment overall. According to this article, HHS and NIH don't have to migrate from other platforms. While the kneejerk reaction could be "hooray, choice!", a different reaction could be that these products aren't getting a truly fair test in this market, that is to say, showing its robustness or lack thereof in the primary operating market. Time will tell, I suppose.
Where do you find a disinterested third party in this connected world? Better yet, who decides what disinterested is? If we can't figure that out, someone interested will decide who is disinterested, and you can see the problems that could arise....
FISA (oh man, I think that's the acronym) warrants were an enlargement of executive power in that they were granted in a blanket fashion, and arguably caused great damage to checks and balances..... this could be an even greater blow to checks and balances, and thereby our rights. How much power does the executive branch really need, considering we survived hundreds of years without the current power bacchanal the executive branch enjoys?
Slippery slopes are the most fun...
on
Cubicle Privacy
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Geeks in the workplace don't need this. They have something called slashdot to tune out coworkers!
Seriously, this is an excellent idea, and an important step forward in this technology. Imagine one that works for an entire property,but in reverse.... and all the children who will use it when the guardians aren't home to have loud parties the neighbors can't hear! The neighbors can't hear you, and minors are getting drunk! Everyone wins....
The moral ramifications of this technology in a more advanced form (being able to work in reverse of this device) should be most interesting.... this is just the first step.
Right, but the point is that it was submitted as news of a site happening to exist. It was not presented to slashdot as a situation where one wishes to promote their new website. The website does have banner advertising, which companies pay for.... so submitting it as a story basically is trying to subvert paying for an advert.... which is unprofessional and is breaking the rules.
Either that or it was submitted by a person who just found it... and that seems more likely. The editorial system here usually catches that sort of thing.
Half of the gamers are over 18. That is.5. A quarter are over age 50. That is.25. The set of gamers that are over age 50 is a subset of the gamers that are over 18. The two events are not disjoint. In other words:.5 *.25 * 100% = 12.5% of gamers are over 50 years old.
Which means 50% - 12.5% = 37.5% of gamers are between ages 18 and 50 by the statistic cited.
I am unsure of his truth, but he stated it quite clearly. That's basic probability and statistics I used there.
Besides, the point in the article was sound without the statistic: making game environments juvenalian gives no incentive to mature gamers to play it. Is it true? Possibly... who knows. I side with that point.
I think the point is while "off by default" is understood, the average administrator is more likely to go "OOOOO CONVENIENT" and enable it without thinking of the potential security risks.
I would choose to disagree with that analogy, however, because a person who doesn't know the potential security risks of doing this probably isn't fit to serve in that capacity. You can't idiot-proof network administration. The administrator must know how one thing interacts with the other, or he won't be a very successful network administrator.
The changes in IIS 7 seem otherwise welcome to me.
The revenue streams of identified terrorist groups are so diverse that this is impossible.
Take Al Qaeda. We thought we shut down their financial infrastructure and marginalized the entire group.... or were at least told as such. Now look at them....
More than money drives terrorism. Cheaply made bombs exploded through the streets of Israel long before their bombs were financed into more sophisticated killing machines. Let's be careful not to overly simplify the sources of terrorism, and not chase after the red herrings laid before our path (they can steal all the copyrighted material they please as long as they don't kill in my book).
I take issue with the word "terrorist", or at least its modern application in the US., but that is besides the point. I do take issue with law enforcement being more concerned about copyright violations than deadly explosions and attacks....... this seems to be what is going on. Am I missing something?
The other problem is that the "cutting edge" has been commoditized into something a university sells. Well, let's be fair, it is their version of "cutting edge". We have been sold for so long on this that we forgot that "the cutting edge" is not learned in a school, and so have all the people who used to finance it.
Yes I am. Quite right. Except the comparison is large apples (national ID system) versus tiny apples (OS on a PC). I don't care about performance: I care about security. Part of the reason for the.net scrap was SECURITY based.
If.NET is not fit for Longhorn, how is it fit in this enlarged and more crucial role? I truly hope that those whom get presented this idea also get presented this fact as well.
"For the average computer user this is a very good thing as it should drastically improve browser performance in a short period of time."
This will also create many average users that hate the other side for no good reason. The browser wars were rife with ignorant zealots on both sides. I hope the browser war makes it to a more high-brow level of technically meritorious discussions.
Not too much, but when bosses are breathing down your neck to get it done, the simple things sometimes slip.
The market culture is just as bad for this kind of code as the mistakes of the coders, as it often forces poorer designs or the poor code due to profit motive.
To cite poor design as a source of security vulnerability is to state the obvious. We spend so many man hours fixing problems that didn't have to exist in the first place, that we cannot address the problems that came inevitably over the course of implementation of software packages and protocols.
My skepticism grows with each time I see this topic posted somewhere. The deathknell of the proprietary has been hailed as a Roman general marching onward to victory, but let us remember this: despite the rosy forecast, proprietary enterprise software packages remain.
While OSS has inherent advantages, the non-savvy end-users of business systems prefer lack of change to robustness of operation. If they didn't, OSS would be more prominent on the enterprise level. We tried to implement various builds of *nix and X window system on workstations at my place of work, and there was REVOLT IN THE AISLES.
The business world is not yet ready for the intellectual (not to mention monetary) cost of full transition to OSS. As much as I love it, the end-user isn't ready. It should remain the goal of all OSS developers to give these people more and more reason to change their minds.
Let us keep in mind: there are other reasons for the drop in revenues for these proprietary software vendors as well.
The head of the MPAA, which chooses to drag users over the coals and shut down more and more options for them to receive broadcast content, now illicits their assistance in further curtailing their viewing rights, or at least providing a mechanism to?
I've never heard machinations so Machiavellian. Trying to convince us the quality of TV shows and movies will go down..... from what point? It is pretty bad as it stands.
The most insulting line of it all: "Our companies want to continue to show their movies and television shows to viewers who don't or can't subscribe to cable or satellite systems. But without the broadcast flag, that option will look less and less appealing. In the end, it will be the consumers who suffer the most if the broadcast flag is not mandated for the digital era."
If your companies want to continue to show their programming to broadcast viewers, stop suing them and making them sell their televisions. Better yet, this is an admission that an antiquated business model will attempt self-repair through unscrupulous service cuts which harm the end-user.
The MPAA has done enough to harm the rights of viewers who can't give $23412523 dollars to the major cable and sattelite players.
We need new solutions, folks.... we just do. At this rate, who knows where we are headed in this field.
There is much passion on this point, and if one rereads my post, I believe the pushing of broadband is more worthwhile than clinging to dialup. I don't propose Grandma using a jackhammer to kill an ant: I propose that we give Grandma the option to do other things than send email all day long.
I understand the purpose of this, however I cringe whenever I see dialup being promoted into longevity.
The internet content of today chokes on dialup. The internet content of the future will not be able to live without broadband.... so why promote expanded use of any kind of dialup? Are we still in an age where there are enough people without broadband (or the cash to afford it) that we must cater in this fashion? Should this be so, efforts to bring prices down in the broadband market and increased efforts towards greater availiability (though less of a problem now) are far more meritorius than taking a dead horse and pulling a Frankenstein on it.
>Sure, my system is vulnerable. >An attacker has to get to Seattle. >And into the office building. >And disable the cameras. >And disable the alarm system. >And break into the office. >And blow the server room door. >And then steal the server. > >I'm not losing any sleep.
Neither am I.... as is acknowledged in these lines, the server is not impregnable. Not being impregnable, it can never be patched to a fully secure state. However, it has been protected to the point of nearly STATISTICALLY invalidating the likelihood of attacks. Therefore, saying "Security depends upon hardening the remaining avenues beyond the attacker's ability to successfully attack." is incomplete, as we have shown it is not possible to harden completely a system to the point of impregnability. Since this is not so, there is always someone who can get around your security measures. No technology yet invented is unhackable, so we can continue to "harden remaining methods of unwanted access" all day long. We don't know how far this will advance our cause.
Slashdot Mirror
I had this thought right after I posted, however the inroads they are making into that sector could be less than they envision. It is speculative business to gauge market penetration before ubiquity.
When it comes to large institutions and licensing with Linux vendors, a number of important questions are raised.
- Is it profitable?
- The way in which this agreement is done could harm Linux in this environment overall.
Just some thoughts.... I could be wrong.While it can be said that the costs of usage in the corporate workplace of Linux is less than other environments, it can also be said the support costs are higher. The relevant quote in this case: "unlimited access, upgrade protection and technical support". While seemingly a good thing for bolstering Linux in this market, who knows in the end if that will cost Novell more than they can handle, and thereby discourage other vendors in this market from the kind of aggressive marketing they should be engaging in if they wish to expand.
According to this article, HHS and NIH don't have to migrate from other platforms. While the kneejerk reaction could be "hooray, choice!", a different reaction could be that these products aren't getting a truly fair test in this market, that is to say, showing its robustness or lack thereof in the primary operating market. Time will tell, I suppose.
Where do you find a disinterested third party in this connected world? Better yet, who decides what disinterested is? If we can't figure that out, someone interested will decide who is disinterested, and you can see the problems that could arise....
FISA (oh man, I think that's the acronym) warrants were an enlargement of executive power in that they were granted in a blanket fashion, and arguably caused great damage to checks and balances..... this could be an even greater blow to checks and balances, and thereby our rights. How much power does the executive branch really need, considering we survived hundreds of years without the current power bacchanal the executive branch enjoys?
Geeks in the workplace don't need this. They have something called slashdot to tune out coworkers!
Seriously, this is an excellent idea, and an important step forward in this technology. Imagine one that works for an entire property,but in reverse.... and all the children who will use it when the guardians aren't home to have loud parties the neighbors can't hear! The neighbors can't hear you, and minors are getting drunk! Everyone wins....
The moral ramifications of this technology in a more advanced form (being able to work in reverse of this device) should be most interesting.... this is just the first step.
Sure, but the possibility exists since you don't have the original email. However, it is a good point to raise.
Right, but the point is that it was submitted as news of a site happening to exist. It was not presented to slashdot as a situation where one wishes to promote their new website. The website does have banner advertising, which companies pay for.... so submitting it as a story basically is trying to subvert paying for an advert.... which is unprofessional and is breaking the rules.
Either that or it was submitted by a person who just found it... and that seems more likely. The editorial system here usually catches that sort of thing.
How is stability not linked to security?
That is incorrect mathematics.
.5. A quarter are over age 50. That is .25. The set of gamers that are over age 50 is a subset of the gamers that are over 18. The two events are not disjoint. In other words: .5 * .25 * 100% = 12.5% of gamers are over 50 years old.
Half of the gamers are over 18. That is
Which means 50% - 12.5% = 37.5% of gamers are between ages 18 and 50 by the statistic cited.
I am unsure of his truth, but he stated it quite clearly. That's basic probability and statistics I used there.
Besides, the point in the article was sound without the statistic: making game environments juvenalian gives no incentive to mature gamers to play it. Is it true? Possibly... who knows. I side with that point.
I think the point is while "off by default" is understood, the average administrator is more likely to go "OOOOO CONVENIENT" and enable it without thinking of the potential security risks.
I would choose to disagree with that analogy, however, because a person who doesn't know the potential security risks of doing this probably isn't fit to serve in that capacity. You can't idiot-proof network administration. The administrator must know how one thing interacts with the other, or he won't be a very successful network administrator.
The changes in IIS 7 seem otherwise welcome to me.
The revenue streams of identified terrorist groups are so diverse that this is impossible.
Take Al Qaeda. We thought we shut down their financial infrastructure and marginalized the entire group.... or were at least told as such. Now look at them....
More than money drives terrorism. Cheaply made bombs exploded through the streets of Israel long before their bombs were financed into more sophisticated killing machines. Let's be careful not to overly simplify the sources of terrorism, and not chase after the red herrings laid before our path (they can steal all the copyrighted material they please as long as they don't kill in my book).
I take issue with the word "terrorist", or at least its modern application in the US., but that is besides the point. I do take issue with law enforcement being more concerned about copyright violations than deadly explosions and attacks....... this seems to be what is going on. Am I missing something?
This you mean?
The other problem is that the "cutting edge" has been commoditized into something a university sells. Well, let's be fair, it is their version of "cutting edge". We have been sold for so long on this that we forgot that "the cutting edge" is not learned in a school, and so have all the people who used to finance it.
Yes I am. Quite right. Except the comparison is large apples (national ID system) versus tiny apples (OS on a PC). I don't care about performance: I care about security. Part of the reason for the .net scrap was SECURITY based.
If .NET is not fit for Longhorn, how is it fit in this enlarged and more crucial role? I truly hope that those whom get presented this idea also get presented this fact as well.
"For the average computer user this is a very good thing as it should drastically improve browser performance in a short period of time."
This will also create many average users that hate the other side for no good reason. The browser wars were rife with ignorant zealots on both sides. I hope the browser war makes it to a more high-brow level of technically meritorious discussions.
Viruses.... attack.... cells?
It is still the attack analogy on the biological level in that example.
Not too much, but when bosses are breathing down your neck to get it done, the simple things sometimes slip.
The market culture is just as bad for this kind of code as the mistakes of the coders, as it often forces poorer designs or the poor code due to profit motive.
To cite poor design as a source of security vulnerability is to state the obvious. We spend so many man hours fixing problems that didn't have to exist in the first place, that we cannot address the problems that came inevitably over the course of implementation of software packages and protocols.
My skepticism grows with each time I see this topic posted somewhere. The deathknell of the proprietary has been hailed as a Roman general marching onward to victory, but let us remember this: despite the rosy forecast, proprietary enterprise software packages remain.
While OSS has inherent advantages, the non-savvy end-users of business systems prefer lack of change to robustness of operation. If they didn't, OSS would be more prominent on the enterprise level. We tried to implement various builds of *nix and X window system on workstations at my place of work, and there was REVOLT IN THE AISLES.
The business world is not yet ready for the intellectual (not to mention monetary) cost of full transition to OSS. As much as I love it, the end-user isn't ready. It should remain the goal of all OSS developers to give these people more and more reason to change their minds.
Let us keep in mind: there are other reasons for the drop in revenues for these proprietary software vendors as well.
The head of the MPAA, which chooses to drag users over the coals and shut down more and more options for them to receive broadcast content, now illicits their assistance in further curtailing their viewing rights, or at least providing a mechanism to?
I've never heard machinations so Machiavellian. Trying to convince us the quality of TV shows and movies will go down..... from what point? It is pretty bad as it stands.
The most insulting line of it all:
"Our companies want to continue to show their movies and television shows to viewers who don't or can't subscribe to cable or satellite systems. But without the broadcast flag, that option will look less and less appealing. In the end, it will be the consumers who suffer the most if the broadcast flag is not mandated for the digital era."
If your companies want to continue to show their programming to broadcast viewers, stop suing them and making them sell their televisions. Better yet, this is an admission that an antiquated business model will attempt self-repair through unscrupulous service cuts which harm the end-user.
The MPAA has done enough to harm the rights of viewers who can't give $23412523 dollars to the major cable and sattelite players.
We need new solutions, folks.... we just do. At this rate, who knows where we are headed in this field.
There is much passion on this point, and if one rereads my post, I believe the pushing of broadband is more worthwhile than clinging to dialup. I don't propose Grandma using a jackhammer to kill an ant: I propose that we give Grandma the option to do other things than send email all day long.
By and large, but I speak of those that don't.... I also speak of earlier days of spamming, when the spammers did it from real email accounts.
I understand the purpose of this, however I cringe whenever I see dialup being promoted into longevity.
The internet content of today chokes on dialup. The internet content of the future will not be able to live without broadband.... so why promote expanded use of any kind of dialup? Are we still in an age where there are enough people without broadband (or the cash to afford it) that we must cater in this fashion? Should this be so, efforts to bring prices down in the broadband market and increased efforts towards greater availiability (though less of a problem now) are far more meritorius than taking a dead horse and pulling a Frankenstein on it.
>Sure, my system is vulnerable.
>An attacker has to get to Seattle.
>And into the office building.
>And disable the cameras.
>And disable the alarm system.
>And break into the office.
>And blow the server room door.
>And then steal the server.
>
>I'm not losing any sleep.
Neither am I.... as is acknowledged in these lines, the server is not impregnable. Not being impregnable, it can never be patched to a fully secure state. However, it has been protected to the point of nearly STATISTICALLY invalidating the likelihood of attacks. Therefore, saying "Security depends upon hardening the remaining avenues beyond the attacker's ability to successfully attack." is incomplete, as we have shown it is not possible to harden completely a system to the point of impregnability. Since this is not so, there is always someone who can get around your security measures. No technology yet invented is unhackable, so we can continue to "harden remaining methods of unwanted access" all day long. We don't know how far this will advance our cause.