2005 will be forever seen as the year in which the US government managed to keep unilateral control of the internet...
Yea, never mind things like the Tsunami or Katrina or in the U.S. all of the controversies in government... I'm sure when I'm 85 years old this is exactly what I'll remember about 2005.
Anybody with half a wit about them can remove or disable it and use any of the countless services that don't give a flying fuck whether you have said chip or not.
There have been countless attempts to force people out of the shadows in the past. They work to an extent, but the truly determined will never fail to circumvent them and this is no different.
Besides, who wants to bet that 100% of TPM-enabled systems are x86 and you can get around it just by using a different (and superior) platform?
That was a pretty stupid comment. The sole purpose for the Xbox's existance is for them to make money off of game software. If that means fixing buggy 360s, that's what they'll do.
It really annoys me how slashbots act like Microsoft should be some benevolent protector of the individual interests of all persons on the planet instead of, you know, the business they actually are.
Re:"engineered" by amateur boneheads
on
Verified Voting
·
· Score: 1
When comparing the number vulnerability for vulnerability, a Windows Operating System, especially 2003, probably does have a lower number of known vulnerabilities.
OSS tends toward releasing every niggling vulnerability to the public whereas vendors often try to keep the lid on even the most serious of problems.
Stating that Windows has fewer vulnerabilities is just a sneaky way of not answering any real questions. It's sort of like suggesting that getting hit by 1000 raindrops is worse than getting hit by an entire ocean by stating that "1000 units of water falling is worse than 1 unit of water". Sure, they're both units, but they're different units, and you're not specifying what's what or what's bigger.
That said, the only way you can get a good idea of whether or not moving to Linux or FreeBSD or Windows or Solaris or anything else is a good idea for your operation is if you evaluate your specific needs, capabilities, and resources. For example, if you're going to mainly be serving a website and managing the backend, you need to evaluate the database and http server offerings available, and the underlying platforms they run on plus how those offerings run on those specific platforms.
There's too much crud flying back and forth between OSS and proprietary vendors to see clearly, which is sad. I think that the vendors - both OSS and proprietary - would be much better served working on their offerings and working with their customers rather than slinging disingenious, misleading statistics at each other and making their own customer's jobs harder.
In the context of the post I replied to, there was no cold intent in that statement. When taken out of context and displayed as a freestanding statement, however, it certainly doesn't look like a very kind sentiment. It is also dishonest to misquote someone like that.
Incidentally: I am responding logged in because anonymous posting has been revoked for this subnet since I posted the AC response. I would have preferred to leave this account out of the politics section, but thanks to CmdrTaco's "safeguards" I cannot do that.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, see, there you go, that's my point exactly! I can't even remember the important stuff properly, so what chance does this have?
2005 will be forever seen as the year in which the US government managed to keep unilateral control of the internet...
Yea, never mind things like the Tsunami or Katrina or in the U.S. all of the controversies in government... I'm sure when I'm 85 years old this is exactly what I'll remember about 2005.
Doesn't mean shit.
Anybody with half a wit about them can remove or disable it and use any of the countless services that don't give a flying fuck whether you have said chip or not.
There have been countless attempts to force people out of the shadows in the past. They work to an extent, but the truly determined will never fail to circumvent them and this is no different.
Besides, who wants to bet that 100% of TPM-enabled systems are x86 and you can get around it just by using a different (and superior) platform?
I hear there's a similar message in the bibble, if you do the math right.
So you think that George W. Bush, alien invader, is smart enough to create and send the specific tone required to utilize this exploit?
Or, if you figure someone gave him a button that does it, you actually think he's smart enough to push a button?
You, sir, yes you. I have a bridge for sale....
That was a pretty stupid comment. The sole purpose for the Xbox's existance is for them to make money off of game software. If that means fixing buggy 360s, that's what they'll do.
It really annoys me how slashbots act like Microsoft should be some benevolent protector of the individual interests of all persons on the planet instead of, you know, the business they actually are.
Hire this guy. Awhile back there was a /. article that linked to one of his sites. It survived just fine.
Dude really knows his stuff...
When comparing the number vulnerability for vulnerability, a Windows Operating System, especially 2003, probably does have a lower number of known vulnerabilities.
OSS tends toward releasing every niggling vulnerability to the public whereas vendors often try to keep the lid on even the most serious of problems.
Stating that Windows has fewer vulnerabilities is just a sneaky way of not answering any real questions. It's sort of like suggesting that getting hit by 1000 raindrops is worse than getting hit by an entire ocean by stating that "1000 units of water falling is worse than 1 unit of water". Sure, they're both units, but they're different units, and you're not specifying what's what or what's bigger.
That said, the only way you can get a good idea of whether or not moving to Linux or FreeBSD or Windows or Solaris or anything else is a good idea for your operation is if you evaluate your specific needs, capabilities, and resources. For example, if you're going to mainly be serving a website and managing the backend, you need to evaluate the database and http server offerings available, and the underlying platforms they run on plus how those offerings run on those specific platforms.
There's too much crud flying back and forth between OSS and proprietary vendors to see clearly, which is sad. I think that the vendors - both OSS and proprietary - would be much better served working on their offerings and working with their customers rather than slinging disingenious, misleading statistics at each other and making their own customer's jobs harder.
In the context of the post I replied to, there was no cold intent in that statement. When taken out of context and displayed as a freestanding statement, however, it certainly doesn't look like a very kind sentiment. It is also dishonest to misquote someone like that.
Incidentally: I am responding logged in because anonymous posting has been revoked for this subnet since I posted the AC response. I would have preferred to leave this account out of the politics section, but thanks to CmdrTaco's "safeguards" I cannot do that.