Getting closer...
$79.99 + 3 hours? I dunno what your time is worth, but my time starts at $50/hr. Considering XP is up and running in 30 minutes...
But still, the words TOTAL means more than just installation. Administration, repairs, patching... all that comes in to play. Windows has a pretty comparable TCO, at least in the IT world. Home use, well, your mileage may vary.
The article reads as follows:
"An attacker who can cause an affected system to connect to the SMB service on a malicious host may exploit this vulnerability in order to execute code on the victim's machine."
Uhm, duh. If I can get a machine to connect to me unwillingly, I can probably do a lot of bad things. You still have to get the server to connect to a malicious machine (not likely...).
It's a bad problem but not really a severe threat for a webserver (which is rarely if ever going to connect to an unknown machine...)
No, I called you a nitwit, and I'm going to call you it again because you were too dumb to notice that _I_ DIDN'T EVEN WRITE THE POST YOU'RE QUOTING.
Moron.
No one's said web servers can't be and aren't clients. They just commonly -aren't- _SMB_ clients, and are not really recommended to be.
What you _did_ assert, and wrongly I might add - was that servers use the SMB client when someone else accesses that server's share. They don't, you were wrong, quit trying to out-weasel it by dumping semantics.
you - "You do realize that you use the SMB client every time a share is accessed."
Me - "No, a server does not use the SMB -client- to -serve- data out through an SMB share. "
you - "That's what I said."
You, sir, are a nitwit. An SMB -server- does NOT use a -client- whenever one of -it's- shares are -accessed- (IE -IT- IS THE SMB SERVER, SERVING DATA OUT IT'S SHARE).
In the purely canonical sense, no, a server does not run a client - for the given context, which is SMB. Can a server run a client for SMB? Sure. BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT YOU SAID, NOR WHAT ANYONE IS TALKING ABOUT WHEN THEY SAY 'SERVER'. The word SERVER means - the machine serving, in a client-server relationship. Can a machine be BOTH? Yes, but not in a single given relationship.
Actually, TFA says the AVERAGE days of risk. That's important to note because many people are picking on single vulnerability instances to derail the article.
To your second factor; Does linux have -half- the notification and installation support that MS patches do? I know that the moment an MS patch is available, I'm notified and downloading the patch within minutes.
It's a genuine question, not being a linux server user... does linux have a notification system in place like MS does? The scale of MS's? I doubt it.
No, a server does not use the SMB -client- to -serve- data out through an SMB share.
http://samba.anu.edu.au/cifs/docs/what-is-smb.html #SMB_Servers
See who's listed under -servers-? Servers. See who's listed under running the client? Clients.
Are you serious?
Are you to tell me that anti-trust law is in place to tell a company they can't NOT have a business in a country?
Nothing in anti-trust law forces a company to exist somewhere they don't want to be. Nothing. A company can threaten to leave if conditions aren't met ALL THEY WANT. It happens all the time and is perfectly 100% legal and ethical.
I didn't say MS wasn't a monopoly (they're not, tho; or is linux not an option?)... what I said, rather clearly, was that threatening to close a factory has zero to do with antitrust law unless it is to stifle competition, which it is not.
There's no crime here.
Read the whole act here:
http://www.stolaf.edu/people/becker/antitrust/stat utes/sherman.html
You are allowed to restrain trade with a country, you just can't monopolize it. (see section 2)
You completely misunderstood the source, and the concept of anti-trust law. Nothing in anti-trust law says you can't STOP doing business in a country.
I'm shocked and appalled you'd compare this to gitmo, when this is much more associable to concepts like 'FAIR TRADE'.
Microsoft is a BUSINESS. They choose to do business WHERE and WHEN it suits their bottom line.
Ever hear of the concept of a BUSINESS DEAL - "you scratch mine, I scratch yours"? Yeah, that's all this is. There's no criminal action when a company chooses to close a plant because it's not profitable for them. There's also no criminal act when a company chooses to stop selling to a country.. or in this case - chooses to stop BUYING (labor) from a country.
This isn't a case of 'because everyone does it, it's OK', it's a case of "There's nothing wrong with this, except that Microsoft is doing it so it's cool to bash them to get your mod points up."
Yeah, but it's microsoft bashing, so it floats to the top of the barrel to be skimmed off for/. fodder.
Never mind that this is the way -any- business gets done, especially in foreign countries. Politicians regularly sweeten tax deals for companies.
Heck, what about RJReynolds? They pay off politicians by keeping plants in the right districts AND by lining their pockets with cash, simply so they can make cancer a leading industry.
MS is going to pull 800 jobs? Woo. How many did any number of our car companies pull out of mexico, china...
Actually... sez here the MS-DOS GUI was first.
http://www.jmusheneaux.com/012.htm
Although commodore's GEOS was really the early innovator that everyone else stole from.
There's a lot the people here are ignoring.
For speaker cabling, distance can come into play. Given, a normal home theater setup has little issue (and will be unnoticeable over the 20 feet distance) but I definitely can tell a difference in sound quality when using lamp cable over monster cable on my PA system (with 100ft speaker runs).
But for interconnects? I can't believe some people are suggesting that the $5 radio shack cables are just as good as the $25-50 monster cables. There's -audible- sound improvement and noise rejection when using good cables - just try recording into a computer with one brand and then the other in your signal chain. You can improve your noisefloor by 10-20db, especially if you've got one of those component cabinets with stacks of not-quite-high-end audio / video gear.
OpenDocument threatens to add a lot of competition (good) which will nullify standards (bad).
Office software RELIES on the fact that -everyone- is using the same damned software. Remember the browser wars? Just wait until you see spreadsheet wars.
This would all be hunky-dory if Standards preceded Innovation, but unfortunately what inevitably happens is company A releases cool feature Aa, that company B's A-reader cannot read, but Ba does the same thing. The standards do not get revised until ALL parties agree that feature Aa is what they will go with, but of course company B wants nothing to do with it and continues manufacturing Ba features. And yes, this all happened many times within the last decade.
Awful idea. We should have learned with the HTML "standardizations".
"We need to have it made law that file formats are not secrets and not patentable"
Yeah, and while we're at it, what the smeg's in the secret sauce, anyways!
I should know EXACTLY what I'm putting on my taco!
Slashdot Mirror
Read: http://www.cyber-spy.com/electronics-design/electr o-21158-29917.html
This lame post is stolen from this text...
Getting closer... $79.99 + 3 hours? I dunno what your time is worth, but my time starts at $50/hr. Considering XP is up and running in 30 minutes... But still, the words TOTAL means more than just installation. Administration, repairs, patching... all that comes in to play. Windows has a pretty comparable TCO, at least in the IT world. Home use, well, your mileage may vary.
The article reads as follows: "An attacker who can cause an affected system to connect to the SMB service on a malicious host may exploit this vulnerability in order to execute code on the victim's machine." Uhm, duh. If I can get a machine to connect to me unwillingly, I can probably do a lot of bad things. You still have to get the server to connect to a malicious machine (not likely...). It's a bad problem but not really a severe threat for a webserver (which is rarely if ever going to connect to an unknown machine...)
No, I called you a nitwit, and I'm going to call you it again because you were too dumb to notice that _I_ DIDN'T EVEN WRITE THE POST YOU'RE QUOTING. Moron. No one's said web servers can't be and aren't clients. They just commonly -aren't- _SMB_ clients, and are not really recommended to be. What you _did_ assert, and wrongly I might add - was that servers use the SMB client when someone else accesses that server's share. They don't, you were wrong, quit trying to out-weasel it by dumping semantics.
Please allow me to quote:
you - "You do realize that you use the SMB client every time a share is accessed."
Me - "No, a server does not use the SMB -client- to -serve- data out through an SMB share. "
you - " That's what I said. "
You, sir, are a nitwit. An SMB -server- does NOT use a -client- whenever one of -it's- shares are -accessed- (IE -IT- IS THE SMB SERVER, SERVING DATA OUT IT'S SHARE).
In the purely canonical sense, no, a server does not run a client - for the given context, which is SMB. Can a server run a client for SMB? Sure. BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT YOU SAID, NOR WHAT ANYONE IS TALKING ABOUT WHEN THEY SAY 'SERVER'. The word SERVER means - the machine serving, in a client-server relationship. Can a machine be BOTH? Yes, but not in a single given relationship.
No you didn't.
You implied that servers use the SMB client.
They don't.
Linux advocates have no concept of being paid for their work... TCO doesn't mean the sticker price, kids. T= TOTAL.
Actually, TFA says the AVERAGE days of risk. That's important to note because many people are picking on single vulnerability instances to derail the article. To your second factor; Does linux have -half- the notification and installation support that MS patches do? I know that the moment an MS patch is available, I'm notified and downloading the patch within minutes. It's a genuine question, not being a linux server user... does linux have a notification system in place like MS does? The scale of MS's? I doubt it.
No, a server does not use the SMB -client- to -serve- data out through an SMB share. http://samba.anu.edu.au/cifs/docs/what-is-smb.html #SMB_Servers
See who's listed under -servers-? Servers. See who's listed under running the client? Clients.
Kurzweil might disagree...
Great, like we need -more- god complexes running around MIT...
...aannnddd for the film challenged, this thread was a reference to 'spinal tap'.
Are you serious? Are you to tell me that anti-trust law is in place to tell a company they can't NOT have a business in a country? Nothing in anti-trust law forces a company to exist somewhere they don't want to be. Nothing. A company can threaten to leave if conditions aren't met ALL THEY WANT. It happens all the time and is perfectly 100% legal and ethical.
I didn't say MS wasn't a monopoly (they're not, tho; or is linux not an option?)... what I said, rather clearly, was that threatening to close a factory has zero to do with antitrust law unless it is to stifle competition, which it is not. There's no crime here.
Why this hasn't been modded to 5 I'll never understand. Great post.
Serious jail time?
Hahahahaha
I hope you don't smoke, because it'd be a shame to label you an idiot AND and hypocrite.
Read the whole act here: http://www.stolaf.edu/people/becker/antitrust/stat utes/sherman.html
You are allowed to restrain trade with a country, you just can't monopolize it. (see section 2)
You completely misunderstood the source, and the concept of anti-trust law. Nothing in anti-trust law says you can't STOP doing business in a country.
I'm shocked and appalled you'd compare this to gitmo, when this is much more associable to concepts like 'FAIR TRADE'.
Microsoft is a BUSINESS. They choose to do business WHERE and WHEN it suits their bottom line.
Ever hear of the concept of a BUSINESS DEAL - "you scratch mine, I scratch yours"? Yeah, that's all this is. There's no criminal action when a company chooses to close a plant because it's not profitable for them. There's also no criminal act when a company chooses to stop selling to a country.. or in this case - chooses to stop BUYING (labor) from a country.
This isn't a case of 'because everyone does it, it's OK', it's a case of "There's nothing wrong with this, except that Microsoft is doing it so it's cool to bash them to get your mod points up."
Yeah, but it's microsoft bashing, so it floats to the top of the barrel to be skimmed off for /. fodder.
Never mind that this is the way -any- business gets done, especially in foreign countries. Politicians regularly sweeten tax deals for companies.
Heck, what about RJReynolds? They pay off politicians by keeping plants in the right districts AND by lining their pockets with cash, simply so they can make cancer a leading industry.
MS is going to pull 800 jobs? Woo. How many did any number of our car companies pull out of mexico, china...
What, no "soviet"?
Actually... sez here the MS-DOS GUI was first. http://www.jmusheneaux.com/012.htm Although commodore's GEOS was really the early innovator that everyone else stole from.
There's a lot the people here are ignoring. For speaker cabling, distance can come into play. Given, a normal home theater setup has little issue (and will be unnoticeable over the 20 feet distance) but I definitely can tell a difference in sound quality when using lamp cable over monster cable on my PA system (with 100ft speaker runs). But for interconnects? I can't believe some people are suggesting that the $5 radio shack cables are just as good as the $25-50 monster cables. There's -audible- sound improvement and noise rejection when using good cables - just try recording into a computer with one brand and then the other in your signal chain. You can improve your noisefloor by 10-20db, especially if you've got one of those component cabinets with stacks of not-quite-high-end audio / video gear.
OpenDocument threatens to add a lot of competition (good) which will nullify standards (bad).
Office software RELIES on the fact that -everyone- is using the same damned software. Remember the browser wars? Just wait until you see spreadsheet wars.
This would all be hunky-dory if Standards preceded Innovation, but unfortunately what inevitably happens is company A releases cool feature Aa, that company B's A-reader cannot read, but Ba does the same thing. The standards do not get revised until ALL parties agree that feature Aa is what they will go with, but of course company B wants nothing to do with it and continues manufacturing Ba features. And yes, this all happened many times within the last decade.
Awful idea. We should have learned with the HTML "standardizations".
"We need to have it made law that file formats are not secrets and not patentable" Yeah, and while we're at it, what the smeg's in the secret sauce, anyways! I should know EXACTLY what I'm putting on my taco!
Yeah, and just wait until the BinaryXML comes out. To think, many think that's a -good- thing.