OK, this is true for some of the new functionality, but actually go a bit deeper than some reviewer looking at the most basic parts of the GUI to get a better look. Check out the IE7 Beta 1 Technical Overview. There are things already being done by others and there are new things. One area that stands out as something we (hopefully) will see FireFox copy from IE7 is some of the new security/management features for dealing with 3rd party add-ons.
Cannot completely disagree, but its also worth checking out the IE7 Beta 1 Technical Overview. There are certainly improvements in there. Its a bit a waste of time fighting over what browser will be better at this point as its beta and really needs to live in the wild for a bit before we'll know anything for sure, but it really looks like some good work was done. To try to avoid getting flamed;-) My "good work was done" comment is meant as a comparison with IE6. It seems to be quite an improvement.
I guess a high-profile case similar in jurisdiction issues could be the Bobby Fisher case. US had a law saying you cannot go to Yugoslavia (stupid f*#!ing law, but anyway) and Bobby Fisher went there to play chess anyway. Even though the violation occured in Yugoslavia, the US has still been trying to get him for years. Personally, I'd hate to see an american sent to prison for traveling somewhere (even Bobby Fisher seems a bit of a waco recently, no law against that;-).
Anyway, the law/contracts can often extend beyond where the law/contract was created.
As explained in another part of this thread, I deserve to be paid for my labor, but not for the idea of the program.
OK, then what is your "labor"? Your labor, would be using your fingers to tap some plastic keys right? What do you expect to get paid for that???? You can EASILY train a monkey to do that or even cheaper just fill a room with keyboards and let loose a bunch of chickens, or whatever. They are VERY cheap will tap the keys as they walk around and you can even eat them if you get hungry (try doing that with a human employee and see what happens;-).
Nobody is going to pay you squat for your "labor" of pressing some keys on a keyboard. However, they WILL pay you well if you happen to have the information to allow you to know the proper combination of keys in the proper order (chickens are notorious for not looking for things like buffer overflows;-)!
If you work in IT (or a doctor, or a lawyer, or an accountant, etc, etc, etc) you don't deserve squat for your "labor", but your knowledge (information) can be quite valuable.
Paying for information is simply not something many people are ready to do.
Does this explain the state of the American education system? Or the "bad" information that lead us to war?
Seriously though basically EVERYONE pays for information everyday! In fact in one way, shape, or form you are paying right now to be getting the information (slashdot post) you are replying to. Paying for internet access is a very simple example of people paying for information. Cost of your access may go to support tangible items (ISP infrastructure and profit), but presumably you don't really care about some wire runs to your house except for the information it provides you. The ISP much charge you to support thier infrastructure and profit, but you just want the information. Similarly, MS (or any other software company) also needs to support thier infrastructure and profit. Some like MS get this money to support these items from charging fees to end users. Others like Google get this money to support these items by being paid to show advertisements to the end-users. Still others like many OSS projects get this money to support these items (sometime less the corporate profit) from corporate sponsorship. The underlieing principles are the same.
Saying people aren't ready to pay for information is CRAZY! People have been paying for information for as long as thier was money;-) Be it bribing a memeber of a waring tribe for information, paying for a college education, or simply getting online. Information is MUCH more valuable than most "tangible" items like a house or a car. Unless you can aquire valuable information, you won't be able to even think about being able to aquire such "tangible" items as those.
Yeah, I guess I should have said more like "marketed for multiple operating systems". Yes, there are other OSes which will run on Apple hardware and with the move to Intel it should certainly open up even more possible OSes to run on Apple hardware.
However, if they want to be able to make any REAL move in marketshare it may be better to have the option to ship these sytems with other OSes. If you have to hack the system to run another OS or even have to install the OS yourself, you've just put cut out a VAST majority of the market.
If they did they most certainly would no longer be a hardware company.
You know, I often wonder if this wouldn't be a good thing for Apple. I'm not a huge Apple fan, but I'll be the first to admit they make some pretty *cool* hardware. I'll also admit they make a pretty nice OS. Sometimes I think thier forcing those two nice products as a bundle is what causes them to only have a sliver of the market.
I mean how many people do you think would like to run OSX on a cheap Dell pc? How many people do you think would like to run Windows or Linux on a cool looking mac? Of course the Apple fanboys would still run OSX on the mac, but could they be getting more market by offering choices?
Now I'm not an analyst and I cannot sit here and say they would make tons more money doing this, but it seems they VERY well could. What would happen if they broke up and let the hardware division live on its own and the OS division live on its own? Certainly it would be a risk, but it sure would be interesting.
They still pass through the hardware testing station, but at the OS station they skip right through.
Dell's supply chain and manufacturing process might be just a TAD more complicated than that;-)
While your point might seem valid, it is invalidated by the fact that Dell has sold WinXP Home, WinXP Pro, and Win2k machines at the same time.
Win2K machines requested - 30 million WinXP Home machines requested - 100 million WinXP Pro machines requested - 50 million Blank machines requested - 38
Obviously made up numbers but hopefully it illustrates the difference;-)
This is retribution and murder, not justice: it has no place in the society that most spam recipients want to enjoy and has fuck all to do with Karma.
Karma has fuck all to do with justice (at least in the legal meaning you are talking about). Karma simply says the sum of your actions during your life (and previous lives in its true meaning) will directly determine your present and future experiences.
That could well mean if you were a child molester in a previous life than you may be gang raped as a child in a latter life. Now this certainly wouldn't be seen as fair, or good, or probably just but that IS karma. Karma isn't about bringing people to "justice" and it doesn't have to be good or fair. It simply means if you do shitty stuff in your life (of previous) then you should expect shitty stuff to happen to you.
In financial services actually there isn't really an "every cent counts" mentality when it comes to IT. I cannot say I have an unlimited budget, but cost is VERY low on the priority list. The PTB, don't really care about a few hundred thousand (or even million) here and there. It often isn't blinked at spending tens of thousands to just setup an environment to demo some software. When looking at software, we've gone with 500k systems over almost identical systems 80k systems just for some tiny piece of functionality which we didn't even use for over a year.
IT budgets don't tend to be too tight in wall street shops (as they are seen as key areas for competitive advantage). Its functionaliy and stability that rules. Price is considered, but it trails very distant. Stability/security is why Linux does so well in these environments, not price. Now all that said, MS systsems also are growing pretty well in such environments. Linux is killing Unix in these areas. We used to be a huge IBM Unix shop, but much of that is now Linux. This is where "crital" systems sit. MS Exchange, AD, ect are also getting pretty big. Traditionaly most shops were Notes shops, but because of interagration abilities with document management, fax server, etc, etc third-party software MS often ends up running these systems which aren't so critical because of the extra functionality they offer. I don't think most of those MS systems would be chosen often on thier own, but integration with quality 3rd party apps usually gives them the win in these areas.
When MS makes something new and Google has to copy it, that's when you know the tables have turned.
OK, Google does some great stuff but lets not just give blind praise to them well trashing MS. MS Research really does some awsome stuff, it just seems once it leaves MS Research and is made a commercial product the implementation kind of falls short. MapPoint/TerraServer really pioneered the technology for these types of applications, but MS couldn't produce compeling consumer applications for it (probably because how do you make money with this). Really, I don't even know if that is so true as MS hasn't had the "buzz" around thier products Google is able to generate. I still prefer TerraServer (probably just because I'm more used to it), but you really don't hear about it anymore. There was some buzz surrounding it when it was launched a decade ago, but it faded as REALLY how many times do you want to look at your house from a satilite photo?
Google has done a great job of again creating interest in these areas and have produced some compelling offerings, but to say Google created this stuff and MS is just following is a bit mis-informed.
Also as an aside, too much of anything is bad, and frankly while I may not be thrilled with Bush, I still vote red because the blue side of the aisle frustrates me even more.
Completely agree! Sure I like the balanced budgets and robut economy from the blue side, but you cannot really put a price on the entertainment value of all the bombing/shooting/killing you get to see live on CNN with the red side. Priceless!;-)
Well, everyone knows murder victims are known to be VERY stingy when it comes to contributing to political campaigns. On top of that, I heard murder victim voter turn out was near 0% in the last election (just a few patriotic *souls* in places like Florida and Chicago even bothered to turn out). That doesn't even count *dead* the crowd is when a politician goes to campaign in front of a group of murder victims.
I mean there was talk awhile ago of adding 100,000 police to the steets, but hey if the murder victims cannot even bother to make an effort why should that money go toward them when others are so much more willing the make the effort (bribe)!
I was about to post conveying the same sentiment. The problem is too many people don't/won't believe all the evil shit the US does all over the world. And of course Duba's BRILLIANT take on it, "They hate us because of our freedom". Is he REALLY that simple?
Very true. However, if you are making purchases in the area of 50 machines at a time, at least all the big boys that I deal with are happy to put whatever I want on it (or in my case nothing on it).
True enough, but don't rag on MS for this rag on the US Tax code. For the last fiscal year (2004 since I haven't seen the 2005 income statement yet) MS paid about 10.94% of revenue in income tax. Compare this with everybody's favorite Google, which paid 7.87% of revenue. Its about 44.59% based on profit instead of revenue for MS and 39.23% for Google.
So if you base it on profit instead of revenue it gets much more in the area of what I bloody have to pay. I wish I could pay taxes on my profit instead of my revenue!
Yeah, sometimes you can only scratch your head;-) Google is also down about 5% today (last I checked) after announcing they beat estimates. Sometimes "the street" is just in a funky mood;-)
I agree it sucks, however if you don't want to honor it then don't sign the bloody thing! That lack of responsiblity people take for thier own actions is pretty amazing sometimes.
I was offered a job where they wanted me to sign a non-compete contract where whenever I left I couldn't work for a competitor for a year. No way would I sign that. We ended up agreeing on a less strict contract. If I left before two years, I couldn't go to a competitor for 6 months, but if I stayed at least 2 years, then I was free to do whatever I want. I found this acceptable so signed it.
I have little sympathy for those who knowingly sign a contract and whine about it later!
Keep in mind as well, that Macs don't depreciate as fast as PCs
WHAT!!!!;-) Not saying it good/smart/easy but a pretty scary percentage of PC users are still running Win95 and getting along just fine (at least in thier eyes) with todays applications. How many Apple users are still using the Power Mac 7500 and what modern applications still run on it? Hell, Apple COMPLETELY changes its entire architecture more often the many users upgrade thier PC OS;-)
Again, I didn't mean to rag on Linux and am sorry if it came across that way. My previous post wasn't really about linux so much I guess as what I see as the need for a new OS. Linux is often seen as the new OS, but really I suppose its not and was never meant to be.
It was a unix clone and more and more also becoming a mac/windows clone. So I guess my hopes for something radically new shouldn't really be placed on linux. Again I see linux as a great thing and no it shouldn't have to innovate more than others.
I think a new OS should innovate more than others since they don't have to deal with all the legacy design decisions, but again linux isn't really that new OS. Linux has done many great things. To name a few:
1) Validated OSS as a development model 2) Pushed MS to improve thier products 3) *Basically* validated OSS as an economic model
However, as a clone of existing OSes I don't think it did everything it could in making a modern OS. I understand the reality of why this is, I just wish it wasn't;-) When it came to kernal/system level design they just basically used what was already being used. That makes perfect sense in SOOOO many ways. However, I'd just really like to see a OS built from the ground up with basically no reguard for what previous OSes have done. Again, I understand linux was never meant to be this.
File systems, memory mangement, etc have been VERY slow changing compared to other aspects of computing. These are such core aspects which effect everything else happening in the system it would be very interesting to see what could be done from a fresh slate.
I guess the basics of computing really haven't changed that much so perhaps those core components are already about as good as they can be until there is a major hardware shift (perhaps flash drives improve in speed and reliablity to have a single storage area instead of the current two piece RAM memory/hard disk platter methods).
As much trouble as it will get me into here, the thing I'm currently most excited about is WinFS. Its a fairly major departure from current file systems and I'm very interested to see how it actually performs and the (possibly real) inovations its functionality may spawn. It may well crash and burn, but I'm very interested to see as it is a pretty major change to some core computing functionality.
I guess I've just become jaded;-) New GUI tricks have lost thier excitment to me (at least until some radical new advancement) and it seems thats where most of the latest "innovations" have been.
You know I really agree with what you are saying, but I also feel a bit the same as Mr. Metcalfe. I really don't mean this to come across as knocking Linux, but I do kind of feel an oportunity may have been missed.
I guess my question is how often can a "new" OS come along and get traction? Was linux a "waste" of a new OS? Yes, linux is great. It certainly fills needs and has even pushed MS to improve its products. I guess I just kind of wonder "what could it have been"?
As it began, it was trying to be like unix. Lately as it aims for the desktop, it is trying to be more like a Mac/Windows. Its done these things to great success and is a pretty amazing product, but it just seems its spent its whole life having people trying to make it like things which already exist instead of instead of starting with a clean slate and asking what amazing, new, TRUELY innovative thing it COULD be.
OK before I get flamed for implying linux isn't innovative let me say I don't really see much coming from any OS which is innovative in years. Its gotten to the point I just hate that word as it seems to be SOOOOO over used and abused.
OH, I made a a transparent form! How INNOVATIVE!
OH, I have a new way to display fonts! How INNOVATIVE!
OH, I just made up a new word "cristlixoudus"! How INNOVATIVE!
OK, maybe these little things are innovations but that word just makes my skin crawl anymore. I see things like the internet being innovative, the first GUI was innovative. You know things that REALLY change the way things are done!
Yes, linux is great in many ways but it seems they spent so much time trying to be like things that already exist that they missed a chance to REALLY be some great new thing. I know MUCH easier said than done! And would it have been practical? I don't know. It just seems all OSes are meshing into the same thing and I would have liked to see something truely CRAZY different. If it fails fine. Hopefully in the failure it finds a few REAL innovations others can take and use. I just wonder who often a new OS can come around and get serious attention. If its not going to happen again for awhile (which I suspect), I wish linux would have followed less in its forebearers footsteps and tried to blaze more of a new trail.
I think the point the parent is making is if the bank gives you the image based on username/password, then it is quite possible to get around this.
1) You enter your username/password on the phishing site. 2) The phishing site then uses this username/password to retrieve the image from the bank site 3) You verify image......
So when he is talking about botnet, he is talking about logging on to the bank site as you using the username/password you just gave them and then showing you the image returned from the bank site.
One more little hurdle for them to overcome which is good, but certainly not fullproof.
Not sure about that. The system is obviously running now since I got that message for the phishing email, but that is the first one of those warning I've noticed.
So thus far I've gotten one phishing email and it was properly flagged. Nothing else I've recieved thus far has been recieved. So at least thus far for me I've had 0% of false positives and 0% false negitives. Will it always work this well? I don't know. Are others having more false positives/negitives? I don't know. But at least from what I've seen thus far its working just as it should.
Now I'm not saying the problem is solved and we can relax now, but this at least seems to be a good first step which is at least helping today. We could wait 2-3-5... years till everyone can agree on a standard, but if there is a system that will at least help today should they not use it just because everyone doesn't agree on it?
Slashdot Mirror
OK, this is true for some of the new functionality, but actually go a bit deeper than some reviewer looking at the most basic parts of the GUI to get a better look. Check out the IE7 Beta 1 Technical Overview. There are things already being done by others and there are new things. One area that stands out as something we (hopefully) will see FireFox copy from IE7 is some of the new security/management features for dealing with 3rd party add-ons.
Cannot completely disagree, but its also worth checking out the IE7 Beta 1 Technical Overview. There are certainly improvements in there. Its a bit a waste of time fighting over what browser will be better at this point as its beta and really needs to live in the wild for a bit before we'll know anything for sure, but it really looks like some good work was done. To try to avoid getting flamed ;-) My "good work was done" comment is meant as a comparison with IE6. It seems to be quite an improvement.
I guess a high-profile case similar in jurisdiction issues could be the Bobby Fisher case. US had a law saying you cannot go to Yugoslavia (stupid f*#!ing law, but anyway) and Bobby Fisher went there to play chess anyway. Even though the violation occured in Yugoslavia, the US has still been trying to get him for years. Personally, I'd hate to see an american sent to prison for traveling somewhere (even Bobby Fisher seems a bit of a waco recently, no law against that ;-).
Anyway, the law/contracts can often extend beyond where the law/contract was created.
As explained in another part of this thread, I deserve to be paid for my labor, but not for the idea of the program.
;-).
;-)!
OK, then what is your "labor"? Your labor, would be using your fingers to tap some plastic keys right? What do you expect to get paid for that???? You can EASILY train a monkey to do that or even cheaper just fill a room with keyboards and let loose a bunch of chickens, or whatever. They are VERY cheap will tap the keys as they walk around and you can even eat them if you get hungry (try doing that with a human employee and see what happens
Nobody is going to pay you squat for your "labor" of pressing some keys on a keyboard. However, they WILL pay you well if you happen to have the information to allow you to know the proper combination of keys in the proper order (chickens are notorious for not looking for things like buffer overflows
If you work in IT (or a doctor, or a lawyer, or an accountant, etc, etc, etc) you don't deserve squat for your "labor", but your knowledge (information) can be quite valuable.
Paying for information is simply not something many people are ready to do.
;-) Be it bribing a memeber of a waring tribe for information, paying for a college education, or simply getting online. Information is MUCH more valuable than most "tangible" items like a house or a car. Unless you can aquire valuable information, you won't be able to even think about being able to aquire such "tangible" items as those.
Does this explain the state of the American education system? Or the "bad" information that lead us to war?
Seriously though basically EVERYONE pays for information everyday! In fact in one way, shape, or form you are paying right now to be getting the information (slashdot post) you are replying to. Paying for internet access is a very simple example of people paying for information. Cost of your access may go to support tangible items (ISP infrastructure and profit), but presumably you don't really care about some wire runs to your house except for the information it provides you. The ISP much charge you to support thier infrastructure and profit, but you just want the information. Similarly, MS (or any other software company) also needs to support thier infrastructure and profit. Some like MS get this money to support these items from charging fees to end users. Others like Google get this money to support these items by being paid to show advertisements to the end-users. Still others like many OSS projects get this money to support these items (sometime less the corporate profit) from corporate sponsorship. The underlieing principles are the same.
Saying people aren't ready to pay for information is CRAZY! People have been paying for information for as long as thier was money
Yeah, your most certainly right ;-) I mean I'm sure they consider all these things when they've decided not to do it.
;-)
I guess what strikes me as wierd is:
Just viewing it as an operating system company only letting your OS run only on hardware with small marketshare certainly isn't a good idea.
Just viewing it as a hardware company only letting an OS with small marketshare run on your hardware certainly isn't a good idea.
I guess in the complexity of all the considerations and viewing it as a whole this must be a case where two "wrongs" actually do make a right
Yeah, I guess I should have said more like "marketed for multiple operating systems". Yes, there are other OSes which will run on Apple hardware and with the move to Intel it should certainly open up even more possible OSes to run on Apple hardware.
However, if they want to be able to make any REAL move in marketshare it may be better to have the option to ship these sytems with other OSes. If you have to hack the system to run another OS or even have to install the OS yourself, you've just put cut out a VAST majority of the market.
If they did they most certainly would no longer be a hardware company.
You know, I often wonder if this wouldn't be a good thing for Apple. I'm not a huge Apple fan, but I'll be the first to admit they make some pretty *cool* hardware. I'll also admit they make a pretty nice OS. Sometimes I think thier forcing those two nice products as a bundle is what causes them to only have a sliver of the market.
I mean how many people do you think would like to run OSX on a cheap Dell pc? How many people do you think would like to run Windows or Linux on a cool looking mac? Of course the Apple fanboys would still run OSX on the mac, but could they be getting more market by offering choices?
Now I'm not an analyst and I cannot sit here and say they would make tons more money doing this, but it seems they VERY well could. What would happen if they broke up and let the hardware division live on its own and the OS division live on its own? Certainly it would be a risk, but it sure would be interesting.
They still pass through the hardware testing station, but at the OS station they skip right through.
;-)
;-)
Dell's supply chain and manufacturing process might be just a TAD more complicated than that
While your point might seem valid, it is invalidated by the fact that Dell has sold WinXP Home, WinXP Pro, and Win2k machines at the same time.
Win2K machines requested - 30 million
WinXP Home machines requested - 100 million
WinXP Pro machines requested - 50 million
Blank machines requested - 38
Obviously made up numbers but hopefully it illustrates the difference
This is retribution and murder, not justice: it has no place in the society that most spam recipients want to enjoy and has fuck all to do with Karma.
Karma has fuck all to do with justice (at least in the legal meaning you are talking about). Karma simply says the sum of your actions during your life (and previous lives in its true meaning) will directly determine your present and future experiences.
That could well mean if you were a child molester in a previous life than you may be gang raped as a child in a latter life. Now this certainly wouldn't be seen as fair, or good, or probably just but that IS karma. Karma isn't about bringing people to "justice" and it doesn't have to be good or fair. It simply means if you do shitty stuff in your life (of previous) then you should expect shitty stuff to happen to you.
In financial services actually there isn't really an "every cent counts" mentality when it comes to IT. I cannot say I have an unlimited budget, but cost is VERY low on the priority list. The PTB, don't really care about a few hundred thousand (or even million) here and there. It often isn't blinked at spending tens of thousands to just setup an environment to demo some software. When looking at software, we've gone with 500k systems over almost identical systems 80k systems just for some tiny piece of functionality which we didn't even use for over a year.
IT budgets don't tend to be too tight in wall street shops (as they are seen as key areas for competitive advantage). Its functionaliy and stability that rules. Price is considered, but it trails very distant. Stability/security is why Linux does so well in these environments, not price. Now all that said, MS systsems also are growing pretty well in such environments. Linux is killing Unix in these areas. We used to be a huge IBM Unix shop, but much of that is now Linux. This is where "crital" systems sit. MS Exchange, AD, ect are also getting pretty big. Traditionaly most shops were Notes shops, but because of interagration abilities with document management, fax server, etc, etc third-party software MS often ends up running these systems which aren't so critical because of the extra functionality they offer. I don't think most of those MS systems would be chosen often on thier own, but integration with quality 3rd party apps usually gives them the win in these areas.
When MS makes something new and Google has to copy it, that's when you know the tables have turned.
OK, Google does some great stuff but lets not just give blind praise to them well trashing MS. MS Research really does some awsome stuff, it just seems once it leaves MS Research and is made a commercial product the implementation kind of falls short. MapPoint/TerraServer really pioneered the technology for these types of applications, but MS couldn't produce compeling consumer applications for it (probably because how do you make money with this). Really, I don't even know if that is so true as MS hasn't had the "buzz" around thier products Google is able to generate. I still prefer TerraServer (probably just because I'm more used to it), but you really don't hear about it anymore. There was some buzz surrounding it when it was launched a decade ago, but it faded as REALLY how many times do you want to look at your house from a satilite photo?
Google has done a great job of again creating interest in these areas and have produced some compelling offerings, but to say Google created this stuff and MS is just following is a bit mis-informed.
Fair question. Let me educate you ;-)
;-)
One of the quick easy charts to give you the idea.
A much more detailed break down of the numbers.
Your welcome
Also as an aside, too much of anything is bad, and frankly while I may not be thrilled with Bush, I still vote red because the blue side of the aisle frustrates me even more.
;-)
Completely agree! Sure I like the balanced budgets and robut economy from the blue side, but you cannot really put a price on the entertainment value of all the bombing/shooting/killing you get to see live on CNN with the red side. Priceless!
Well, everyone knows murder victims are known to be VERY stingy when it comes to contributing to political campaigns. On top of that, I heard murder victim voter turn out was near 0% in the last election (just a few patriotic *souls* in places like Florida and Chicago even bothered to turn out). That doesn't even count *dead* the crowd is when a politician goes to campaign in front of a group of murder victims.
I mean there was talk awhile ago of adding 100,000 police to the steets, but hey if the murder victims cannot even bother to make an effort why should that money go toward them when others are so much more willing the make the effort (bribe)!
I was about to post conveying the same sentiment. The problem is too many people don't/won't believe all the evil shit the US does all over the world. And of course Duba's BRILLIANT take on it, "They hate us because of our freedom". Is he REALLY that simple?
Very true. However, if you are making purchases in the area of 50 machines at a time, at least all the big boys that I deal with are happy to put whatever I want on it (or in my case nothing on it).
True enough, but don't rag on MS for this rag on the US Tax code. For the last fiscal year (2004 since I haven't seen the 2005 income statement yet) MS paid about 10.94% of revenue in income tax. Compare this with everybody's favorite Google, which paid 7.87% of revenue. Its about 44.59% based on profit instead of revenue for MS and 39.23% for Google.
So if you base it on profit instead of revenue it gets much more in the area of what I bloody have to pay. I wish I could pay taxes on my profit instead of my revenue!
Yeah, sometimes you can only scratch your head ;-) Google is also down about 5% today (last I checked) after announcing they beat estimates. Sometimes "the street" is just in a funky mood ;-)
I agree it sucks, however if you don't want to honor it then don't sign the bloody thing! That lack of responsiblity people take for thier own actions is pretty amazing sometimes.
I was offered a job where they wanted me to sign a non-compete contract where whenever I left I couldn't work for a competitor for a year. No way would I sign that. We ended up agreeing on a less strict contract. If I left before two years, I couldn't go to a competitor for 6 months, but if I stayed at least 2 years, then I was free to do whatever I want. I found this acceptable so signed it.
I have little sympathy for those who knowingly sign a contract and whine about it later!
Keep in mind as well, that Macs don't depreciate as fast as PCs WHAT!!!! ;-) Not saying it good/smart/easy but a pretty scary percentage of PC users are still running Win95 and getting along just fine (at least in thier eyes) with todays applications. How many Apple users are still using the Power Mac 7500 and what modern applications still run on it? Hell, Apple COMPLETELY changes its entire architecture more often the many users upgrade thier PC OS ;-)
Again, I didn't mean to rag on Linux and am sorry if it came across that way. My previous post wasn't really about linux so much I guess as what I see as the need for a new OS. Linux is often seen as the new OS, but really I suppose its not and was never meant to be.
;-) When it came to kernal/system level design they just basically used what was already being used. That makes perfect sense in SOOOO many ways. However, I'd just really like to see a OS built from the ground up with basically no reguard for what previous OSes have done. Again, I understand linux was never meant to be this.
;-) New GUI tricks have lost thier excitment to me (at least until some radical new advancement) and it seems thats where most of the latest "innovations" have been.
It was a unix clone and more and more also becoming a mac/windows clone. So I guess my hopes for something radically new shouldn't really be placed on linux. Again I see linux as a great thing and no it shouldn't have to innovate more than others.
I think a new OS should innovate more than others since they don't have to deal with all the legacy design decisions, but again linux isn't really that new OS. Linux has done many great things. To name a few:
1) Validated OSS as a development model
2) Pushed MS to improve thier products
3) *Basically* validated OSS as an economic model
However, as a clone of existing OSes I don't think it did everything it could in making a modern OS. I understand the reality of why this is, I just wish it wasn't
File systems, memory mangement, etc have been VERY slow changing compared to other aspects of computing. These are such core aspects which effect everything else happening in the system it would be very interesting to see what could be done from a fresh slate.
I guess the basics of computing really haven't changed that much so perhaps those core components are already about as good as they can be until there is a major hardware shift (perhaps flash drives improve in speed and reliablity to have a single storage area instead of the current two piece RAM memory/hard disk platter methods).
As much trouble as it will get me into here, the thing I'm currently most excited about is WinFS. Its a fairly major departure from current file systems and I'm very interested to see how it actually performs and the (possibly real) inovations its functionality may spawn. It may well crash and burn, but I'm very interested to see as it is a pretty major change to some core computing functionality.
I guess I've just become jaded
You know I really agree with what you are saying, but I also feel a bit the same as Mr. Metcalfe. I really don't mean this to come across as knocking Linux, but I do kind of feel an oportunity may have been missed.
I guess my question is how often can a "new" OS come along and get traction? Was linux a "waste" of a new OS? Yes, linux is great. It certainly fills needs and has even pushed MS to improve its products. I guess I just kind of wonder "what could it have been"?
As it began, it was trying to be like unix. Lately as it aims for the desktop, it is trying to be more like a Mac/Windows. Its done these things to great success and is a pretty amazing product, but it just seems its spent its whole life having people trying to make it like things which already exist instead of instead of starting with a clean slate and asking what amazing, new, TRUELY innovative thing it COULD be.
OK before I get flamed for implying linux isn't innovative let me say I don't really see much coming from any OS which is innovative in years. Its gotten to the point I just hate that word as it seems to be SOOOOO over used and abused.
OH, I made a a transparent form! How INNOVATIVE!
OH, I have a new way to display fonts! How INNOVATIVE!
OH, I just made up a new word "cristlixoudus"! How INNOVATIVE!
OK, maybe these little things are innovations but that word just makes my skin crawl anymore. I see things like the internet being innovative, the first GUI was innovative. You know things that REALLY change the way things are done!
Yes, linux is great in many ways but it seems they spent so much time trying to be like things that already exist that they missed a chance to REALLY be some great new thing. I know MUCH easier said than done! And would it have been practical? I don't know. It just seems all OSes are meshing into the same thing and I would have liked to see something truely CRAZY different. If it fails fine. Hopefully in the failure it finds a few REAL innovations others can take and use. I just wonder who often a new OS can come around and get serious attention. If its not going to happen again for awhile (which I suspect), I wish linux would have followed less in its forebearers footsteps and tried to blaze more of a new trail.
I think the point the parent is making is if the bank gives you the image based on username/password, then it is quite possible to get around this.
......
1) You enter your username/password on the phishing site.
2) The phishing site then uses this username/password to retrieve the image from the bank site
3) You verify image
So when he is talking about botnet, he is talking about logging on to the bank site as you using the username/password you just gave them and then showing you the image returned from the bank site.
One more little hurdle for them to overcome which is good, but certainly not fullproof.
Not sure about that. The system is obviously running now since I got that message for the phishing email, but that is the first one of those warning I've noticed.
So thus far I've gotten one phishing email and it was properly flagged. Nothing else I've recieved thus far has been recieved. So at least thus far for me I've had 0% of false positives and 0% false negitives. Will it always work this well? I don't know. Are others having more false positives/negitives? I don't know. But at least from what I've seen thus far its working just as it should.
Now I'm not saying the problem is solved and we can relax now, but this at least seems to be a good first step which is at least helping today. We could wait 2-3-5... years till everyone can agree on a standard, but if there is a system that will at least help today should they not use it just because everyone doesn't agree on it?