How many people do you think are out there maliciously portscanning? I've met way more normal computer professionals than psycho computer criminals that spend forty hours a week cracking.
Quite a number of them, and they're not exactly sitting around typing in nmap command lines by hand, you know. They have automated tools to scan large sections of the internet for known vulnerabilities to exploit. They don't run "thousands" of portscans, they run millions.
And the fact that you haven't met many of them might have more to do with you not associating with criminals, hmm?
Except, you know, that honest people don't run port scans on random machines that aren't theirs.
And you're severely underestimating just how widespread and automated exploit scanning is among the criminals. It's not like they're sitting around running nmap by hand.
While these may be malicious, I am willing to entertain the idea that a lot of them are from netizens whose local providers block access to "objectionable" materials.
Of course, if you limit yourself to only ever doing things which are faster from a command-line, you can keep living in the illusion that it's superior in every case.
You're old-fashioned. There's nothing to be proud about not understanding how to use the appropriate tool for the job.
Of course, if you limit yourself to only ever doing things which are faster from a command-line, you can keep living in the illusion that it's superior in every case.
Unfortunately, it has nothing at all to do with things being good for them. I have never tried PC-BSD, so it's not like I am complaining about the name because everything else is good. I haven't even gotten to anything but the name because the name is so bad that it just jumps out at you the first time you see it.
And if your name scares people away, it doesn't matter how awesome your product is, because people aren't going to find out.
Slashdot Mirror
Educate people that somehow the the port scans that hit them every day might, once in a thousand tries, not be malicious?
No, he wasn't, you genius, he specifically quoted that very line!
Why would they?
How many people do you think are out there maliciously portscanning? I've met way more normal computer professionals than psycho computer criminals that spend forty hours a week cracking.
Quite a number of them, and they're not exactly sitting around typing in nmap command lines by hand, you know. They have automated tools to scan large sections of the internet for known vulnerabilities to exploit. They don't run "thousands" of portscans, they run millions.
And the fact that you haven't met many of them might have more to do with you not associating with criminals, hmm?
No, but it isn't illegal to scan port 80 on all machines on a subnet either.
Except, you know, that honest people don't run port scans on random machines that aren't theirs.
And you're severely underestimating just how widespread and automated exploit scanning is among the criminals. It's not like they're sitting around running nmap by hand.
While these may be malicious, I am willing to entertain the idea that a lot of them are from netizens whose local providers block access to "objectionable" materials.
Yeah, no, that'd be pretty naive right there.
And "thousands" over a career is somehow not a tiny fraction?
Yes, and?
Read, comprehend, reply. In that order.
And?
No, it's not. Local computer culture plays a big role in how easy it is to infect personal computers and servers.
Do you honestly think anything but the tiniest fraction of port scans are not malicious?
Of course, if you limit yourself to only ever doing things which are faster from a command-line, you can keep living in the illusion that it's superior in every case.
You're old-fashioned. There's nothing to be proud about not understanding how to use the appropriate tool for the job.
Of course, if you limit yourself to only ever doing things which are faster from a command-line, you can keep living in the illusion that it's superior in every case.
I gather this is about some kind of service which was provided, huh?
It was promptly what by the what and the what now?
Unfortunately, it has nothing at all to do with things being good for them. I have never tried PC-BSD, so it's not like I am complaining about the name because everything else is good. I haven't even gotten to anything but the name because the name is so bad that it just jumps out at you the first time you see it.
And if your name scares people away, it doesn't matter how awesome your product is, because people aren't going to find out.
And once again, how is that relevant to the issue of "PC-BSD" being a horribly, fatally bad name?
And how is any of that relevant in any way?
The fact that there are worse names does not make this one good, you know.
And nobody will care, because the thing is named "PC-BSD". What is this, 1985?
People are probably trying to avoid mentioning this in order to make the site look more inviting.
Try paying a little closer attention to who exactly was talking, OK?
Except, you know, he was saying the exact same thing ten years ago when he wasn't making his money that way.