I realize that a lot of people are under the delusion that 'computers` were invented by Bill Gates but a lot of this stuff had been previously devised on the Mini and Mainframe.
"RPG.. was originally developed by IBM in the 1960s.. RPG was an acronym for Report Program Generator, descriptive of the purpose of the language: generation of reports from data files, including matching record and sub-total reports."
"RPG III significantly departed from the original language, providing modern structured constructs like IF-ENDIF blocks, DO loops, and subroutines.. In 1994, RPG IV.. was released and the name, officially, was no longer an acronym"
See also:
"Record Management Services (abbreviated RMS) are procedures.. that programs may call to process files and records within files.
"So RedHat is basically saying that (RH)Linux will never ever be able compete on the desktop. Then why are they putting all the effort in it?"
Translation: Because Redhat said that MS entry into the high performance computing is playing catch-up they must be conceeding that they will never be able to compete on the desktop.
"While I haven't used SuSE since 1998 or so, its nice to see they're coming along"
I like SuSE I really do but.. not ready yet..
One thing I take note of is the mention of "licensing costs were cited as key reasons for the decision.". I think there are many here who will take a "it's free!" approach to that statement, and that is not necessarily the case.
Well what was actually said was the primary reasons were increased flexibility, enhanced usability and reduced training and support costs and secondarily freely accessible sources, no license costs and optimum support of current hardware.
So that would make licensing costs next to last, near to support of current hardware.
"most are forgetting the SuSE/Novell issue where SuSE isn't entirely as free as say CentOS, Ubuntu, FreeBSD, etc.,
I'm sorry SuSE can be downloaded from the site without restriction. What you do pay for is support an entirely different thing. Do you get free support for these others?
"I've never taken x86Sol seriously. If you ask me it was unstable, riddled with hardware issues"
SuSE only looks good as compared to Solaris 2002:)
"I'd thought of installing SuSE using OpenExchange because of the cost factor when I worked at a smaller company.. I ended up installing CentOS.. Solaris.. LDAP.. DotProject.. SugarCRM.. I saved the company a lot of money but ended up to my neck in work."
Does SuSE offer anything else apart from the cost factor? How about enhanced usability, reduced support costs and better security.
As for more work, do you mean at installation time or day to day maintenence. The article specifically cites Saxony as referring to reduced support costs yet your experience is the exact opposite. How curious as my understanding that nix requires less work to install and virtually none for day to day maintenence - baring a hardware failure that is.
What kind of enterprise are you solely responciple for that is running you off your feet, NASA? and that only saved the company $16,000 per anum, the average salary of a Windows certified professional.? Saxony can get by with most of the PCs runing in kiosk mode.
"I had originally wanted to use SuSE before they started selling seats for OpenExchange"
You only buy a support license for the number of seats and you damn well know it..;)
"Its always nice though to see the distros moving up"
Up to where? You can't get anymore upper that SuSE 10.1 on 64 bit hardware.
"Linux distributions.. are offline more [because of] the scarcity of Linux and open source documentation"
Even assuming that were true how does a lack of paper cause an OS to bork?
And how does a lack of paper cause the OS to stay offline longer?
Is it because it is sulking?
How was the data collect the data?
What was the methodology used?
Where are the figures?
What criteria was used in selecting the participents?
How is a marketing firm or Ms. DiDio for that matter, suitably qualified to comment on OS security? Finally are these people really the unbiased commentators they claim?
"Windows servers recover 30% faster from security attacks than Linux servers" Laura DiDio July 2005
"Indemnification is a serious, potentially costly issue for enterprises" - Laura DiDio Oct 2004
"For the time being, she said, Linux has an apparent advantage simply by virtue of a lower level of connectivity" - Laura DiDio April 2004
"hype notwithstanding, Linux's technical merits while first-rate, are equivalent but not superior to Unix and Windows Server 2003," - Laura DiDio Mar 2004
"This has the potential to turn into a twentieth century witch hunt," "There is a visceral anti-Microsoft sentiment in Europe." - Laura DiDio Sep 2003
"The entire Linux community is saying to customers, 'You're on your own,'".. "That's not a place I want to be." - Laura DiDio Aug 2003
When you have to use so many charged words in support of your argument then we know you are just a fudding. It is one way of getting more hits on your web site.
When you have to invoke PETA as a contrivance to trash the FSF then I'm afraid you've totally lost any credibility you have to comment on matters technological, at least in my eyes.
Is there a list of approved posters or has slashdot decended into a self indulgent clique.
If so do you mind posting this list so as the rest of us can stop wasting our time.
Oracle Exec Strikes Out At 'Patch' Mentality
Posted by Zonk on Monday May 29, @09:40AM
rs232's Recent Submissions,
the blue bridge of death Saturday May 27, @06:03PM Rejected
"Malware cannot install unless it has root baring defects in the applications which does not invalidate safer by design." - rs232
"Wrong. Executables can be placed in the users profile and run without the need to root access"
I said *install*, not run as as standard user. There is an immense difference .. lol! It ran allright, you just didn't see it.
You're absolutly right it did run but only becasue I had root access and copied it to/usr/local/sbin - as root !
Begin toad.virus.sh
"#!/bin/sh
echo "#!/bin/sh" > ~/.kde/Autostart/virus.sh
echo "kdialog --msgbox \"hello world\"" >> ~/.kde/Autostart/virus.sh
chmod 755 ~/.kde/Autostart/virus.sh
kdialog --msgbox "Hello world \"virus\" installed! Please restart your kde session"
exit"
"The example above works like a charm on my box.."
I forgot to mention that/home/ is mounted noexec but even allowing for that show me how clicking on a web link or clicking on an attachment can achieve the same results. Or what's more important achieve root. Yes I know that noexec bit could be circumvented but it requires willful action by the local user.
Results attempting to execute the toad.virus.sh
01. Open Gedit 02. Copy and paste the above 03. Save toad.virus.sh in $home 04. chmod u+x toad.virus.sh 05. Click on toad.virus.sh in Konqueror.. no results 06. Type./toad.virus.sh at a bash console
.. results.. bad interpreter: Permission denied .. "I just understand how the security models for both windows and unix work and I know the entry points for both"
Show me how you can make "C:\Documents and Settings\" noexec in Windows then.
"I pointed out that the real reason is that it is very difficult." - rs232
"But it's not due to the design of linux. It's due to the lack of targets and novice users."
It's precisely because of the design that Linux is more secure. Each resource is owned by User, Group or World. Each can be granted read, write or execute access. A so called virus executed by User can not access system areas, by design.
"I can think of a few apps which have had remote code execution exploits very recently - firefox, KDE, mplayer, realplayer, acrobat, zlib, gaim"
These were bugs in the applications that were fixed very rapidly. Unlike Windows with its click and run interface it is very difficult to get something to run in nix, by default.
"No. Modern desktop enviroments like KDE.. do not require a console to run things."
I have a shell script in/usr/local/sbin executable by Users. Clicking on it in Konqueror does absolutly nothing. How can I get it to run by clicking on it like a novice?
#!/bin/bash
echo hello world
ls/root
"Since when did malware need root?"
Malware cannot install unless it has root baring defects in the applications which does not invalidate safer by design.
"Do you need root in linux to send email (spam)"
You do if the malware wants to run its own SMTP engine as only root can allocate ports.
Do you need root in linux to connect to an IRC server or a webpage (DoS bots)?
The IRC server cannot install as user, by default.
"Do you need root in linux to start a program up automatically at boot or login"
You do need root access to alter the boot sequence.
The boot sequence is locked to root access only.
A script run as User can not access system files.
"Of course once a peice of malware did get in, gaining root in linux would only be a matter of time, as keyloggers can be installed in X without the need for root access."
Installing a piece of malware without root is next to impossible. You don't need a keylogger to access the X keyboard buffer. Can you provide a citation for "malware" that installs an X keylogger without root access.
"Application exploits obviously do not require this"
A bug in an individual application does not invalidate my point. That the design is more secure by default than that other click and run one.
"Email worms in linux could be packaged in archives too - *with the execute bit pre-set*"
Here when I email myself virus.sh I get prompted to open in gedit or download the file and the executable bit is stripped off. Email me a script and demonstrate how to execute it by opening an attachment.
"These newbie friendly linux distros offer the same level of desktop functionality as Windows does. If they didn't, novices would never be able to use them."
A locked down nix system cannot click and run. A locked down Windows system is unusable.
"These type of people are ripe for expliotation. There just aren't enough of them."
"You are comparing a desktop OS that is used primarily by computer novices with *nix servers"
In relation to the point made by moe_jama that the reason you don't see Linux viruses is that malicious programmers are not interested. I pointed out that the real reason is that it is very difficult. They've had more than enough time by now.
What difference would it make with nix on a desktop used by a novice. It's still almost impossible to run without wilfull user action. Even more so by the computer novice. This is how a novice would get a Linux 'virus`.
01. download file
02. open a console
03. login as root
04. chmod on the file to execute
05. type./run.virus
With Windows all the novice has to do is click on a web link or open an attachment.
"diversity makes it harder to write viruses and spyware, but at the same time forcing diversity upon the computer industry might also make virus writers write multi-platform viruses"
But what virus writers might do is the future bares no logical relation to what they actually are doing now which is writing viruses for the monoculture and don't you think that making life difficult for the virus writers is a good thing.
fud injection alert:
"most malicious programmers are not interested in writing a virus for openoffice or linux."
Most malicious programmers don't write viruses for *nix because it's bloody near impossible. Remember a great deal of the Internet is still run on BsdUnix or some such varient of Unix. Where are the viruses?
"diversity in the computer field leads to confusion, lowered productivity and"
Noncense, an API that runs on different platforms would we trivially easy to produce. A bit like embedded Java on a chip. Same with a graphical standard. Produce an RFC and let the manufacturers produce a chip + interface.
"Must a person make up a catchy phrase to claim credit for knowing that MS would get hit first my virus writers?"
He didn't make up a catchy phrase he wrote a full report and got fired for it. Is it news that a monoculture is a bad thing?
I think anyone who knows anything about viruses already knew this information over a decade ago. This really isn't news just a fancy way of saying I told you so."
It isn't about 'viruses` it's about defects in the monoculture
"Open document standards are a great idea, but it's not as big a disadvantage to MS as you would think"
Microsoft political machinations require a seperate thread.
"Word viruses have been around for at least 8 years, and the Microsoft Word monoculture for longer than that. How is this new?"
Greer predicted a meltdown in the monoculture. Here we have a zero day exploit that luckly did no real damage. A virus that hits every fully patched Windows box on the planet and you ask what's new. You cannot be serious.
"Nature has made a monoculture at the level of DNA"
frank_adrian314159
A distortion of the meaning of monoculture within the current context. Why a monoculture is not a good idea in a species is that when a virus comes along it doesn't wipe out the whole group as there are a number of Alleles for the same gene. These correspond to different coding schemes for the Windows API for instance.
.. a bunch of mindless Linux advocacy..
What if anything constructive do you have to say about Dan Geers original article the one that got him fired by Microsoft.
.. infrastructural.. turing-equivalent.. Von Neuman.. C-oriented architectures.. economies of scale or biological principles..
NO I wouldn't like to do your own homework for you.
Nothing is 100% but I can guarantee that if you use Windows you are guaranteed to catch a virus merely by clicking on a web link or opening an email attachment. With Linux or Mac OS X you have to perform a number of steps to 'catch` a virus.
"do you really beleive such a browser was actually possible?"
It's not a matter of belief its a reality.
Run the browser as standard user with write
access to the home and tmp dirs.
Set the home and tmp dir to no execute.
That's it . . ..
it's not that simple..
software not available..
smaller userbase..
ease of use..
What is your interpretation of the meaning of the following statement:
"Some people want to use community-based software.. Other people want the reliability and the dependability that comes from a commercial software model"
"Contrast "commercial software is more reliable and dependable than open source" with "open source is neither reliable nor dependable." One is the basis for a discussion, the other is flamebait for the Slashdot crowd to lap up."
No, the first one is factually incorrect. The second is a restatement of the first with the terms reversed. The first is the real flamebait. That you would defend it leads us to question what you are. I know what I am.
All you're doing here is playing the word shuffle game.
`how did slashdot editors managed to understand "ther people want the reliability and the dependability that comes from a commercial software model.'"" to "OpenSource is unreliable"'
Because in an interview with the BBC a Microsoft 'technology` officer stated:
01. Some people go with commercial software because it is reliable and dependable.
02. Some people go with Open Source software because of its collaborative nature.
By linking the two statements in the same sentence, he misleadingly implied that Open Source was neither reliable or dependable. Now do you see How did you not manage to underatand this?
'some people want.. community-based software.. Other people want.. reliability.. dependability.. commercial software' - Jonathan Murray
This is so ironic. MS does a deal with Symantec for data-storage technologies, what ever that is, then cancels it and now Symantec is sueing them. If Symantec had any real technologies they would have devised a system for not getting 'viruses' same with Microsoft.
Meanwhile over on capitol hill..
"Gates downplayed the idea of a technological fix to the spam problem. "There is no silver-bullet solution to the problem,"
No Mr. Gates, there is no Microsoft technological fix since it is Microsoft Windows that is the root cause of the problem. All those hacked Windows desktops awaiting use in the next phishing or DOS attack.
"Gates advocated.. new legislation, increased enforcement [and ] industry self-regulation."
No Mr. Gates, making hacking a twenty year felony crime is not going to fix it either. What they should do is make it a twenty year felony offince to sell such a defective OS such as the one you produce.
"While trumpeting Microsoft's investment in antispam technology"
Why not make an OS that cannot be hijacked by the next spamking.. now that would be real innovation® (Microsoft Corp).
Slashdot Mirror
I realize that a lot of people are under the delusion that 'computers` were invented by Bill Gates but a lot of this stuff had been previously devised on the Mini and Mainframe.
.. was originally developed by IBM in the 1960s .. RPG was an acronym for Report Program Generator, descriptive of the purpose of the language: generation of reports from data files, including matching record and sub-total reports."
.. In 1994, RPG IV .. was released and the name, officially, was no longer an acronym"
.. that programs may call to process files and records within files.
"RPG
"RPG III significantly departed from the original language, providing modern structured constructs like IF-ENDIF blocks, DO loops, and subroutines
See also:
"Record Management Services (abbreviated RMS) are procedures
"cuillamartin 1356/tcp CuillaMartin Company" What does this mean?
Will this 'flaw` work on Firefox/SuSE10/nonroot user?
"the incident apparently occurred when an employee downloaded a contaminated file from a porn site"
What OS did this trojan run on?
"So RedHat is basically saying that (RH)Linux will never ever be able compete on the desktop. Then why are they putting all the effort in it?"
Translation: Because Redhat said that MS entry into the high performance computing is playing catch-up they must be conceeding that they will never be able to compete on the desktop.
Fails the logic test I'm afraid.
"While I haven't used SuSE since 1998 or so, its nice to see they're coming along"
.. not ready yet ..
:)
.. I ended up installing CentOS .. Solaris .. LDAP .. DotProject .. SugarCRM .. I saved the company a lot of money but ended up to my neck in work."
.. ;)
I like SuSE I really do but
One thing I take note of is the mention of "licensing costs were cited as key reasons for the decision.". I think there are many here who will take a "it's free!" approach to that statement, and that is not necessarily the case.
Well what was actually said was the primary reasons were increased flexibility, enhanced usability and reduced training and support costs and secondarily freely accessible sources, no license costs and optimum support of current hardware.
So that would make licensing costs next to last, near to support of current hardware.
"most are forgetting the SuSE/Novell issue where SuSE isn't entirely as free as say CentOS, Ubuntu, FreeBSD, etc.,
I'm sorry SuSE can be downloaded from the site without restriction. What you do pay for is support an entirely different thing. Do you get free support for these others?
"I've never taken x86Sol seriously. If you ask me it was unstable, riddled with hardware issues"
SuSE only looks good as compared to Solaris 2002
"I'd thought of installing SuSE using OpenExchange because of the cost factor when I worked at a smaller company
Does SuSE offer anything else apart from the cost factor? How about enhanced usability, reduced support costs and better security.
As for more work, do you mean at installation time or day to day maintenence. The article specifically cites Saxony as referring to reduced support costs yet your experience is the exact opposite. How curious as my understanding that nix requires less work to install and virtually none for day to day maintenence - baring a hardware failure that is.
What kind of enterprise are you solely responciple for that is running you off your feet, NASA? and that only saved the company $16,000 per anum, the average salary of a Windows certified professional.? Saxony can get by with most of the PCs runing in kiosk mode.
"I had originally wanted to use SuSE before they started selling seats for OpenExchange"
You only buy a support license for the number of seats and you damn well know it
"Its always nice though to see the distros moving up"
Up to where? You can't get anymore upper that SuSE 10.1 on 64 bit hardware.
Need we ask on what OS was this trojan so easly run?
.. would .. email the findings back to us" "Slowly but surely info was being mailed back to him"
"I had one of my guys write a Trojan that
"Linux distributions .. are offline more [because of] the scarcity of Linux and open source documentation"
.. "That's not a place I want to be." - Laura DiDio Aug 2003
Even assuming that were true how does a lack of paper cause an OS to bork?
And how does a lack of paper cause the OS to stay offline longer?
Is it because it is sulking?
How was the data collect the data?
What was the methodology used?
Where are the figures?
What criteria was used in selecting the participents?
How is a marketing firm or Ms. DiDio for that matter, suitably qualified to comment on OS security? Finally are these people really the unbiased commentators they claim?
"Windows servers recover 30% faster from security attacks than Linux servers" Laura DiDio July 2005
"Indemnification is a serious, potentially costly issue for enterprises" - Laura DiDio Oct 2004
"For the time being, she said, Linux has an apparent advantage simply by virtue of a lower level of connectivity" - Laura DiDio April 2004
"hype notwithstanding, Linux's technical merits while first-rate, are equivalent but not superior to Unix and Windows Server 2003," - Laura DiDio Mar 2004
"This has the potential to turn into a twentieth century witch hunt," "There is a visceral anti-Microsoft sentiment in Europe." - Laura DiDio Sep 2003
"The entire Linux community is saying to customers, 'You're on your own,'"
When you have to use so many charged words in support of your argument then we know you are just a fudding. It is one way of getting more hits on your web site.
...
When you have to invoke PETA as a contrivance to trash the FSF then I'm afraid you've totally lost any credibility you have to comment on matters technological, at least in my eyes.
Free Software Foundation: Free as in "do what I say
key words:
alarming, crusade, demagoguery, disappointed, evangelical dogma, God is on its side, histrionics, hysterical activism, PETA, insidious, misplaced neopolitical activism, moralistic, name-calling, politicization, radicalism, regrettable spiral, troubling, unilaterally, verboten
--
ps: How's the 'Linux flipping phenomenon` proceeding?
Is there a list of approved posters or has slashdot decended into a self indulgent clique.
If so do you mind posting this list so as the rest of us can stop wasting our time.
Oracle Exec Strikes Out At 'Patch' Mentality
Posted by Zonk on Monday May 29, @09:40AM
rs232's Recent Submissions,
the blue bridge of death Saturday May 27, @06:03PM Rejected
"Malware cannot install unless it has root baring defects in the applications which does not invalidate safer by design." - rs232
..
/usr/local/sbin - as root !
.."
/home/ is mounted noexec but even allowing for that show me how clicking on a web link or clicking on an attachment can achieve the same results. Or what's more important achieve root. Yes I know that noexec bit could be circumvented but it requires willful action by the local user.
.. no results ./toad.virus.sh at a bash console
.. results .. bad interpreter: Permission denied
..
"Wrong. Executables can be placed in the users profile and run without the need to root access"
I said *install*, not run as as standard user. There is an immense difference
lol! It ran allright, you just didn't see it.
You're absolutly right it did run but only becasue I had root access and copied it to
Begin toad.virus.sh
"#!/bin/sh
echo "#!/bin/sh" > ~/.kde/Autostart/virus.sh
echo "kdialog --msgbox \"hello world\"" >> ~/.kde/Autostart/virus.sh
chmod 755 ~/.kde/Autostart/virus.sh
kdialog --msgbox "Hello world \"virus\" installed! Please restart your kde session"
exit"
"The example above works like a charm on my box
I forgot to mention that
Results attempting to execute the toad.virus.sh
01. Open Gedit
02. Copy and paste the above
03. Save toad.virus.sh in $home
04. chmod u+x toad.virus.sh
05. Click on toad.virus.sh in Konqueror
06. Type
"I just understand how the security models for both windows and unix work and I know the entry points for both"
Show me how you can make "C:\Documents and Settings\" noexec in Windows then.
"You may review these Materials only .. to interface with a Microsoft product"
.. ownership .. changes, Your right to use these Materials automatically terminates"
.. intellectual property claim"
.. of Your Feedback"
"MICROSOFT MAKES NO WARRANTY OF ANY KIND"
"If
"Microsoft may freely use, reproduce, license, distribute, and otherwise commercialize Your Feedback"
"You will not give Microsoft any Feedback (i) that You have reason to believe is subject to any
"Microsoft has no obligation to maintain the confidentiality
"You waive any defenses allowing the dispute to be litigated elsewhere"
"If any part of this Agreement is unenforceable, it will be considered modified to the extent necessary to make it enforceable"
from "Windows Media Photo Specification license agreement.
"I pointed out that the real reason is that it is very difficult." - rs232
.. do not require a console to run things."
/usr/local/sbin executable by Users. Clicking on it in Konqueror does absolutly nothing. How can I get it to run by clicking on it like a novice?
/root
.. billig ..
"But it's not due to the design of linux. It's due to the lack of targets and novice users."
It's precisely because of the design that Linux is more secure. Each resource is owned by User, Group or World. Each can be granted read, write or execute access. A so called virus executed by User can not access system areas, by design.
"I can think of a few apps which have had remote code execution exploits very recently - firefox, KDE, mplayer, realplayer, acrobat, zlib, gaim"
These were bugs in the applications that were fixed very rapidly. Unlike Windows with its click and run interface it is very difficult to get something to run in nix, by default.
"No. Modern desktop enviroments like KDE
I have a shell script in
#!/bin/bash
echo hello world
ls
"Since when did malware need root?"
Malware cannot install unless it has root baring defects in the applications which does not invalidate safer by design.
"Do you need root in linux to send email (spam)"
You do if the malware wants to run its own SMTP engine as only root can allocate ports.
Do you need root in linux to connect to an IRC server or a webpage (DoS bots)?
The IRC server cannot install as user, by default.
"Do you need root in linux to start a program up automatically at boot or login"
You do need root access to alter the boot sequence.
The boot sequence is locked to root access only.
A script run as User can not access system files.
"Of course once a peice of malware did get in, gaining root in linux would only be a matter of time, as keyloggers can be installed in X without the need for root access."
Installing a piece of malware without root is next to impossible. You don't need a keylogger to access the X keyboard buffer. Can you provide a citation for "malware" that installs an X keylogger without root access.
"Application exploits obviously do not require this"
A bug in an individual application does not invalidate my point. That the design is more secure by default than that other click and run one.
"Email worms in linux could be packaged in archives too - *with the execute bit pre-set*"
Here when I email myself virus.sh I get prompted to open in gedit or download the file and the executable bit is stripped off. Email me a script and demonstrate how to execute it by opening an attachment.
"These newbie friendly linux distros offer the same level of desktop functionality as Windows does. If they didn't, novices would never be able to use them."
A locked down nix system cannot click and run. A locked down Windows system is unusable.
"These type of people are ripe for expliotation. There just aren't enough of them."
You wish
"You are comparing a desktop OS that is used primarily by computer novices with *nix servers"
./run.virus
In relation to the point made by moe_jama that the reason you don't see Linux viruses is that malicious programmers are not interested. I pointed out that the real reason is that it is very difficult. They've had more than enough time by now.
What difference would it make with nix on a desktop used by a novice. It's still almost impossible to run without wilfull user action. Even more so by the computer novice. This is how a novice would get a Linux 'virus`.
01. download file
02. open a console
03. login as root
04. chmod on the file to execute
05. type
With Windows all the novice has to do is click on a web link or open an attachment.
"diversity makes it harder to write viruses and spyware, but at the same time forcing diversity upon the computer industry might also make virus writers write multi-platform viruses"
But what virus writers might do is the future bares no logical relation to what they actually are doing now which is writing viruses for the monoculture and don't you think that making life difficult for the virus writers is a good thing.
fud injection alert:
"most malicious programmers are not interested in writing a virus for openoffice or linux."
Most malicious programmers don't write viruses for *nix because it's bloody near impossible. Remember a great deal of the Internet is still run on BsdUnix or some such varient of Unix. Where are the viruses?
"diversity in the computer field leads to confusion, lowered productivity and"
Noncense, an API that runs on different platforms would we trivially easy to produce. A bit like embedded Java on a chip. Same with a graphical standard. Produce an RFC and let the manufacturers produce a chip + interface.
"Must a person make up a catchy phrase to claim credit for knowing that MS would get hit first my virus writers?"
He didn't make up a catchy phrase he wrote a full report and got fired for it. Is it news that a monoculture is a bad thing?
I think anyone who knows anything about viruses already knew this information over a decade ago. This really isn't news just a fancy way of saying I told you so."
It isn't about 'viruses` it's about defects in the monoculture
"Open document standards are a great idea, but it's not as big a disadvantage to MS as you would think"
Microsoft political machinations require a seperate thread.
"Word viruses have been around for at least 8 years, and the Microsoft Word monoculture for longer than that. How is this new?"
Greer predicted a meltdown in the monoculture. Here we have a zero day exploit that luckly did no real damage. A virus that hits every fully patched Windows box on the planet and you ask what's new. You cannot be serious.
"Nature has made a monoculture at the level of DNA"
.. a bunch of mindless Linux advocacy ..
.. infrastructural .. turing-equivalent .. Von Neuman .. C-oriented architectures .. economies of scale or biological principles ..
frank_adrian314159
A distortion of the meaning of monoculture within the current context. Why a monoculture is not a good idea in a species is that when a virus comes along it doesn't wipe out the whole group as there are a number of Alleles for the same gene. These correspond to different coding schemes for the Windows API for instance.
What if anything constructive do you have to say about Dan Geers original article the one that got him fired by Microsoft.
NO I wouldn't like to do your own homework for you.
Can you gurantee 100%
Nothing is 100% but I can guarantee that if you use Windows you are guaranteed to catch a virus merely by clicking on a web link or opening an email attachment. With Linux or Mac OS X you have to perform a number of steps to 'catch` a virus.
"I'm so damn tired of apps that open big windows needlessly"
In emacs type ctrl s and all the relevent words are hilighted on screen, as you type.
I'm not sugesting you move to emacs but the current developers could adopt the method. No more windows jumping round the screen please.
How about menus at the top and a status line at the bottom, a bit like the Mac.
"do you really beleive such a browser was actually possible?"
.
.. .. .. ..
. .. :)
It's not a matter of belief its a reality.
Run the browser as standard user with write
access to the home and tmp dirs.
Set the home and tmp dir to no execute.
That's it . . .
it's not that simple
software not available
smaller userbase
ease of use
add . . .
Thats not possible
what on Earth can we do so stop the spread of garbage like the above?
..
.. .. .. .. ;)
Install an OS that don't get viruses/worms and use a browser that cannot be hijacked.
--
Standby for the trolls to respond with
it's not that simple
software not available
smaller userbase
ease of use
have to compile the kernel etc
What is your interpretation of the meaning of the following statement:
.. Other people want the reliability and the dependability that comes from a commercial software model"
"Some people want to use community-based software
"Contrast "commercial software is more reliable and dependable than open source" with "open source is neither reliable nor dependable." One is the basis for a discussion, the other is flamebait for the Slashdot crowd to lap up."
No, the first one is factually incorrect. The second is a restatement of the first with the terms reversed. The first is the real flamebait. That you would defend it leads us to question what you are. I know what I am.
All you're doing here is playing the word shuffle game.
`how did slashdot editors managed to understand "ther people want the reliability and the dependability that comes from a commercial software model.'"" to "OpenSource is unreliable"'
.. community-based software .. Other people want .. reliability .. dependability .. commercial software' - Jonathan Murray
Because in an interview with the BBC a Microsoft 'technology` officer stated:
01. Some people go with commercial software because it is reliable and dependable.
02. Some people go with Open Source software because of its collaborative nature.
By linking the two statements in the same sentence, he misleadingly implied that Open Source was neither reliable or dependable. Now do you see How did you not manage to underatand this?
'some people want
This is so ironic. MS does a deal with Symantec for data-storage technologies, what ever that is, then cancels it and now Symantec is sueing them. If Symantec had any real technologies they would have devised a system for not getting 'viruses' same with Microsoft.
..
.. new legislation, increased enforcement [and ] industry self-regulation."
.. now that would be real innovation® (Microsoft Corp).
Meanwhile over on capitol hill
"Gates downplayed the idea of a technological fix to the spam problem. "There is no silver-bullet solution to the problem,"
No Mr. Gates, there is no Microsoft technological fix since it is Microsoft Windows that is the root cause of the problem. All those hacked Windows desktops awaiting use in the next phishing or DOS attack.
"Gates advocated
No Mr. Gates, making hacking a twenty year felony crime is not going to fix it either. What they should do is make it a twenty year felony offince to sell such a defective OS such as the one you produce.
"While trumpeting Microsoft's investment in antispam technology"
Why not make an OS that cannot be hijacked by the next spamking
"Keep thinking that any linux distro has as much support as windows"
Look you said that Linux doesn't have much support. It's up to you to provide the evidence not me.
"That pretty much dismisses half of your claims."
I'm not making the claim here, you are.
"Also, you're crying to show SCO what is copied from Unix or Solaris"
I did no such thing. It was you who claimed the Linux is an open source version of UNIX and Solaris. Show us the evidence.
The rest of your fatuous and faulty reasoning ignored.