I don't think so. I watched a video with his presenation on the new Git software where he stated that "They [SVN developers] were complete morons." He even knew that some of the SVN developers were in the audience. Not really what I would call a dimplomatic talent, let alone "gift for cooling things down".
PS - I agree with him that Subversion pretty much sucks.
If you read what I wrote again, I'm sure you'll get it. And if not, read it again. Etc. I'm not going to waste my time on you by repeating myself endlessly. This was my last post to you.
Yes, it is possible. For example IIS (the Windows web server) never had a single remote exploit (unlike Apache). However, you didn't get it. If you want to say that a system is defective by design, you must judge its default ideal state (that's for the "by design" part).
And, most importantly, the things you say are as stupid as saying: "Linux firewall is defective by design because there was some unpatched security hole in it (yes, there were many) and someone exploited it and rooted the system." See how stupid you are? Does that make it through?
The things you say are as stupid as saying: "Linux firewall is defective by design because there was some unpatched security hole in it (yes, there were many) and someone exploited it and rooted the system." See how stupid you are? Does that make it through?
You shouldn't even rely on having all your own security holes patches, how can you rely on a third party having all its security holes patches?
Yes, so you, too, whenever the Linux kernel has a security hole discovered that allows one to own the system remotely start crying "Oh my God, the system is defective by design!"?
Authenticode was there before Vista driver signing. You know why? It was used to sign ActiveX components which moronic script kiddies used to install malware. The browser can be configured to run only signed ActiveX components so the script kiddies can't do it (they want to stay anonymous which they can't, due to the signature requirements).
On Vista it's absolutely the same. Not just for DRM-breaking criminals, but for ANY criminals who want to stay anonymous (kernel level malware is the ultimate shit).
Sorry, but you're just plain stupid. The things you say are as stupid as saying: "Linux firewall is defective by design because there was some unpatched security hole in it (yes, there were many) and someone exploited it and rooted the system." See how stupid you are?
(anonymous code can't run) is evidently not the case
Anonymous code can't run when all security holes are patched. That's the state of the system which we should be judging (not one with unpatched vulnerabilities).
"The point is that an author of a malicious kernel-level Trojan horse wants to stay anonymous, but can't. The certificate authorities (Verisign etc) need to verify your identity first before they issue a code signing certificate for you.
That's how it's much much harder for moronic script kiddies to release kernel-level Trojan horses for Vista x64. Because we (or at least the police) would be able to find out their names and addresses."
Red herring comment. If there's a security flaw in a driver, the vendor fixes it and you download it. It doesn't mean the system is flawed. Linux has security vulnerabilities too. It doesn't mean the system is inherently insecure forever.
As I wrote elsewhere (the/. threaded system prevents me from replying to two people at once):
"The point is that an author of a malicious kernel-level Trojan horse wants to stay anonymous, but can't. The certificate authorities (Verisign etc) need to verify your identity first before they issue a code signing certificate for you.
That's how it's much much harder for moronic script kiddies to release kernel-level Trojan horses for Vista x64. Because we (or at least the police) would be able to find out their names and addresses."
The point is that an author of a malicious kernel-level Trojan horse wants to stay anonymous, but can't. The certificate authorities (Verisign etc) need to verify your identity first before they issue a code signing certificate for you.
That's how it's much much harder for moronic script kiddies to release kernel-level Trojan horses for Vista x64. Because we (or at least the police) would be able to find out their names and addresses.
If that were true, explain Enron to me. Worldcom. Adelphia. Global Crossing. Yes, the eventually got found out
You should have stopped after the part "Yes, the eventually got found out". I didn't have to read any further.
If you believe that Google would risk their reputation even though the likelihood of their being found to be criminals(!) is substantial, then you're naive. I say go ahead and risk it, I can't wait to see the Google empire fall down as Enron.
No it doesn't. You clearly don't know anything about big corporations, nota bene public ones and closely watched ones, such as Google. Ever heard of internal security audits? Managers watching over subordinate managers? Data flow control? If one manager dared to not comply with the laws, he would sooner or later be found, fired and handed over to a Law Enforcement agency. If you think that Google would dare to violate laws at this point, you are the one who's naive. It would pretty much destroy their reputation.
If you are the parent poster, you're a troll. Let me quote the exchange:
"The report notes that until recently, most of the major Internet search engines kept detailed and potentially personally identifiable records of their customers' searches for as indefinitely."
And in some countries, they are required by law to do exactly that.
I asked in which civilised countries the laws require search engines to keep detailed and potentially personally identifiable records of their customers' searches for as indefinitely. The answer was a link to a Wikipedia snipets of info on time-limited requirements (not indefinite) imposed on ISPs and telecoms -- not on Search Engines!
Publicly available Privacy Policy must be complied with. Otherwise, they're just nothing but a bunch of criminals. Yes, laws enforce Privacy Policies (at least here in the EU -- don't know about US).
And in some countries, they are required by law to do exactly that. That's nonsense. AFAIK, no civilised country has such laws. Would you back up your claims with verifiable references please?
That's not the same. Free software in itself is not 'viral'. The GNU (and similar licenses) could be viewed as viral though.
Absolutely. See here for more detailed explanation of why even truly open source software (BSD, Mozilla License) often can't even touch GPLed code. Sadly, GPL is viral and prevents co-operation even in the open source world. It's not MS who says it's viral, it's open source developers who do.
Actually, no, there are many Linux kernels. Many major distros "customize" their kernels. Hence, it is no longer a single product from multiple sources. As Linus provavbly failed to or didn't want to defend his trademark from dilution, it would very likely be found to be invalid by now. Really. That's what the law says.
Slashdot Mirror
Google Video failed to appeal to most users. Google eventually gave up and bought their competitor: YouTube.
Gave up? That's news to me. The site - video.google.com - is still up and running (btw, still in beta, as usual).
He seems to have a gift for cooling things down
I don't think so. I watched a video with his presenation on the new Git software where he stated that "They [SVN developers] were complete morons." He even knew that some of the SVN developers were in the audience. Not really what I would call a dimplomatic talent, let alone "gift for cooling things down".
PS - I agree with him that Subversion pretty much sucks.
I don't think "defective by design" means what you think it means...
Or maybe it's just that your way of thinking is defective by design.
If you read what I wrote again, I'm sure you'll get it. And if not, read it again. Etc. I'm not going to waste my time on you by repeating myself endlessly. This was my last post to you.
Yes, it is possible. For example IIS (the Windows web server) never had a single remote exploit (unlike Apache). However, you didn't get it. If you want to say that a system is defective by design, you must judge its default ideal state (that's for the "by design" part).
And, most importantly, the things you say are as stupid as saying: "Linux firewall is defective by design because there was some unpatched security hole in it (yes, there were many) and someone exploited it and rooted the system." See how stupid you are? Does that make it through?
The things you say are as stupid as saying: "Linux firewall is defective by design because there was some unpatched security hole in it (yes, there were many) and someone exploited it and rooted the system." See how stupid you are? Does that make it through?
You shouldn't even rely on having all your own security holes patches, how can you rely on a third party having all its security holes patches?
Yes, so you, too, whenever the Linux kernel has a security hole discovered that allows one to own the system remotely start crying "Oh my God, the system is defective by design!"?
took on a group that included IBM, who has very deep pockets.
Actually, it didn't. The case was solely Novel vs. SCO. IMB is another entirely separate and different case.
(Everyone should thank Novell rather than flame them constantly.)
Authenticode was there before Vista driver signing. You know why? It was used to sign ActiveX components which moronic script kiddies used to install malware. The browser can be configured to run only signed ActiveX components so the script kiddies can't do it (they want to stay anonymous which they can't, due to the signature requirements).
On Vista it's absolutely the same. Not just for DRM-breaking criminals, but for ANY criminals who want to stay anonymous (kernel level malware is the ultimate shit).
Sorry, but you're just plain stupid. The things you say are as stupid as saying: "Linux firewall is defective by design because there was some unpatched security hole in it (yes, there were many) and someone exploited it and rooted the system." See how stupid you are?
(anonymous code can't run) is evidently not the case
Anonymous code can't run when all security holes are patched. That's the state of the system which we should be judging (not one with unpatched vulnerabilities).
You missed the point. As I wrote elsewhere:
"The point is that an author of a malicious kernel-level Trojan horse wants to stay anonymous, but can't. The certificate authorities (Verisign etc) need to verify your identity first before they issue a code signing certificate for you.
That's how it's much much harder for moronic script kiddies to release kernel-level Trojan horses for Vista x64. Because we (or at least the police) would be able to find out their names and addresses."
Red herring comment. If there's a security flaw in a driver, the vendor fixes it and you download it. It doesn't mean the system is flawed. Linux has security vulnerabilities too. It doesn't mean the system is inherently insecure forever.
As I wrote elsewhere (the /. threaded system prevents me from replying to two people at once):
"The point is that an author of a malicious kernel-level Trojan horse wants to stay anonymous, but can't. The certificate authorities (Verisign etc) need to verify your identity first before they issue a code signing certificate for you.
That's how it's much much harder for moronic script kiddies to release kernel-level Trojan horses for Vista x64. Because we (or at least the police) would be able to find out their names and addresses."
The point is that an author of a malicious kernel-level Trojan horse wants to stay anonymous, but can't. The certificate authorities (Verisign etc) need to verify your identity first before they issue a code signing certificate for you.
That's how it's much much harder for moronic script kiddies to release kernel-level Trojan horses for Vista x64. Because we (or at least the police) would be able to find out their names and addresses.
A kernel-level driver can own a system? No shit!
(BTW, that's one of the reasons drivers need to be signed to run on Windows Vista x64.)
Anyone know how Vista is doing these days?
Yup, our website stats: 10% and growing constantly.
If that were true, explain Enron to me. Worldcom. Adelphia. Global Crossing. Yes, the eventually got found out
You should have stopped after the part "Yes, the eventually got found out". I didn't have to read any further.
If you believe that Google would risk their reputation even though the likelihood of their being found to be criminals(!) is substantial, then you're naive. I say go ahead and risk it, I can't wait to see the Google empire fall down as Enron.
But it only takes one.
No it doesn't. You clearly don't know anything about big corporations, nota bene public ones and closely watched ones, such as Google. Ever heard of internal security audits? Managers watching over subordinate managers? Data flow control? If one manager dared to not comply with the laws, he would sooner or later be found, fired and handed over to a Law Enforcement agency. If you think that Google would dare to violate laws at this point, you are the one who's naive. It would pretty much destroy their reputation.
If you are the parent poster, you're a troll. Let me quote the exchange:
"The report notes that until recently, most of the major Internet search engines kept detailed and potentially personally identifiable records of their customers' searches for as indefinitely."
And in some countries, they are required by law to do exactly that.
I asked in which civilised countries the laws require search engines to keep detailed and potentially personally identifiable records of their customers' searches for as indefinitely. The answer was a link to a Wikipedia snipets of info on time-limited requirements (not indefinite) imposed on ISPs and telecoms -- not on Search Engines!
Troll on.
So you think it's naive that Google managers want to abide by the laws? Let me tell you that YOU are the one who's being naive.
1. We'll delete your personal information
Publicly available Privacy Policy must be complied with. Otherwise, they're just nothing but a bunch of criminals. Yes, laws enforce Privacy Policies (at least here in the EU -- don't know about US).
And in some countries, they are required by law to do exactly that.
That's nonsense. AFAIK, no civilised country has such laws. Would you back up your claims with verifiable references please?
That's not the same. Free software in itself is not 'viral'. The GNU (and similar licenses) could be viewed as viral though.
Absolutely. See here for more detailed explanation of why even truly open source software (BSD, Mozilla License) often can't even touch GPLed code. Sadly, GPL is viral and prevents co-operation even in the open source world. It's not MS who says it's viral, it's open source developers who do.
Actually, no, there are many Linux kernels. Many major distros "customize" their kernels. Hence, it is no longer a single product from multiple sources. As Linus provavbly failed to or didn't want to defend his trademark from dilution, it would very likely be found to be invalid by now. Really. That's what the law says.