Seems like some members of the press don't understand coding. You can't just go and patch everything. Regression testing? Making sure all the changes work as needed without impacting other subsystems.
Do you really think if Microsoft COULD do it, they wouldn't.
Whereas I agree with you that it isn't as easy as some people think, if any company in the world has the resources to do it, its Microsoft. I see NO reason why a company with this many people and this much money can't get good patches out the door soon after vulnerabilities are found. The only exlplanation is poor organization and bureaucracy.
Well, trusted computing should start with a trustworthy company. That means good, consistant company ethics and ethical people working and representing the company.
Which is why I think Google should be the company that leads the way with DRM. Who doesn't trust Google? Plus, I think it would really help with their latest project
Nodes are the bus stops. Edge values could be distances-- but could also take into consideration uphill/downhill, number of stopsigns, and other things that would cause you to burn more fuel.
It becomes a more interesting problem because you have to start/end at the node representing the school, and you're not just traversing one big graph, you're optimizing a whole bunch of little traversals by X number of buses, that must when combined touch every node and return to the school.
Someone come up with an algorithm-- throw together a quick and dirty solution and save schools some gas money.
Other than that, I don't see how technology and the internet can minimize a schools fuel consumption by buses. Unless you get a majority of students to stay home to learn-- which is a bad idea for a whole bunch of reasons.
I'm a firm believer that we need diversity and competition in the computing world if we want to see progress. Just as it is counter-productive for MS to have a monopoly on the OS world it is undesireable to have only one search engine out there.
Just because Google thus far has been a very good company and used its power appropriately doesn't mean we should be satisfied with only one search engine. If we want to see innovation we need healthy competition, so I wish AskJeeves and all the others good luck.
How is it there fault? Well....they released and sold you vulnerable software. It takes microsoft years between each release of windows, and yet every new version is inherently buggy and insecure, and requires countless patchings.
The bottom line is that the closed source developement model cannot compete with the open source model for producing a secure and bug-free system.
Certainly there are exploits to be found within Linux. Certainly there will be many people who have not updated there systems. Certainly a virus could have impact in a very short time, faster than machines can be patched.
Yet for all these arguments, the truth is that as Windows is attacked by something new everyday, Linux remains generally unharmed.
I don't for a second intend that members of the OSS community be lulled into a false sense of elitist security....but damnit, we must be doing something right, because this group of "fractious unorganized individuals" has built an OS that is undisputably more secure than the commercially produced Windows OS.
Or all of us members of the "benevolent OSS community" can assume that the above is true, and remain blissfully ignorant of problems found in OSS because we are confident that someone out there is taking care of it.
The fact that we have operating systems like Linux and FreeBSD is proof enough that someone is taking care of it. You can choose to remain blissfully ignorant if you choose, or if you don't have to coding skills to contribute yourself. I, however, would bet my bottom dollar that any exploit would be fixed by someone very quickly. Thats one of the keystones of the OSS developement model. When you have enough eyes looking at the code, all bugs become transparent, and there are thousands of eyes looking at the kernel code.
This short article mentions an increase in linux viruses, but fails to mention the obvious fact about a virus that attacks any open source operating system:
Any exploit that is found by someone malicious will be quickly fixed by the overwhelming majority that belongs to the benevolent OSS community. The lifetime of a virus attacking and open source OS would be very short, and wouldn't require the use of any third party virus protection software to fix.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you really think if Microsoft COULD do it, they wouldn't.
Whereas I agree with you that it isn't as easy as some people think, if any company in the world has the resources to do it, its Microsoft. I see NO reason why a company with this many people and this much money can't get good patches out the door soon after vulnerabilities are found. The only exlplanation is poor organization and bureaucracy.
Which is why I think Google should be the company that leads the way with DRM. Who doesn't trust Google? Plus, I think it would really help with their latest project
It becomes a more interesting problem because you have to start/end at the node representing the school, and you're not just traversing one big graph, you're optimizing a whole bunch of little traversals by X number of buses, that must when combined touch every node and return to the school.
Someone come up with an algorithm-- throw together a quick and dirty solution and save schools some gas money.
Other than that, I don't see how technology and the internet can minimize a schools fuel consumption by buses. Unless you get a majority of students to stay home to learn-- which is a bad idea for a whole bunch of reasons.
Just because Google thus far has been a very good company and used its power appropriately doesn't mean we should be satisfied with only one search engine. If we want to see innovation we need healthy competition, so I wish AskJeeves and all the others good luck.
The bottom line is that the closed source developement model cannot compete with the open source model for producing a secure and bug-free system.
Yet for all these arguments, the truth is that as Windows is attacked by something new everyday, Linux remains generally unharmed.
I don't for a second intend that members of the OSS community be lulled into a false sense of elitist security....but damnit, we must be doing something right, because this group of "fractious unorganized individuals" has built an OS that is undisputably more secure than the commercially produced Windows OS.
The fact that we have operating systems like Linux and FreeBSD is proof enough that someone is taking care of it. You can choose to remain blissfully ignorant if you choose, or if you don't have to coding skills to contribute yourself. I, however, would bet my bottom dollar that any exploit would be fixed by someone very quickly. Thats one of the keystones of the OSS developement model. When you have enough eyes looking at the code, all bugs become transparent, and there are thousands of eyes looking at the kernel code.
This short article mentions an increase in linux viruses, but fails to mention the obvious fact about a virus that attacks any open source operating system: Any exploit that is found by someone malicious will be quickly fixed by the overwhelming majority that belongs to the benevolent OSS community. The lifetime of a virus attacking and open source OS would be very short, and wouldn't require the use of any third party virus protection software to fix.