How hard is it to get Windows to run on a PC...I mean, the Mac is a PC with EFI.
Well considering Windows does not support EFI for 32 bit chips, kind of a pain in the butt.
considering that Mac's typically take PC components... how hard is it to get Windows to run on a PC?
Believe it or not, some manufacturers of high-end hardware don't bother writing Windows drivers. This is because they don't think they have a significant number of customers who would run it. Also, a lot of hardware comes with backward-compatible features (like BIOS and PS/2 ports). Windows relies upon this antiquated hardware at times (like only being able to perform some actions using a floppy drive). As a result, Apple hardware is a little ahead of the curve for running Windows. Windows users on macs will doubtless run into these limitations from time to time and have to work around them. Expect plenty of "but Windows doesn't support Foo yet" issues.
Apple lost, period. They are a PC clone with a Unix based OS, everything Apple despised in the past is now their flagship product!
I don't think Apple cares who makes the hardware or how much is commodity, just the end result they can give to users. Anyway, if their current success is losing, sign me up.
Your users aren't stupid, they are lazy, and fooling you like you are the stupid cow.
Maybe you aren't understanding the concept of "usability." I doesn't matter if they are lazy or stupid. Forcing your users to remember or keep track of multiple passwords is work for them. This means it decreases the usability. Inconveniencing users for whatever reason needs to be justified by some real benefit to them. Since adding a second password provides no significant advantage to the average user, I don't think it is a good idea to do. OS X needs the common opinion that it is harder to use than Windows like a hole in the head.
Obviously this is not to say that users should not be forced to use a second password in certain locked down environments where security is more critical, but in that case you won't be using the default settings for the machine anyway.
Yeah, you're a step or two behind in the arms race now. Most of the botkits send encrypted, self decoding binaries that make them a bit harder to reverse engineer. They also, occasionally cull the herd by doing things like sending updates, then quickly running a check and booting anyone who does not respond correctly, or update control channels twice in rapid succession. You have to a little better at reverse engineering. Given the right tools, however, I know at least one person who can turn around the code in about 15 minutes.
Of course with all this press most of the smart operators have probably long since ditched IRC leaving only the clueless. I've heard talk of a Tor based setup even, although I haven't seen it. Now that there is big money I imagine there will be some real clever solutions as well as more of those nice Web based control portals for those who rent bots by the hour.
So why don't ISPs simply write software to allow them to detect and automatically disconnect BOTs?
Most major ISPs have software that can pretty much do that. I'm looking at some of it right now in another tab of my browser. The problems are operationalizing it so that it is not too expensive. The support costs for a couple hundred thousand calls asking why they've been shut off and how to go about fixing it and then confirming that it has been done would be very high. Maybe some big players could partner with another company. Get your PC cleaned, patched, and certified and we'll turn your internet back on. The problem with this is there are still a lot of old Windows boxes out there. No security patches are available. A new Windows OS is expensive and won't run on the machine anyway. So the ISP might save a little on transit, but they lose a boatload of customers and the steady revenue those customers provide.
Now some ISPs have plans to implement a notification of compromised machines with an automated system. It may help the problem and the ISP can bill it as a feature. But that is just one more escalation in the arms race. Next bots will be stealthy, mimicking other machines on the subnet, or just sending encrypted tunnels. Anyway, the short answer to your question is "money."
I would imagine fear of the law and getting suied[sic] or thrown in jail. Not to mention poping[sic] open a window might be as unoticed[sic] as the popup wanting to increase my member size. It would take some sort of government imunity[sic] to prosecution to aviod[sic] getting getting tangled in the same laws that make computer tresspass[sic] ilegal[sic].
I can back you up here. I know some security researchers who monitor botnets and they don't shut them down for legal reasons. They do get the command networks killed when they start to be maliciously used. As an aside, some of the botnets are actually honeynets and every now and again a researcher will share some logs that shows them monitoring one another while posing as "legitimate" botnet operators.
Re:No it's not a mystery
on
Sudo vs. Root
·
· Score: 2, Informative
All that is in bash history for the root user. And anyone who knows how to clean that can clean the log as well.
Actually, this is not always true. In some environments remote logs are kept and versioned. Root on a workstation would not have access to wipe the remote log, only add more entries to it. Still, anyone working in such an environment would almost certainly have made other changes to the workstation anyway, so arguing over the default setting is pointless.
Here's the Score
on
Sudo vs. Root
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
By default OS X machines use the same password for sudo commands as they do for the regular user account. If you are more concerned about security than the average bear (or OS X user) you can change the password or you can disable sudo altogether and enable the root account with a different password. All of this is good info for those interested in security, but who are still learning.
From this article I predict a number of people knocking this default setup and then a rehash of the old argument as to what the default should be. I contend, that it is probably the correct default. OS X is a workstation not a server. It is designed for normal users. Having two password (heck having even one) is a usability issue for many users. People are confused by the whole concept of passwords and many have trouble remembering even one. Further, setting a second password only slightly increases the difficulty for a competent cracker. The truth is, there will be local escalations for the foreseeable future. OS X is not a super-locked-down server.
Basically, for the average user, a second password gains them very little except confusion. For more advanced users, well they can change the defaults, as many do. Maybe the only issue here is the in-between people. Those are the people targeted by this article. Those that might want to change the defaults if they knew about the issue and how to do it. Maybe this configuration should be made a little easier, or even incorporated as an option in the install process.
This default bears revisiting should Apple ever move to a more locked-down system. Maybe when users are accustomed application specific privileges they should also be introduced to a more layered security scheme. For now, though, I think the usability issue outweighs the security one.
Yes, I'm aware of what Mono is. There is also an ASP module for Apache. What does this have to do with the discussion at hand? The servers in question are almost certainly running IIS based upon the profiling mentioned in this thread and than means closed source servers. This is pretty different for Google. Further they are server up ASP which is a pretty big change fro AJAX. These facts indicate that this site is anomalous, hence the comment and the speculation.
The.NET Framework and C# both have been ported to open source, and been rattified bla bla bla.
Open Source and standards are different things, which is why I mentioned them separately. How do you "port" an language? ASP is not an open standard and has not been "ratified" by anyone I know of. Show me a Google page, aside from the one mentioned here that ends in ".asp" okay? If you can't find one, maybe you will understand why some of us find this unusual and possibly significant.
Many other web sites are. So what is your point? It is like you see Microsoft technology as evil.
Google is well known for their clean Web design, using open standards. They are also well known for their use of open source servers. It is very notable, then that they are using Microsoft based, proprietary solutions for this particular site. Does this indicate a change in Google's methods? Does this indicate the site was outsourced? Does this indicate a new team within Google? Does this indicate that Google has less involvement with the content of this site then is being reported?
I don't know, but it is certainly worth mentioning the difference.
Does anyone actually see themselves using Writely? Why not just use a local text editor and copy/paste to email? I guess I just don't see myself getting any use out of this, and therefore don't see myself having my privacy invaded by it.
I see this filling a few niches. One is for editing documents that you need access to from multiple locations. For example, this might be editing a journal from various cyber cafes in Europe. This might be ideal for those people I see at the library that probably don't have computers/internet access at home. This might be very nice for schools, so students can work on a paper both at school and at home without needing to carry a laptop or try to transfer files.
The other niche I see this filling is collaboration. There is a program called "subethaedit" that auto-discovers (via zeroconf) shared files on a LAN and allows each user to have an insertion point in the document and work on it simultaneously. It is perfect for pair programming and collaborative fiction. Bringing this to the masses might really open up a lot of people to the possibilities of this type of tool.
So, to answer your question. Maybe. I doubt I will use this regularly, but I might recommend it to others who I think will use it. I might use this to collaborate with less technical people.
I think you're wrong. For 99% of the users IE does exactly what it's supposed to do, and no, the users aren't suffering.
Users suffer from lack of innovation. Security holes allow their computers to be infested and broken. Useful ad blocking is still rudimentary. Users have no option to use tabbed browsing (and are unaware of its existence) for more than five years. I'd say all of that directly affects end users and none of this is from the perspective of a developer.
There are already a number of companies building profiles of data about everyone and selling it. Unless we get privacy laws passed (fat chance) this will continue. So your bank, ISP, and employer will be collaborating on building a profile of you and they almost certainly will use it in hiring decisions. When employers become large and consolidated, the only way to bargain fairly is for labor to organize and consolidate. This leads to some serious inefficiencies and lots of room for corruption, but it is not like their are any better options.
Show me the money... err quote. I read the article. It mentions iPods and Sony devices specifically. Since Sony has its own DRM in some devices and WM in others I don't see anything that makes it clear this affects MS DRM schemes. It also does not seem to address the ability of Windows PCs to play fairplay songs. It has some generic and meaningless quotes like "enable music to play on all devices," but since all music players can play music and it does not specify music from all sources to play on all players, that too is ambiguous. Basically, the article is very light on details.
You have to agree though that the headline is biased?
I'm not sure it is any more biased than the article is, which states that parliament is considering passing a law that requires iPods to play WMD files, but makes no mention of other players having to play fairplay songs. In fact, I'd say the headline is an accurate depiction of the article, which seems (in my opinion) to depict what I hope is a very skewed version of the facts.
It's more like France passing a pro-consumer law to prevent vendor lock-in. Oh wait, it's not like that, it is that.
This remains to be seen. Will Windows media based players also have to work with AAC fairplay files? Will Windows computers have to have iTunes and play fairplay files by default? If not it is just passing a law to inconvenience Apple while ignoring the abusive monopoly that is their only real competitor in the music DRM business.
I can't WAIT to watch the objective analysis that this thread will surely contain.
Analysis? What is there to analyze? MS issued bunch of PR about Internet Explorer that fails to address the most egregious failings of the product. It has control of the market with this pile of crap simply because they bundled it with their monopoly OS. The consumers are suffering, but that is old news and this does nothing to make most of us believe it will change.
You have to take into account the Slashdot spin. I wonder how they came to the decision of whether to support Apple or oppose DRM/monopolism? The Slashbots' heads would be spinning if the editor hadn't been kind enough to give them their opinion.
Your views are simplistic and prejudiced. Different people here have different opinions and most don't need a headline or summary to help them make up their minds. Personally, I like Apple as a company, but dislike the fact that they are utilizing DRM. I want their DRM to go away, just so long as that does not mean Microsoft's DRM takes over. You see MS is an abusive monopoly and if Apple did not step in MS would own the digital music DRM market and we'd all be stuck with it by now. I don't want Apple to monopolize that market. I don't want that market to even exist. But since it does and since the governments of the world are helpless before the power of the media publishers, I'd much rather there were competing DRM schemes. There are few things that would be worse for the industry that MS gaining control of that market. Now I'm sure all of this is too much for your brain and you're even now deciding which of your ridiculous predefined categories that makes me fit into. The real answer is neither, as the world is not that simple and your understanding of it seems very superficial.
So music is provided by a cartel of publishing houses that unethically charge musicians for the right to hand over the copyright to them because they control all the major distribution channels. This cartel also forces any company reselling their music online to implement DRM. Now Microsoft, has been convicted of abusing their monopoly on desktop OS's to force consumers and that cartel to use their own proprietary DRM format and add their own tax on all music sold. Apple, somehow does an end run around MS with a player/software/store that is better than any other on the market and gains a lot of customers. It still has DRM as the cartel requires, but not the MS DRM that they were illegally promoting and which was also a good way for MS to hurt Apple who they compete with indirectly. So given this mess, the government of France finally steps in to do something.
Now I don't know what the solution will be, but from the article it seems like rather than going after the monopolist or the cartel they plan to try to force the one company that has not been breaking the laws to provide concessions to the monopolist and adopt their DRM format (which they have already been convicted of illegally coercing the public to use). Yeah that sounds about right for a government action.
Well, I'm not really up on this sort of thing, but could not France then take its case to the EU, and petition the EU to bring a similar case?
No. Apple is not (as far as anyone has determined) breaking any laws. They won their case in France and the EU has no reason to think they are breaking the law. This is not about Apple breaking the law, this is about France passing a new law to specifically force Apple to do something they desire. It's like a town passing a law that says Bob has to stop wearing that stupid hat. If Bob stops coming to town the townfolk can't go the the county or state and ask them to go after Bob for wearing it elsewhere, they need to get the larger jurisdiction to also pass a similar law.
i mean, if most of the people running botnets are young and doing it for the 'kool factor', doesn't this take away from that a bit?
This is more botnet management software than exploit software. I think the main motivation is money these days. You can rent time on a botnet to perform attacks using a Web UI like this. The people managing the botnet can make a lot of money doing this, especially if they live somewhere like parts of eastern europe. Get one greedy American businessman to give you five grand for time to DDoS his competitor at a critical time and you don't have to work for a few years. Get one business or bank to pay you $50K to not DDoS them during a critical business deal and you can retire and live on the interest. The "cool" motivation is pretty tertiary these days.
Most of the reasons PC's get hacked now days is that end users are still clicking on the links in phising emails and then holes in the browser being exploited.
Gee, that's great except it is not even close to being true. Most infections by number and most DDoS bandwidth is the result of automated worms that perform automatic remote exploits and require no human intervention.
Surely it wouldn't take much for the main browser makers to put in a user idiocy filter to just say aren't you being a bit silly? Of course user education would be best but there will always be a certian newbie segment who are on the internet for the first time and will keep doing this.
Step one, close the remote holes in the OS. Windows has gotten better with a default firewall, etc. but it still has too many services running by default and too many remote holes. Step two, close remote holes in the main internet applications. IE and Outlook need to be revamped with security as a primary component, not a add-on. Third, new applications need to be sandboxed by default and restricted from doing anything with a user's files, internet connection, address book, buddy list, other programs, OS files, and services unless the user is informed with a well made UI and presented with choices in the English language that explain what the program wants and lets the users choose the appropriate level of access. Fourth, then and only then can we successfully apply end-user education that can work to stop malware infections.
Please note the software mentioned here does not compromise machines. (Although such GUI software does exist.) This software is used to easily manage a botnet after it has been compromised. Since botnets are big business and are often run by less savvy users, it is advantageous to be able to sell time on a botnet to a Russian mafioso, a disgruntled, rich, arab kid, or a greedy american corporate. Since they are pretty clueless you can do better than the competition by giving them an easy to use GUI for it. I saw the logs of what appeared to be a Islamic activist using a botnet the other day to attack random IP blocks in the Netherlands. He attacked useless ports twice, making his attack very ineffective, and then took multiple tries in order to find the right command to stop the DoS attack. These are not experts anymore.
If any decision you made in life would be compensated for by the government, and thus lead to a comfortable living... why would anyone work at all? What would be the incentive to do your best let alone anything at all?
You're making an incorrect, implicit assumption. That is, that working hard and making good choices leads to success and rewards. For the most part, this is just not true. The number one predictor as to how "successful" a person will be is how much money their parents have. The majority of the wealth and resources in this country are not allocated to those who work hard, those who are particularly smart, or those who come up with innovative ideas. The majority of the wealth is allocated to those who inherited wealth and contacts from their parents and "let their money work for them" to make more money. Basically regardless of how hard the average person works, they will gather relatively smaller and smaller shares of the total wealth in the country as it concentrates into fewer and fewer hands. 5% of the population already controls more than half of it and they are controlling more every year, not because they are hard workers, but because it takes money to make money and if you have money you can use the power it brings to insure that the laws favor you.
I'm all for a fair system where hard work is rewarded with a representative share of the country's resources, but socialist policies in the US are not preventing that, rather they are encouraging that. They are also maintaining a slightly more even balance that amounts to bread and circuses that keeps the population from revolting and overthrowing that 5% who just happens to make up most of the government officials.
The real question is, how does Microsoft & Apple feel about this?
Apple has publicly stated they don't care and will do nothing to stop people from running Windows on the machines. Microsoft might care a tiny bit, but since their business is selling OS's to be installed on whatever hardware their only gripe is that the hardware is not shipping with Windows to start with. So who is going to sue and for what and why?
Slashdot Mirror
How hard is it to get Windows to run on a PC...I mean, the Mac is a PC with EFI.
Well considering Windows does not support EFI for 32 bit chips, kind of a pain in the butt.
considering that Mac's typically take PC components... how hard is it to get Windows to run on a PC?
Believe it or not, some manufacturers of high-end hardware don't bother writing Windows drivers. This is because they don't think they have a significant number of customers who would run it. Also, a lot of hardware comes with backward-compatible features (like BIOS and PS/2 ports). Windows relies upon this antiquated hardware at times (like only being able to perform some actions using a floppy drive). As a result, Apple hardware is a little ahead of the curve for running Windows. Windows users on macs will doubtless run into these limitations from time to time and have to work around them. Expect plenty of "but Windows doesn't support Foo yet" issues.
Apple lost, period. They are a PC clone with a Unix based OS, everything Apple despised in the past is now their flagship product!
I don't think Apple cares who makes the hardware or how much is commodity, just the end result they can give to users. Anyway, if their current success is losing, sign me up.
Your users aren't stupid, they are lazy, and fooling you like you are the stupid cow.
Maybe you aren't understanding the concept of "usability." I doesn't matter if they are lazy or stupid. Forcing your users to remember or keep track of multiple passwords is work for them. This means it decreases the usability. Inconveniencing users for whatever reason needs to be justified by some real benefit to them. Since adding a second password provides no significant advantage to the average user, I don't think it is a good idea to do. OS X needs the common opinion that it is harder to use than Windows like a hole in the head.
Obviously this is not to say that users should not be forced to use a second password in certain locked down environments where security is more critical, but in that case you won't be using the default settings for the machine anyway.
Yeah, you're a step or two behind in the arms race now. Most of the botkits send encrypted, self decoding binaries that make them a bit harder to reverse engineer. They also, occasionally cull the herd by doing things like sending updates, then quickly running a check and booting anyone who does not respond correctly, or update control channels twice in rapid succession. You have to a little better at reverse engineering. Given the right tools, however, I know at least one person who can turn around the code in about 15 minutes.
Of course with all this press most of the smart operators have probably long since ditched IRC leaving only the clueless. I've heard talk of a Tor based setup even, although I haven't seen it. Now that there is big money I imagine there will be some real clever solutions as well as more of those nice Web based control portals for those who rent bots by the hour.
So why don't ISPs simply write software to allow them to detect and automatically disconnect BOTs?
Most major ISPs have software that can pretty much do that. I'm looking at some of it right now in another tab of my browser. The problems are operationalizing it so that it is not too expensive. The support costs for a couple hundred thousand calls asking why they've been shut off and how to go about fixing it and then confirming that it has been done would be very high. Maybe some big players could partner with another company. Get your PC cleaned, patched, and certified and we'll turn your internet back on. The problem with this is there are still a lot of old Windows boxes out there. No security patches are available. A new Windows OS is expensive and won't run on the machine anyway. So the ISP might save a little on transit, but they lose a boatload of customers and the steady revenue those customers provide.
Now some ISPs have plans to implement a notification of compromised machines with an automated system. It may help the problem and the ISP can bill it as a feature. But that is just one more escalation in the arms race. Next bots will be stealthy, mimicking other machines on the subnet, or just sending encrypted tunnels. Anyway, the short answer to your question is "money."
I would imagine fear of the law and getting suied[sic] or thrown in jail. Not to mention poping[sic] open a window might be as unoticed[sic] as the popup wanting to increase my member size. It would take some sort of government imunity[sic] to prosecution to aviod[sic] getting getting tangled in the same laws that make computer tresspass[sic] ilegal[sic].
I can back you up here. I know some security researchers who monitor botnets and they don't shut them down for legal reasons. They do get the command networks killed when they start to be maliciously used. As an aside, some of the botnets are actually honeynets and every now and again a researcher will share some logs that shows them monitoring one another while posing as "legitimate" botnet operators.
All that is in bash history for the root user. And anyone who knows how to clean that can clean the log as well.
Actually, this is not always true. In some environments remote logs are kept and versioned. Root on a workstation would not have access to wipe the remote log, only add more entries to it. Still, anyone working in such an environment would almost certainly have made other changes to the workstation anyway, so arguing over the default setting is pointless.
By default OS X machines use the same password for sudo commands as they do for the regular user account. If you are more concerned about security than the average bear (or OS X user) you can change the password or you can disable sudo altogether and enable the root account with a different password. All of this is good info for those interested in security, but who are still learning.
From this article I predict a number of people knocking this default setup and then a rehash of the old argument as to what the default should be. I contend, that it is probably the correct default. OS X is a workstation not a server. It is designed for normal users. Having two password (heck having even one) is a usability issue for many users. People are confused by the whole concept of passwords and many have trouble remembering even one. Further, setting a second password only slightly increases the difficulty for a competent cracker. The truth is, there will be local escalations for the foreseeable future. OS X is not a super-locked-down server.
Basically, for the average user, a second password gains them very little except confusion. For more advanced users, well they can change the defaults, as many do. Maybe the only issue here is the in-between people. Those are the people targeted by this article. Those that might want to change the defaults if they knew about the issue and how to do it. Maybe this configuration should be made a little easier, or even incorporated as an option in the install process.
This default bears revisiting should Apple ever move to a more locked-down system. Maybe when users are accustomed application specific privileges they should also be introduced to a more layered security scheme. For now, though, I think the usability issue outweighs the security one.
Yes, I'm aware of what Mono is. There is also an ASP module for Apache. What does this have to do with the discussion at hand? The servers in question are almost certainly running IIS based upon the profiling mentioned in this thread and than means closed source servers. This is pretty different for Google. Further they are server up ASP which is a pretty big change fro AJAX. These facts indicate that this site is anomalous, hence the comment and the speculation.
The .NET Framework and C# both have been ported to open source, and been rattified bla bla bla.
Open Source and standards are different things, which is why I mentioned them separately. How do you "port" an language? ASP is not an open standard and has not been "ratified" by anyone I know of. Show me a Google page, aside from the one mentioned here that ends in ".asp" okay? If you can't find one, maybe you will understand why some of us find this unusual and possibly significant.
Many other web sites are. So what is your point? It is like you see Microsoft technology as evil.
Google is well known for their clean Web design, using open standards. They are also well known for their use of open source servers. It is very notable, then that they are using Microsoft based, proprietary solutions for this particular site. Does this indicate a change in Google's methods? Does this indicate the site was outsourced? Does this indicate a new team within Google? Does this indicate that Google has less involvement with the content of this site then is being reported?
I don't know, but it is certainly worth mentioning the difference.
Does anyone actually see themselves using Writely? Why not just use a local text editor and copy/paste to email? I guess I just don't see myself getting any use out of this, and therefore don't see myself having my privacy invaded by it.
I see this filling a few niches. One is for editing documents that you need access to from multiple locations. For example, this might be editing a journal from various cyber cafes in Europe. This might be ideal for those people I see at the library that probably don't have computers/internet access at home. This might be very nice for schools, so students can work on a paper both at school and at home without needing to carry a laptop or try to transfer files.
The other niche I see this filling is collaboration. There is a program called "subethaedit" that auto-discovers (via zeroconf) shared files on a LAN and allows each user to have an insertion point in the document and work on it simultaneously. It is perfect for pair programming and collaborative fiction. Bringing this to the masses might really open up a lot of people to the possibilities of this type of tool.
So, to answer your question. Maybe. I doubt I will use this regularly, but I might recommend it to others who I think will use it. I might use this to collaborate with less technical people.
I think you're wrong. For 99% of the users IE does exactly what it's supposed to do, and no, the users aren't suffering.
Users suffer from lack of innovation. Security holes allow their computers to be infested and broken. Useful ad blocking is still rudimentary. Users have no option to use tabbed browsing (and are unaware of its existence) for more than five years. I'd say all of that directly affects end users and none of this is from the perspective of a developer.
There are already a number of companies building profiles of data about everyone and selling it. Unless we get privacy laws passed (fat chance) this will continue. So your bank, ISP, and employer will be collaborating on building a profile of you and they almost certainly will use it in hiring decisions. When employers become large and consolidated, the only way to bargain fairly is for labor to organize and consolidate. This leads to some serious inefficiencies and lots of room for corruption, but it is not like their are any better options.
Show me the money... err quote. I read the article. It mentions iPods and Sony devices specifically. Since Sony has its own DRM in some devices and WM in others I don't see anything that makes it clear this affects MS DRM schemes. It also does not seem to address the ability of Windows PCs to play fairplay songs. It has some generic and meaningless quotes like "enable music to play on all devices," but since all music players can play music and it does not specify music from all sources to play on all players, that too is ambiguous. Basically, the article is very light on details.
You have to agree though that the headline is biased?
I'm not sure it is any more biased than the article is, which states that parliament is considering passing a law that requires iPods to play WMD files, but makes no mention of other players having to play fairplay songs. In fact, I'd say the headline is an accurate depiction of the article, which seems (in my opinion) to depict what I hope is a very skewed version of the facts.
It's more like France passing a pro-consumer law to prevent vendor lock-in. Oh wait, it's not like that, it is that.
This remains to be seen. Will Windows media based players also have to work with AAC fairplay files? Will Windows computers have to have iTunes and play fairplay files by default? If not it is just passing a law to inconvenience Apple while ignoring the abusive monopoly that is their only real competitor in the music DRM business.
I can't WAIT to watch the objective analysis that this thread will surely contain.
Analysis? What is there to analyze? MS issued bunch of PR about Internet Explorer that fails to address the most egregious failings of the product. It has control of the market with this pile of crap simply because they bundled it with their monopoly OS. The consumers are suffering, but that is old news and this does nothing to make most of us believe it will change.
You have to take into account the Slashdot spin. I wonder how they came to the decision of whether to support Apple or oppose DRM/monopolism? The Slashbots' heads would be spinning if the editor hadn't been kind enough to give them their opinion.
Your views are simplistic and prejudiced. Different people here have different opinions and most don't need a headline or summary to help them make up their minds. Personally, I like Apple as a company, but dislike the fact that they are utilizing DRM. I want their DRM to go away, just so long as that does not mean Microsoft's DRM takes over. You see MS is an abusive monopoly and if Apple did not step in MS would own the digital music DRM market and we'd all be stuck with it by now. I don't want Apple to monopolize that market. I don't want that market to even exist. But since it does and since the governments of the world are helpless before the power of the media publishers, I'd much rather there were competing DRM schemes. There are few things that would be worse for the industry that MS gaining control of that market. Now I'm sure all of this is too much for your brain and you're even now deciding which of your ridiculous predefined categories that makes me fit into. The real answer is neither, as the world is not that simple and your understanding of it seems very superficial.
So music is provided by a cartel of publishing houses that unethically charge musicians for the right to hand over the copyright to them because they control all the major distribution channels. This cartel also forces any company reselling their music online to implement DRM. Now Microsoft, has been convicted of abusing their monopoly on desktop OS's to force consumers and that cartel to use their own proprietary DRM format and add their own tax on all music sold. Apple, somehow does an end run around MS with a player/software/store that is better than any other on the market and gains a lot of customers. It still has DRM as the cartel requires, but not the MS DRM that they were illegally promoting and which was also a good way for MS to hurt Apple who they compete with indirectly. So given this mess, the government of France finally steps in to do something.
Now I don't know what the solution will be, but from the article it seems like rather than going after the monopolist or the cartel they plan to try to force the one company that has not been breaking the laws to provide concessions to the monopolist and adopt their DRM format (which they have already been convicted of illegally coercing the public to use). Yeah that sounds about right for a government action.
I'd have a different opinion, but then it would also be a different situation. What does this have to do with anything?
Well, I'm not really up on this sort of thing, but could not France then take its case to the EU, and petition the EU to bring a similar case?
No. Apple is not (as far as anyone has determined) breaking any laws. They won their case in France and the EU has no reason to think they are breaking the law. This is not about Apple breaking the law, this is about France passing a new law to specifically force Apple to do something they desire. It's like a town passing a law that says Bob has to stop wearing that stupid hat. If Bob stops coming to town the townfolk can't go the the county or state and ask them to go after Bob for wearing it elsewhere, they need to get the larger jurisdiction to also pass a similar law.
i mean, if most of the people running botnets are young and doing it for the 'kool factor', doesn't this take away from that a bit?
This is more botnet management software than exploit software. I think the main motivation is money these days. You can rent time on a botnet to perform attacks using a Web UI like this. The people managing the botnet can make a lot of money doing this, especially if they live somewhere like parts of eastern europe. Get one greedy American businessman to give you five grand for time to DDoS his competitor at a critical time and you don't have to work for a few years. Get one business or bank to pay you $50K to not DDoS them during a critical business deal and you can retire and live on the interest. The "cool" motivation is pretty tertiary these days.
Most of the reasons PC's get hacked now days is that end users are still clicking on the links in phising emails and then holes in the browser being exploited.
Gee, that's great except it is not even close to being true. Most infections by number and most DDoS bandwidth is the result of automated worms that perform automatic remote exploits and require no human intervention.
Surely it wouldn't take much for the main browser makers to put in a user idiocy filter to just say aren't you being a bit silly? Of course user education would be best but there will always be a certian newbie segment who are on the internet for the first time and will keep doing this.
Step one, close the remote holes in the OS. Windows has gotten better with a default firewall, etc. but it still has too many services running by default and too many remote holes. Step two, close remote holes in the main internet applications. IE and Outlook need to be revamped with security as a primary component, not a add-on. Third, new applications need to be sandboxed by default and restricted from doing anything with a user's files, internet connection, address book, buddy list, other programs, OS files, and services unless the user is informed with a well made UI and presented with choices in the English language that explain what the program wants and lets the users choose the appropriate level of access. Fourth, then and only then can we successfully apply end-user education that can work to stop malware infections.
Please note the software mentioned here does not compromise machines. (Although such GUI software does exist.) This software is used to easily manage a botnet after it has been compromised. Since botnets are big business and are often run by less savvy users, it is advantageous to be able to sell time on a botnet to a Russian mafioso, a disgruntled, rich, arab kid, or a greedy american corporate. Since they are pretty clueless you can do better than the competition by giving them an easy to use GUI for it. I saw the logs of what appeared to be a Islamic activist using a botnet the other day to attack random IP blocks in the Netherlands. He attacked useless ports twice, making his attack very ineffective, and then took multiple tries in order to find the right command to stop the DoS attack. These are not experts anymore.
If any decision you made in life would be compensated for by the government, and thus lead to a comfortable living ... why would anyone work at all? What would be the incentive to do your best let alone anything at all?
You're making an incorrect, implicit assumption. That is, that working hard and making good choices leads to success and rewards. For the most part, this is just not true. The number one predictor as to how "successful" a person will be is how much money their parents have. The majority of the wealth and resources in this country are not allocated to those who work hard, those who are particularly smart, or those who come up with innovative ideas. The majority of the wealth is allocated to those who inherited wealth and contacts from their parents and "let their money work for them" to make more money. Basically regardless of how hard the average person works, they will gather relatively smaller and smaller shares of the total wealth in the country as it concentrates into fewer and fewer hands. 5% of the population already controls more than half of it and they are controlling more every year, not because they are hard workers, but because it takes money to make money and if you have money you can use the power it brings to insure that the laws favor you.
I'm all for a fair system where hard work is rewarded with a representative share of the country's resources, but socialist policies in the US are not preventing that, rather they are encouraging that. They are also maintaining a slightly more even balance that amounts to bread and circuses that keeps the population from revolting and overthrowing that 5% who just happens to make up most of the government officials.
The real question is, how does Microsoft & Apple feel about this?
Apple has publicly stated they don't care and will do nothing to stop people from running Windows on the machines. Microsoft might care a tiny bit, but since their business is selling OS's to be installed on whatever hardware their only gripe is that the hardware is not shipping with Windows to start with. So who is going to sue and for what and why?