I did some work at a local University a while back. The faculty I worked in used HP-UX for their core services, Linux on the desktop, a couple of Solaris labs and 1 small (less than a dozen) windows lab. The other faculties used Windows almost exclusively.
The faculty that ran the *nix based services had almost no complaints of intrusion or other security problems from the "global" IS department of the university, while some of the windows using faculties were being threatened with losing their internet access because of too many security breaches.
No, this isn't a study. But it's evidence of how it works in the real world.
The reason I think *nix is more secure is because of how configurable it is. You can configure almost anything. Hell, you could write your own TCP drivers if you felt like it (not that I've ever known anyone to do that). On Windows you're limited to the security options given to you from the vendor. Or you have to pay a 3rd party for their innovation... With *nix the power is in your hands.
'Out of the box' software/systems are usually never ready for production environments right? But sufficiently tweaked most systems can be reasonably secure and centrally manageable. I just think that level of tweakability is higher with *nix./my2cents
A new OS, rife with vulnrabilities that can only be discovered by the global internet, new device drivers, software incompatibilities, different ways of doing the same windows functions that I have to learn, etc....
Telling Bush he can shove his missile defense system up his idea hole. We really would rather work towards a more peaceful world through understanding and compromise, not a peace built on fear and threats.
Understanding and compromise doesn't sell. So why would the most capitalistic country in the world want to do that?
What if it's actually part of the reason CD sales are increasing? Don't discount the power of free advertising, even if it's done by pirates. Exposure is still positive, even if it's a byproduct of pirating.
Like I said, I think the distribution companies are short sighted. They shouldn't be focusing their efforts on stopping file sharing; they should be focusing on finding a way to cash in on it.
I really believe that the distribution model that holds their business together is going to disappear. In refusing to move with the times they are dooming themselves to obsolescence.
The "college kids" that are downloading ripped movies are precisely the demographic that the movie industry depends on for generating theater revenue. If it becomes as popular as MP3 sharing, they're going to lose $, hence sue now before it becomes a major problem.
I disagree with that. Although it is logical it isn't what is actually happening. In actuality the revenue streams of the music industry are not suffering. As proof I offer this article that shows that even though piracy is increasing SO ARE LEGIT CD SALES.
It's not the actuall loss of sales that is affecting the content industry. It's the threat of lost control.
You have to realize that it's not the artists that are freaking out here, it's the content distribution companies, who by the way keep the bulk of the profits made from sales. You see, before the Internet they had a lot of control over the end user experience. Now that control is slipping away. In fact, I would say that the internet will almost completely dissolve the RIAA/MPAA business model in the next few decades.
But they want YOU to think the issue is lost revenue due to pirating. But it's not. It's potential future revenue loss for the distribution companies who, by the way, have reisited every major technological change in the history of the industrial revolution, even though time and again those changes made them richer. They're just plain short sighted.
As soon as someone does it successfully, other states will see it as a viable option. So this will probably result in more states or municipalities adopting open source products.
The thing holding back the open source movememt is it's lack of marketing. Most high level tech decisions aren't made by the people that really know the technology. It's made by the highest level administrators, and that's not usually the network admins. It's usually the corporate officers, or in this case the state government, that tend to fall victim to the power of marketing.
That's what makes the salesperson a powerful force in the IT industry.
I'm curious if they are being accused of violating some part of their service agreement with their host or if their host is terminating service for not 'liking' the content?
If the site (no I haven't seen it) was posting things like "death to infadels!" and such it could be seen as 'hate messages' which is commonly prohibited on service agreements. But if they are being booted for simply having a opinion or viewpoint that the host feels is unpopular then I think that canceling their service is contrary to 'pure' american values.
I generally follow good security practices so I wouldn't be sending any sensetive info through email anyways. I've always said that if you have something you wouldn't want the whole world to know, don't say it through email.
But the thought of someone getting my Gmail password isn't appealing either. But because I use different passwords for everything, the damage would be limited.
What if they come up with really good DRM and shutdown all the popular p2p systems soyou can't get a warezed version of the product. Then who will they blame?
If it can be proven that they're pricing and DRMing themselves out of the market their stocks will fall and they'll get spanked.
I say they're shooting themselves in the foot, one DRM-DVD at a time.
I think having unlabeled, complicated, annoying DRM on a product is just wrong. In the story about the T2 DVD, it was a frustrating ordeal for this guy to view the DVD he had purchased. That is nothing but wrong.
The thing is that he was only able to make it work because he was internet and computer savvy above the average level. So your average user would be sitting there with a DVD he/she can't watch on their PC and the retailer won't accept it back.
Talk about frustrating for the average user. I doubt they would keep buying DVDs like that.
Myself, I buy some DVDs, but if DRM becomes really popular with DVD companies I will quit buying DVDs. I'd rather read a book than have some greedy corporation interfer with my entertainment experience. I'm not going to pay out $30-40 to have a frustrating experience. And I'm hoping other people won't either.
Slashdot Mirror
I did some work at a local University a while back. The faculty I worked in used HP-UX for their core services, Linux on the desktop, a couple of Solaris labs and 1 small (less than a dozen) windows lab. The other faculties used Windows almost exclusively.
/my2cents
The faculty that ran the *nix based services had almost no complaints of intrusion or other security problems from the "global" IS department of the university, while some of the windows using faculties were being threatened with losing their internet access because of too many security breaches.
No, this isn't a study. But it's evidence of how it works in the real world.
The reason I think *nix is more secure is because of how configurable it is. You can configure almost anything. Hell, you could write your own TCP drivers if you felt like it (not that I've ever known anyone to do that). On Windows you're limited to the security options given to you from the vendor. Or you have to pay a 3rd party for their innovation... With *nix the power is in your hands.
'Out of the box' software/systems are usually never ready for production environments right? But sufficiently tweaked most systems can be reasonably secure and centrally manageable. I just think that level of tweakability is higher with *nix.
I worked on an ISP's helpdesk and I can tell you that the number 1 spam complaint I got was those adverts for having a bigger penis.
Why can't someone go after those spammers. At least viagra actually works.
A new OS, rife with vulnrabilities that can only be discovered by the global internet, new device drivers, software incompatibilities, different ways of doing the same windows functions that I have to learn, etc....
Bah Humbug.
Understanding and compromise doesn't sell. So why would the most capitalistic country in the world want to do that?
I bet everyone in this scenario has a goatee, unless they have one now of course.
What if it's actually part of the reason CD sales are increasing? Don't discount the power of free advertising, even if it's done by pirates. Exposure is still positive, even if it's a byproduct of pirating.
Like I said, I think the distribution companies are short sighted. They shouldn't be focusing their efforts on stopping file sharing; they should be focusing on finding a way to cash in on it.
I really believe that the distribution model that holds their business together is going to disappear. In refusing to move with the times they are dooming themselves to obsolescence.
I disagree with that. Although it is logical it isn't what is actually happening. In actuality the revenue streams of the music industry are not suffering. As proof I offer this article that shows that even though piracy is increasing SO ARE LEGIT CD SALES.
It's not the actuall loss of sales that is affecting the content industry. It's the threat of lost control.
You have to realize that it's not the artists that are freaking out here, it's the content distribution companies, who by the way keep the bulk of the profits made from sales. You see, before the Internet they had a lot of control over the end user experience. Now that control is slipping away. In fact, I would say that the internet will almost completely dissolve the RIAA/MPAA business model in the next few decades.
But they want YOU to think the issue is lost revenue due to pirating. But it's not. It's potential future revenue loss for the distribution companies who, by the way, have reisited every major technological change in the history of the industrial revolution, even though time and again those changes made them richer. They're just plain short sighted.
As soon as someone does it successfully, other states will see it as a viable option. So this will probably result in more states or municipalities adopting open source products.
The thing holding back the open source movememt is it's lack of marketing. Most high level tech decisions aren't made by the people that really know the technology. It's made by the highest level administrators, and that's not usually the network admins. It's usually the corporate officers, or in this case the state government, that tend to fall victim to the power of marketing.
That's what makes the salesperson a powerful force in the IT industry.
I'm curious if they are being accused of violating some part of their service agreement with their host or if their host is terminating service for not 'liking' the content?
If the site (no I haven't seen it) was posting things like "death to infadels!" and such it could be seen as 'hate messages' which is commonly prohibited on service agreements. But if they are being booted for simply having a opinion or viewpoint that the host feels is unpopular then I think that canceling their service is contrary to 'pure' american values.
I generally follow good security practices so I wouldn't be sending any sensetive info through email anyways. I've always said that if you have something you wouldn't want the whole world to know, don't say it through email.
But the thought of someone getting my Gmail password isn't appealing either. But because I use different passwords for everything, the damage would be limited.
From a previous slashdot article:
Music piracy is increasing
So are CD Sales. AT THE SAME TIME!
Now the big corporate brainwashers would have you belive that this is impossible, but it's obvious that it's not.
Quit eating at the trough of corporate propaganda.
Indian tech support is the worst. Maybe it's the same guys?
What if they come up with really good DRM and shutdown all the popular p2p systems soyou can't get a warezed version of the product. Then who will they blame?
If it can be proven that they're pricing and DRMing themselves out of the market their stocks will fall and they'll get spanked.
I say they're shooting themselves in the foot, one DRM-DVD at a time.
and they might hang themselves.
I think having unlabeled, complicated, annoying DRM on a product is just wrong. In the story about the T2 DVD, it was a frustrating ordeal for this guy to view the DVD he had purchased. That is nothing but wrong.
The thing is that he was only able to make it work because he was internet and computer savvy above the average level. So your average user would be sitting there with a DVD he/she can't watch on their PC and the retailer won't accept it back.
Talk about frustrating for the average user. I doubt they would keep buying DVDs like that.
Myself, I buy some DVDs, but if DRM becomes really popular with DVD companies I will quit buying DVDs. I'd rather read a book than have some greedy corporation interfer with my entertainment experience. I'm not going to pay out $30-40 to have a frustrating experience. And I'm hoping other people won't either.