If they get time off for their work, that's great. However, the question is what if a vulnerability is made public on a day the admins have off?
It's not so much about the weekend itself as it is about time off for admins and techies.
Also, many managers don't like giving admins time off during business days in case business is disrupted. They also have to minimize costs so they can't hire a shift team.
Perhaps. However, this is the downside of people making their discoveries public at inappropriate times.
If a system was created where people who discovered the vulnerabilities were credited in the advisories, which would be made public after a solution was found, it would solve pretty much everything.
Then again, Orwell taught me that utopia isn't all it's cracked up to be.
Good IT technicians do what it takes to keep their systems secure, given their resources. But expecting them to slave over their systems, testing and rolling out every new patch as soon as it's out is ludicrous.
If coming in on a weekend isn't asking too much, where do you draw the line?
They need to provide similar features in order for it to be considered a viable alternative.
OOo is by no means an MSO-killer, but it is a competitor and an alternative. With OOo 2.0 they'd have made a product that can be used in most situations.
For most, the world is real, and the things in this world are real because you can observe them. In this case, (some) birds can fly because you observe them flying, thus proving their ability to fly. If you are not real, and just a Matrixesque brain-in-a-jar, this is all just a mental exercise.
If you believe that everything exists in the mind, i.e. that you see what you see because your mind/brain tells you that you see what it is conjuring up, then you are God, and thus can be examined scientifically, albeit by yourself.
God and existence are philosophical questions, not scientific ones.
This is true. But as long as no proof exists, it may exist, but it cannot be considered part of science.
We most likely will not know if God does or does not exist. But intelligent design cannot be considered part of science until and unless every facet of the theory is held up to scientific investigation, which God can't be, as of yet.
It lost out in 64-bit acceptance and dual-core, so it seems. But apart from tech-aficionados, the world is 32-bit x86, which is Intel's domain.
What does that mean for the future? Absolutely nothing. Until and unless the world switches to 64-bit or dual-core computing in droves, Intel still has time to catch up where it matters.
IBM is playing it smart, however. It's investing in consumer electronics with the Cell. That is growing faster than the desktop or server market.
Even if AMD is beating Intel, it has nothing in the consumer electronics domain.
It seems to use fingerprinting and heuristics (as exhaustive searches of this kind are impossible for large projects), aka CodeRank.
True, buffer overflows are numerous, and gdb would be easier to use to find such bugs. However, buffer overflows were just an example. However, if a buffer overflow is found in some part of the code, a "fingerprint" could be developed for that kind of error - something like a regexp for code, but with heuristics and fingerprinting.
For example, one could write a bug-filled line of code, perhaps something with a buffer-overflow. This could then be matched with open-source projects and projects with buffer overflows are found. Of course, this could also be used to find vulnerabilities and so on.
Is there any indication that Microsoft's patents themselves are free of patent or prior art issues? Seeing as how the USPO and other patent offices around the world are swamped, I doubt that all of Microsoft's patents will hold up.
In any case, suing open-source projects like OpenOffice or KOffice doesn't help Microsoft at all. The lawsuit will be extended, not unlike IBM and SCO. With IBM, Novell, RedHat and others relying on projects such as these office suites to help them provide alternatives for their customers, they'd most likely join the suit to make sure that they don't lose a project critical to Linux's growing adoption.
In the best case scenario, those products are taken off the market in the US, and other countries where they sue, and win. That would leave many parts of Asia, Africa and South America, which are Microsoft's biggest targets as those places are developing quickly.
In the worst case scenario, they lose respectability for suing a legitimate project, further adding to the claims of monopolistic tendencies against them. Reputation and respectability aid trust, which is critical for software houses.
I don't believe Microsoft will sue. I hope for their own sake, they don't.
Slashdot Mirror
If they get time off for their work, that's great. However, the question is what if a vulnerability is made public on a day the admins have off?
It's not so much about the weekend itself as it is about time off for admins and techies.
Also, many managers don't like giving admins time off during business days in case business is disrupted. They also have to minimize costs so they can't hire a shift team.
If you can, that's fine. The OP was talking about coming back on weekends, i.e. the ability to patch remotely doesn't exist.
It's about hypotheticals here.
Perhaps. However, this is the downside of people making their discoveries public at inappropriate times.
If a system was created where people who discovered the vulnerabilities were credited in the advisories, which would be made public after a solution was found, it would solve pretty much everything.
Then again, Orwell taught me that utopia isn't all it's cracked up to be.
Good IT technicians do what it takes to keep their systems secure, given their resources. But expecting them to slave over their systems, testing and rolling out every new patch as soon as it's out is ludicrous.
If coming in on a weekend isn't asking too much, where do you draw the line?
A lot of "stupid" web developers use GET so that those states can be bookmarked or sent to others so they can do something with it.
Unless you have another idea, using GET for states is here to stay.
Would IT technicians come back on weekends to fix their systems? If not, then making vulnerabilities public at that time only helps script kiddies.
Waiting until Monday ensures that IT guys get a rest too.
The faster they exhaust the synonym-based naming scheme, the faster they can start on the corporate sponsorship.
Imagine the Yankees-band, where your bandwidth, in Gbps, is equivalent to the roster salary.
They need to provide similar features in order for it to be considered a viable alternative.
OOo is by no means an MSO-killer, but it is a competitor and an alternative. With OOo 2.0 they'd have made a product that can be used in most situations.
Now is where the fight begins.
It depends on what your definition of real is.
For most, the world is real, and the things in this world are real because you can observe them. In this case, (some) birds can fly because you observe them flying, thus proving their ability to fly. If you are not real, and just a Matrixesque brain-in-a-jar, this is all just a mental exercise.
If you believe that everything exists in the mind, i.e. that you see what you see because your mind/brain tells you that you see what it is conjuring up, then you are God, and thus can be examined scientifically, albeit by yourself.
God and existence are philosophical questions, not scientific ones.
You're missing the point. You think Intelligent Design is logical.
This is true. But as long as no proof exists, it may exist, but it cannot be considered part of science.
We most likely will not know if God does or does not exist. But intelligent design cannot be considered part of science until and unless every facet of the theory is held up to scientific investigation, which God can't be, as of yet.
When a mommy God loves a daddy God...
The problem is that the concept of a supernatural being begets far more questions than it answers.
And given that there is no proof of such a being, apart from events and instances attributed to it, it is a matter of faith, and thus not of science.
It is perfectly acceptable for people to believe God uses evolution as a tool. But it is not science.
"It" refers to AMD, not Intel.
Tea-drinkers
It lost out in 64-bit acceptance and dual-core, so it seems. But apart from tech-aficionados, the world is 32-bit x86, which is Intel's domain.
What does that mean for the future? Absolutely nothing. Until and unless the world switches to 64-bit or dual-core computing in droves, Intel still has time to catch up where it matters.
IBM is playing it smart, however. It's investing in consumer electronics with the Cell. That is growing faster than the desktop or server market.
Even if AMD is beating Intel, it has nothing in the consumer electronics domain.
Ever known an engineer to use a simple strategy when a complex one would suffice?
Any ham-radio enthusiast can make one of those. A stereographic mapping satellite, on the other hand, is engineer-grade.
Looks like Jordan, aka Katie Price, has two very nice moons then.
It seems to use fingerprinting and heuristics (as exhaustive searches of this kind are impossible for large projects), aka CodeRank.
True, buffer overflows are numerous, and gdb would be easier to use to find such bugs. However, buffer overflows were just an example. However, if a buffer overflow is found in some part of the code, a "fingerprint" could be developed for that kind of error - something like a regexp for code, but with heuristics and fingerprinting.
Alright, I'll lay off the sci-fi for a while.
I bet if you used the tool on itself, you'd find parts of grep.
Could this tool be used in reverse?
For example, one could write a bug-filled line of code, perhaps something with a buffer-overflow. This could then be matched with open-source projects and projects with buffer overflows are found. Of course, this could also be used to find vulnerabilities and so on.
My post was intended for those using Windows, for which konqueror is unavailable.
One reason why people would want a browser plugin is because it keeps it all in one window, which is very much the reason tabs exist.
Is there any indication that Microsoft's patents themselves are free of patent or prior art issues? Seeing as how the USPO and other patent offices around the world are swamped, I doubt that all of Microsoft's patents will hold up.
In any case, suing open-source projects like OpenOffice or KOffice doesn't help Microsoft at all. The lawsuit will be extended, not unlike IBM and SCO. With IBM, Novell, RedHat and others relying on projects such as these office suites to help them provide alternatives for their customers, they'd most likely join the suit to make sure that they don't lose a project critical to Linux's growing adoption.
In the best case scenario, those products are taken off the market in the US, and other countries where they sue, and win. That would leave many parts of Asia, Africa and South America, which are Microsoft's biggest targets as those places are developing quickly.
In the worst case scenario, they lose respectability for suing a legitimate project, further adding to the claims of monopolistic tendencies against them. Reputation and respectability aid trust, which is critical for software houses.
I don't believe Microsoft will sue. I hope for their own sake, they don't.
The problem with GSView is that it doesn't have a browser plugin, at least not for Mozilla, AFAIK.
The solution [Win32]: Adobe Acrobat 7 for the browser, GSView for the system.
It may be a little inconvenient, but it does help in reducing load on the system.
How fast can it organize the LoC, using bubble sort and the Dewey system?
Leave the OCR'ing for Google.