Yeah, you're right. It is not the security model as such that is at fault, but the enforcement of it. It is no good when every process and user on the system can do the equivalent of setting
SET PROC/PRIV=SYSPRV
>Some might also say that Microsoft's code quality is below average, although I don't agree with that because I've never seen any solid evidence of it.
Why do they need a whole own setup for this? Should think analyzing what must be constant attacks on their own servers would give plenty of clue of what's going on.
Perhaps more extensive research into own source-code and a rethink of the security model in Windows would have yielded better results, blocking these attacks at the doorstep. After all, a more secure Windows would put these attackers out of business faster and more efficient, and be far easier to manage than such a hunt on the net where the attacker most likely is out of reach and jurisdiction.
One observation Microsoft makes in the report is that "Several recent reports suggest that some companies may actually be building a business model around such attacks." (Microsoft itself springs to mind; sell vulnerable system, create malware removal tools, charge customers for removal tools, PROFIT!)
My response to the Norwegian Government's plan to use open standards and open source ( Slashdot article) will be this in respect to Internet Explorer:
Make it mandatory for all web-sites owned by Government, public services, government owned businesses and businesses that require a government license to operate (like GSM/UMTS operators), to be designed in accordance with standards, and NOT to implement IE specific quirks and non-standard behavior.
It these sites does not render properly in IE7 (6) - though shit! Install a standards based browser that will render the site; there are plenty of alternatives.
Despite all the good forces and good work being done out there with alternative browsers, adaption is too slow, and it is only political intervention that can make real headway in getting people away from being locked to IE.
I believe such a policy should be followed by all governments.
Seem to remember from Apple's latest quarterly press conference they now have 16 million on OS X, and were growing at about 1.2 million for the last quarter.
Re:FreeBSD vs. Linux ideologies
on
Why FreeBSD
·
· Score: 1
Mac OS X Server packs a heck of a lot of nice functionality - right on spot for what you need to start up your network. Combine that with a nice management interface, virus-free operation and regular upgrades. Lots of the software is open source, so you can extend it more or less in the same way as a Linux setup.
If you can afford it, get an XServe with everything installed. If not, get the software and install on an older machine cheap from eBay. Mini Mac makes nice clients.
Apple, cannot afford to rely on a chip manufacturer which reserves it highest performing processors for it's own use (POWER5).
Just check out the announcement; for workstation and low end servers.
What if Apple has ambitions to build mid-range server - even high end servers, and very high-end workstations? Are they content with a chip manufacturer which perhaps does not allow them to make more than 4-way systems or cripple their performance in terms of floating point or memory access (bandwidth) ? I don't think so - not now or in the future.
As far as I know Intel does not reserve any of their chips for certain customers or their own use like IBM does with the POWER5.
IBM does not misbehave in public you know:-)... is is more like passive agressive behaviour in this case. I think what they have not done speaks volumes.
I mean, you should think any company who delivers a general purpose, high performance processor would have a vested interest in ensuring market proliferation of their products? Honestly, I cannot say that Apple has gotten much help from IBM in marketing the G5 (or PPC 970 if you want). As a matter of fact I cannot recall having seen any joint marketing.
Also, if IBM really wanted Apple to succeed with the G5, why did they not port their own software to OS X?
I could only mention Notes Domino Server, Tivoli Storage Manager server (TSM), DB2, and large portions of WebSphere - which should be reasonably easy to port either from AIX or Linux. But you've seen nothing like that. ...even for TSM there is only a half-baked Mac client without the command-line support that many system managers want in their backup software.
Well, the key to understanding the switch lies internally in IBM rather than with Apple and you said it "IBM devoting more and more effort to game boxes and embedded and its own POWER servers"
Having worked both in Apple product managment and in IBM with marketing of POWER and PowerPC based servers, I believe this is all about IBM protecting its server business and that Apple and IBM simply disagreed on which markets to run the G5 and more powerful systems in (dual core and multiprocessor configurations). Remember it made quite a stir inside IBM when the Xserve suddenly started popping up in supercomputer configurations at a fraction of the cost of the same performance from IBM?
IBM's Enterprise Division simply cannot afford Apple establishing a much lower pricepoint for low and midrange POWER performance thereby shaking the foundation of an ecosystem inside IBM that probably accounts for 40% or more of their total turnover. High performance systems from Apple with IBM's processors are much more threathening from IBM's point of view because customers can make a direct comparison of price and performance.
They can always talk customers out of premium pricing compared to Intel based server systems with all kinds of RISC superiority rara, but not when the competition comes from THEIR processors.
There is no way IBM could not fix the performance issue just as good as Intel can. If that was the case IBM is in deep, deep trouble.
Now, for the timing of the announcement it seems like the decision on Apple's part is quite hasted. It does not make sense from a business, product managment nor development standpoint that they make this announcement such a long time before having new hardware available. It kinda seems like someone got really upset with someone.
Apple's processor switch is interesting in that it kind of levels the playing-field. The world will shortly see it is possible to deliver a virus-free very high performance, very user-friendly operating environment on Intel platform.
This will surely start chewing Microsoft ass as soon as Longhorn will not be able to deliver without breaking just about any application out there in trade for security. And since OS X is basically Unix, performance-wise Linux can get even, but without the user-friendlyness and eye-candy.
So Linux will stand to suffer, and IBM is all about Linux these days.
Apple possibly fed up with IBM internal PowerPlay(
on
Apple to Use Intel Chips?
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Having worked in Apple product management and been recruited to and used to work for IBM at a time when they wanted to put Mac OS on IBM PPC hardware (gosh, that's got to be a decade ago...), I would think that the article in the Post is a sign that Jobs has just about had it with IBM internal politics.
There are parts of IBM that do not give didley about Apple - actually a lot of IBM-ers talk about Apple as they wished it off the surface of the earth. There are of course folks in Microelectronics and some Linux on Power guys who care, but the rest...
If IBM really cared about getting more PPC based systems into the market, they'd have IBM Software make sure Apple was properly supported both on the client side, but also on XServe with their server software products. You don't see much of that.
The PowerPlay(TM) that is going on inside of IBM, and what is probably seriously hampering Apple these days, is that IBM is trying by all means to protect its high-end server business. In which the POWER processors (and dual core) play an all important role both in the iSeries (former AS/400) and pSeries (former RS/6000). These are low volume, very high margin products that sustain two ecosystems in IBM with revenues and margins that far exceeds any business IBM will do with Apple this century.
With Apple eagerly wanting to use dual-core PPC chips in, not only dual processor systems (customers chairing on the side), but possibly bringing both 4 and 8 processor systems - both workstations and servers, to the market, IBM's Enterprise Division will increasingly see this as a threat to the i and pSeries servers. Apple will, with a completely different price-point on servers in particular, significantly threaten to alter the margins IBM has on the low-end to midrange i and pSeries systems.
IBM got a very rude awakening seeing Apple XServe hardware finding the way into some of the worlds fastest supercomputer configurations at a fraction of the cost of then priced IBM hardware.
Now, with a possible 4 and 8 processor XServe out the doors, the rocking of IBM's boat would still continue. Why?
Well, IBM is to a larger and larger degree touting both iSeries and pSeries ability to run Linux software both natively in AIX and OS/400, but also in logical partitions, as one of its major features and selling points. Guess what? Apple can run Linux software too.
The relative ease by which Linux software can be made to run natively under Mac OS X combined with much lower priced hardware, will make IBM's iSeries and pSeries customers increasingly ask why not to switch if all they want is the ability to run Linux software on PPC. Such a scenario could put tremendous strain on the Enterprise Division's margins. Which is why there are forces internally in IBM who do not want Apple to have the powerful PPC chips Steve Jobs needs to transform Apple into a success in the enterprise market. They probably try to put all kinds of restrictions on what systems he can build with those chips, if he gets them.
Intel does not play these games. Which is why a processor switch may be attractive for Jobs.
Of course there are all kinds of problems with the existing installed base in terms of binary compatibility of software, but they have lived through this before without too many problems. Apple knows how to handle a processor switch from before and I think the OS will handle another chip excellently given the long time Apple has had to prepare for this.
Now for the market? As another guy so excellently put it in a post; 95% of the market does not have the problem of binary compatibility of software under Mac OS X.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, you're right. It is not the security model as such that is at fault, but the enforcement of it. It is no good when every process and user on the system can do the equivalent of setting
It'd be better for us all if did get to see it
Yupp. They rejected my submitting this story 2 days ago. But then this place was boiling with hotter news :-))
Why do they need a whole own setup for this? Should think analyzing what must be constant attacks on their own servers would give plenty of clue of what's going on.
Perhaps more extensive research into own source-code and a rethink of the security model in Windows would have yielded better results, blocking these attacks at the doorstep. After all, a more secure Windows would put these attackers out of business faster and more efficient, and be far easier to manage than such a hunt on the net where the attacker most likely is out of reach and jurisdiction.
One observation Microsoft makes in the report is that "Several recent reports suggest that some companies may actually be building a business model around such attacks." (Microsoft itself springs to mind; sell vulnerable system, create malware removal tools, charge customers for removal tools, PROFIT!)
Apple Marketing's Halo Plan:
Now that you've got that cool iPod and Mighty Mouse - hey, why don't you take the full package?
My response to the Norwegian Government's plan to use open standards and open source ( Slashdot article) will be this in respect to Internet Explorer:
Make it mandatory for all web-sites owned by Government, public services, government owned businesses and businesses that require a government license to operate (like GSM/UMTS operators), to be designed in accordance with standards, and NOT to implement IE specific quirks and non-standard behavior.
It these sites does not render properly in IE7 (6) - though shit! Install a standards based browser that will render the site; there are plenty of alternatives.
Despite all the good forces and good work being done out there with alternative browsers, adaption is too slow, and it is only political intervention that can make real headway in getting people away from being locked to IE.
I believe such a policy should be followed by all governments.
Don't know how to put images inline here, but here is a good view of the Microsoft Vista
Seem to remember from Apple's latest quarterly press conference they now have 16 million on OS X, and were growing at about 1.2 million for the last quarter.
Seems like product support to me: http://www.oracle.com/technology/software/products /database/oracle10g/index.html
You can buy a media pack and a license from the store:
http://oraclestore.oracle.com/OA_HTML/ibeCCtpItmDs pRte.jsp?a=b&item=643238
If you accept that Mac OS X is FreeBSD, then FreeBSD does indeed support Oracle. http://www.apple.com/downloads/macosx/networking_s ecurity/oracle10gdatabase.html
I guess Microsoft OS X would be a tad too obvious, yeah?
Calling it Microsoft OS X would be too obvious, now wouldn't it?
Mac OS X Server packs a heck of a lot of nice functionality - right on spot for what you need to start up your network. Combine that with a nice management interface, virus-free operation and regular upgrades. Lots of the software is open source, so you can extend it more or less in the same way as a Linux setup.
If you can afford it, get an XServe with everything installed. If not, get the software and install on an older machine cheap from eBay. Mini Mac makes nice clients.
There are basically two things going on here with Apple and the switch:
Just check out the announcement; for workstation and low end servers.
What if Apple has ambitions to build mid-range server - even high end servers, and very high-end workstations? Are they content with a chip manufacturer which perhaps does not allow them to make more than 4-way systems or cripple their performance in terms of floating point or memory access (bandwidth) ? I don't think so - not now or in the future.
As far as I know Intel does not reserve any of their chips for certain customers or their own use like IBM does with the POWER5.
Availabiliy of WebKit + other core Apple technologies probably makes it easier for Nokia to build an iTunes Phone, yeah?
IBM does not misbehave in public you know :-) ... is is more like passive agressive behaviour in this case. I think what they have not done speaks volumes.
I mean, you should think any company who delivers a general purpose, high performance processor would have a vested interest in ensuring market proliferation of their products?
Honestly, I cannot say that Apple has gotten much help from IBM in marketing the G5 (or PPC 970 if you want). As a matter of fact I cannot recall having seen any joint marketing.
Also, if IBM really wanted Apple to succeed with the G5, why did they not port their own software to OS X?
...even for TSM there is only a half-baked Mac client without the command-line support that many system managers want in their backup software.
I could only mention Notes Domino Server, Tivoli Storage Manager server (TSM), DB2, and large portions of WebSphere - which should be reasonably easy to port either from AIX or Linux. But you've seen nothing like that.
Well, the key to understanding the switch lies internally in IBM rather than with Apple and you said it "IBM devoting more and more effort to game boxes and embedded and its own POWER servers"
Having worked both in Apple product managment and in IBM with marketing of POWER and PowerPC based servers, I believe this is all about IBM protecting its server business and that Apple and IBM simply disagreed on which markets to run the G5 and more powerful systems in (dual core and multiprocessor configurations). Remember it made quite a stir inside IBM when the Xserve suddenly started popping up in supercomputer configurations at a fraction of the cost of the same performance from IBM?
IBM's Enterprise Division simply cannot afford Apple establishing a much lower pricepoint for low and midrange POWER performance thereby shaking the foundation of an ecosystem inside IBM that probably accounts for 40% or more of their total turnover. High performance systems from Apple with IBM's processors are much more threathening from IBM's point of view because customers can make a direct comparison of price and performance.
They can always talk customers out of premium pricing compared to Intel based server systems with all kinds of RISC superiority rara, but not when the competition comes from THEIR processors.
There is no way IBM could not fix the performance issue just as good as Intel can. If that was the case IBM is in deep, deep trouble.
I made a comment on this on May 23 (after the first story in Washington Post) in my blog that I think helps shed light on what is really going on here. Please ignore the first paragraph in Norwegian; the rest is in plain English: http://www.andwest.com/blojsom/blog/tatle/2005/05/ 23/Apple_og_Intel_Chips.html
Now, for the timing of the announcement it seems like the decision on Apple's part is quite hasted. It does not make sense from a business, product managment nor development standpoint that they make this announcement such a long time before having new hardware available. It kinda seems like someone got really upset with someone.
Apple's processor switch is interesting in that it kind of levels the playing-field. The world will shortly see it is possible to deliver a virus-free very high performance, very user-friendly operating environment on Intel platform.
This will surely start chewing Microsoft ass as soon as Longhorn will not be able to deliver without breaking just about any application out there in trade for security. And since OS X is basically Unix, performance-wise Linux can get even, but without the user-friendlyness and eye-candy.
So Linux will stand to suffer, and IBM is all about Linux these days.There are parts of IBM that do not give didley about Apple - actually a lot of IBM-ers talk about Apple as they wished it off the surface of the earth. There are of course folks in Microelectronics and some Linux on Power guys who care, but the rest...
If IBM really cared about getting more PPC based systems into the market, they'd have IBM Software make sure Apple was properly supported both on the client side, but also on XServe with their server software products. You don't see much of that.
The PowerPlay(TM) that is going on inside of IBM, and what is probably seriously hampering Apple these days, is that IBM is trying by all means to protect its high-end server business. In which the POWER processors (and dual core) play an all important role both in the iSeries (former AS/400) and pSeries (former RS/6000). These are low volume, very high margin products that sustain two ecosystems in IBM with revenues and margins that far exceeds any business IBM will do with Apple this century.
With Apple eagerly wanting to use dual-core PPC chips in, not only dual processor systems (customers chairing on the side), but possibly bringing both 4 and 8 processor systems - both workstations and servers, to the market, IBM's Enterprise Division will increasingly see this as a threat to the i and pSeries servers. Apple will, with a completely different price-point on servers in particular, significantly threaten to alter the margins IBM has on the low-end to midrange i and pSeries systems.
IBM got a very rude awakening seeing Apple XServe hardware finding the way into some of the worlds fastest supercomputer configurations at a fraction of the cost of then priced IBM hardware.
Now, with a possible 4 and 8 processor XServe out the doors, the rocking of IBM's boat would still continue. Why? Well, IBM is to a larger and larger degree touting both iSeries and pSeries ability to run Linux software both natively in AIX and OS/400, but also in logical partitions, as one of its major features and selling points. Guess what? Apple can run Linux software too.
The relative ease by which Linux software can be made to run natively under Mac OS X combined with much lower priced hardware, will make IBM's iSeries and pSeries customers increasingly ask why not to switch if all they want is the ability to run Linux software on PPC.
Such a scenario could put tremendous strain on the Enterprise Division's margins. Which is why there are forces internally in IBM who do not want Apple to have the powerful PPC chips Steve Jobs needs to transform Apple into a success in the enterprise market. They probably try to put all kinds of restrictions on what systems he can build with those chips, if he gets them.
Intel does not play these games. Which is why a processor switch may be attractive for Jobs.
Of course there are all kinds of problems with the existing installed base in terms of binary compatibility of software, but they have lived through this before without too many problems. Apple knows how to handle a processor switch from before and I think the OS will handle another chip excellently given the long time Apple has had to prepare for this.
Now for the market? As another guy so excellently put it in a post; 95% of the market does not have the problem of binary compatibility of software under Mac OS X.