If we took security more seriously, there would be less freedom. And of those two, I prefer freedom (although not to the extreme: some basic security is also needed).
Much fewer people have my cell phone number than my e-mail. I don't check e-mail that often and I don't hear (and wouldn't want to hear) a "beep" each time when a new one is received. Also, I don't answer all e-mails, sometimes I don't even read too long ones - and most importantly - significant portion of my e-mail traffic is not personal or not directly addressed (just CC'd) to me.
SMSes, OTOH, come from real people in 99+% of cases (SMS spam is rarer in Europe than in US I believe), is directly addressed to me and requires immediate action. They are also short enough to be readable, and I get less than thousand SMSes per year, compared to roughly thousand e-mails per month.
E-mail isn't a good substitute for an SMS. Maybe IM would be better one, but IM market is heterogenous (and I appreciate it), so e.g. I have to use ICQ for Russian friends, Gadu-Gadu for Polish friends, Google Talk/Jabber for German friends and AIM/MSN for American ones.
You cannot actually replace SMS with any other existing service without losing some of its advantages.
While I can agree that not having a Facebook account is a rare thing (I do have a few, although not under my real name), not owning TV is quite common among people who moved for work (at least in Europe). Why do you need to buy one if you spend most of your time outside your flat (that you are renting) - and you read news online anyway?
Maybe in America it's hard to find a flat to rent that wouldn't have a TV (or two) in it, but in Europe you often rent flats from poor older people who are quite frugal.
Maybe if Linux was created by game developers... but currently, it's userbase are primarily Python-breathing geeks who like interpreted+GC'ed languages, don't care that much about performance on any particular machine and dread the thought of exposing direct access to raw hardware without introducing N layers of abstraction (preferably with network transparency).
We can either a) make all user mounts noexec by default b) get rid of setuid c) mix those two approaches by making user mounts executable, but ignoring dangerous flags.
That is why KDE and Gnome make this stuff easier. But there SHOULD be a way to do everything with shell commands, for users who are willing to learn them. Without that, I just don't have the feeling that I'm in control of the machine.
BTW, Windows actually has plenty of command line tools (made by Microsoft) which allow you to script much more than one might think without ever touching the GUI. Too bad a lot of the said tools aren't included by default and need to be searched for in various * Kit packages from Microsoft.
It theory you are correct, but practice was different. I actually worked in gamedev industry in Russia ten years ago, and our publisher sold our game (first one that was released in Russia in 2001, in the west in 2003) for 60 roubles ($2), the same price pirated Western games were sold at. Note that we weren't aware of pirated copies of our game on sale, but I don't know whether this needs to be attributed to anti-piracy policy of our publisher (not strictly legal) + software protection measures (Starforce) or affordable price, or both.
Anyway, my point is that there was a "flat rate" of 60 roubles/2 USD for game CDs back then set by pirates - they didn't go lower despite they probably could. Our publisher sold games it had rights to at the same price and didn't have much problems with piracy. It wasn't particularly profitable (like, our first game sold 300 000 copies in Russia for 2 USD each), but the budget for it was even smaller (I estimate it well below 100k USD judging by our salaries during making it - well, we were students anyway and were happy to see any money from making games, for most of us that was the first money we earned).
Ten years ago in Russia you'd have hard time finding a legal CD being sold. BUT - it wasn't matter of mindset, but of price. I.e. people still preferred to buy stuff (even if pirated), not copy it between themselves, because it was easy and affordable to go buy a $1-$3 pirated CD instead of bringing your HDD to a friend (broadband internet wasn't available back then). So I'd argue that if legal software were in the same price range in Russia, it would have been more popular than pirated copies.
I'm pretty sure that the future of the internet is hierarchically organized network with clear distinction who can serve and who can only consume content. That makes the most business, political and economical sense, to the detriment of user's personal freedom, but loss of said freedom aren't enough to keep that from happening - users are lazy and unorganized.
As you have already been told, there are parts of the world today who turn on their devices and don't get a public IPv4 address.
And their problem is? Do you realize that more than half of internet users (I would say 90+%) do not need a public IPv4 address? Video conferences work without that, so there's no economical reason to fix what isn't broken. There's even a counter-incentive NOT to solve that non-problem - lack of ability to serve stuff hinders P2P and similar user activities, so I can see why some companies may want to turn internet users into "internet spectators".
The quality of the site (judging by its copy in cache) impresses no less than the small number of IPv6-only sites it lists. Aren't you ashamed to show the list of 15 (fifteen!) IPv6 only sites (with one test site and one user's home page among them) as the proof that IPv6 connectivity is worth setting up?
If that's your 21st century, then we had better results in 20th.
I'm with you. There are enough (like, several tens of millions) IPv4 addresses that, if distributed more evenly than they are now, would cover the needs of the world - at least the needs of most people who don't care whether they are behind NAT or not. Hell, majority of internet-connected device owners don't want to *serve* anything, and P2P/Skype/online games learned to live with that, adopting elaborate NAT punching techniques.
You can generate as many as needed by this bash one-liner (redirect its output to file): while true; do echo `jot -r 1`, `jot -r 1`; done - you can use `date` instead of first jot. It does not matter whether the numbers are meaningful or not, this is irrelevant for testing UI scalability. Just make sure that resulting csv file is at least 25000 lines (i.e. pairs of numbers) long (although problems with handling/visualizing this in browser will likely start even sooner).
Just compare user experience of Google Documents with Excel or even Libre/Open Office (the latter one apparently uses Java, but even with Java it performs better than GD). As a benchmark, try to use Google Docs to load, edit (copy/paste, etc) and visualize (graph) 25 000 lines long CSV file (each line containing only pair of two numbers, e.g. timestamp and a sampled value).
So what's your solution for inability to open the driver source code because it contains licensed technology? And, predicting your next answer, the technology in question is produced by a company that is highly dependant on the income from the licensees and cannot just make its tech open for everyone.
Your proposal boils down to making all hardware "open" - the problem with this way of thinking is that it favors large corporations (or even monopolies) that can quickly (and cheaply) mass-produce the open designs, while small startup companies who actually innovated don't get sufficient profits to continue their innovations. This is perhaps different from "open source" software development, where turning the "design" (i.e. source) into "product" (a working application) can be done by anyone, including end users (by compiling the said source).
I am Russian. Your guess is basically correct. It was perhaps not wise to distribute state property that way. Vouchers should have been tied to particular person (i.e. with his name and surname printed on it) and forbidden to be resold. But nobody knew back then, and everyone wanted to get out of economical crisis as fast as possible - instant privatization was supposed to turn unprofitable state enterprises into prospering businesses and make everyone rich (voucher was promised to be worth two luxury cars by one of Russian officials).
What actually happened is that people already in power (including Communist party apparatus and semi-legal Soviet entrepreneurs which started to appear towards the end of 1980s) took over the state enterprises they had managed as public functionaries and turned them into their own private property, buying shares from workers for two bottles of vodka (anecdotal evidence). Arguably, privatization goal was achieved - some of those enterprises eventually became profitable in private hands (after extreme 'cost cutting'), but a lot of people feel robbed of their property... which was "theirs" (i.e. public) only formally anyway.
Then you could see (maybe) who was posting pictures of themselves from long ago (not like I've ever done that!).
You can see that already, because a lot of people do not remove EXIF data which has (among others) "date taken", "date digitized", "date modified" fields:)
Linux, for example, permits viruses to be written. So does OS X. The reason why viruses do not proliferate on those systems is because they're not a particularly interesting attack target, and because (specifically in case of Linux) they are typically run by competent users who don't run random binaries off the Net.
Not only that. Linuxes are diverse, they vary across distributions and architectures and even kernel versions (on driver level), while Windows machines are much more uniform.
Basically, not having viruses is nothing to be proud about. This very variety makes it hard for commercial software vendors to develop for such an inconsistent "platform".
It's like being proud of receiving no spam just because of not having an e-mail address.
And IMO it would be a crying shame to kill a competent browser because of bad PR.
They deserve it. Firefox should be renamed as FireAsaDotzler. You know, that "community coordinator" that said that.com (and apparently.edu,.gov,.mil) users were never a priority.
And this is bad. I remember the anticipation of Firefox.0 releases: 2.0, 3.0, 4.0. Now... there's no fun in seeing Firefox 8.0 being released. They lost their identity, willingly. I am no more interested in following progress in FF, if there's any.
BTW, I do not use Chrome/-ium either. Never liked this unconfigurable "kiosky" browser that had its own ideas about how GUI should look like.
These two lost their minds. Now I'm back to classic browsers like Opera, who actually values its heritage. And I value my memories of running Opera 3.0 back in 1990s.
Slashdot Mirror
If we took security more seriously, there would be less freedom. And of those two, I prefer freedom (although not to the extreme: some basic security is also needed).
Much fewer people have my cell phone number than my e-mail. I don't check e-mail that often and I don't hear (and wouldn't want to hear) a "beep" each time when a new one is received. Also, I don't answer all e-mails, sometimes I don't even read too long ones - and most importantly - significant portion of my e-mail traffic is not personal or not directly addressed (just CC'd) to me.
SMSes, OTOH, come from real people in 99+% of cases (SMS spam is rarer in Europe than in US I believe), is directly addressed to me and requires immediate action. They are also short enough to be readable, and I get less than thousand SMSes per year, compared to roughly thousand e-mails per month.
E-mail isn't a good substitute for an SMS. Maybe IM would be better one, but IM market is heterogenous (and I appreciate it), so e.g. I have to use ICQ for Russian friends, Gadu-Gadu for Polish friends, Google Talk/Jabber for German friends and AIM/MSN for American ones.
You cannot actually replace SMS with any other existing service without losing some of its advantages.
While I can agree that not having a Facebook account is a rare thing (I do have a few, although not under my real name), not owning TV is quite common among people who moved for work (at least in Europe). Why do you need to buy one if you spend most of your time outside your flat (that you are renting) - and you read news online anyway?
Maybe in America it's hard to find a flat to rent that wouldn't have a TV (or two) in it, but in Europe you often rent flats from poor older people who are quite frugal.
Maybe if Linux was created by game developers... but currently, it's userbase are primarily Python-breathing geeks who like interpreted+GC'ed languages, don't care that much about performance on any particular machine and dread the thought of exposing direct access to raw hardware without introducing N layers of abstraction (preferably with network transparency).
We can either a) make all user mounts noexec by default b) get rid of setuid c) mix those two approaches by making user mounts executable, but ignoring dangerous flags.
That is why KDE and Gnome make this stuff easier. But there SHOULD be a way to do everything with shell commands, for users who are willing to learn them. Without that, I just don't have the feeling that I'm in control of the machine.
BTW, Windows actually has plenty of command line tools (made by Microsoft) which allow you to script much more than one might think without ever touching the GUI. Too bad a lot of the said tools aren't included by default and need to be searched for in various * Kit packages from Microsoft.
It theory you are correct, but practice was different. I actually worked in gamedev industry in Russia ten years ago, and our publisher sold our game (first one that was released in Russia in 2001, in the west in 2003) for 60 roubles ($2), the same price pirated Western games were sold at. Note that we weren't aware of pirated copies of our game on sale, but I don't know whether this needs to be attributed to anti-piracy policy of our publisher (not strictly legal) + software protection measures (Starforce) or affordable price, or both.
Anyway, my point is that there was a "flat rate" of 60 roubles/2 USD for game CDs back then set by pirates - they didn't go lower despite they probably could. Our publisher sold games it had rights to at the same price and didn't have much problems with piracy. It wasn't particularly profitable (like, our first game sold 300 000 copies in Russia for 2 USD each), but the budget for it was even smaller (I estimate it well below 100k USD judging by our salaries during making it - well, we were students anyway and were happy to see any money from making games, for most of us that was the first money we earned).
Ten years ago in Russia you'd have hard time finding a legal CD being sold. BUT - it wasn't matter of mindset, but of price. I.e. people still preferred to buy stuff (even if pirated), not copy it between themselves, because it was easy and affordable to go buy a $1-$3 pirated CD instead of bringing your HDD to a friend (broadband internet wasn't available back then). So I'd argue that if legal software were in the same price range in Russia, it would have been more popular than pirated copies.
I think you haven't actually tried using X windows over internet, let alone on a dialup connection.
I'm pretty sure that the future of the internet is hierarchically organized network with clear distinction who can serve and who can only consume content. That makes the most business, political and economical sense, to the detriment of user's personal freedom, but loss of said freedom aren't enough to keep that from happening - users are lazy and unorganized.
As you have already been told, there are parts of the world today who turn on their devices and don't get a public IPv4 address.
And their problem is? Do you realize that more than half of internet users (I would say 90+%) do not need a public IPv4 address? Video conferences work without that, so there's no economical reason to fix what isn't broken. There's even a counter-incentive NOT to solve that non-problem - lack of ability to serve stuff hinders P2P and similar user activities, so I can see why some companies may want to turn internet users into "internet spectators".
The quality of the site (judging by its copy in cache) impresses no less than the small number of IPv6-only sites it lists. Aren't you ashamed to show the list of 15 (fifteen!) IPv6 only sites (with one test site and one user's home page among them) as the proof that IPv6 connectivity is worth setting up?
If that's your 21st century, then we had better results in 20th.
I'm with you. There are enough (like, several tens of millions) IPv4 addresses that, if distributed more evenly than they are now, would cover the needs of the world - at least the needs of most people who don't care whether they are behind NAT or not. Hell, majority of internet-connected device owners don't want to *serve* anything, and P2P/Skype/online games learned to live with that, adopting elaborate NAT punching techniques.
You can generate as many as needed by this bash one-liner (redirect its output to file): while true; do echo `jot -r 1`, `jot -r 1`; done - you can use `date` instead of first jot. It does not matter whether the numbers are meaningful or not, this is irrelevant for testing UI scalability. Just make sure that resulting csv file is at least 25000 lines (i.e. pairs of numbers) long (although problems with handling/visualizing this in browser will likely start even sooner).
Just compare user experience of Google Documents with Excel or even Libre/Open Office (the latter one apparently uses Java, but even with Java it performs better than GD). As a benchmark, try to use Google Docs to load, edit (copy/paste, etc) and visualize (graph) 25 000 lines long CSV file (each line containing only pair of two numbers, e.g. timestamp and a sampled value).
;-)
Don't underestimate the power of native UI
So what's your solution for inability to open the driver source code because it contains licensed technology? And, predicting your next answer, the technology in question is produced by a company that is highly dependant on the income from the licensees and cannot just make its tech open for everyone.
Your proposal boils down to making all hardware "open" - the problem with this way of thinking is that it favors large corporations (or even monopolies) that can quickly (and cheaply) mass-produce the open designs, while small startup companies who actually innovated don't get sufficient profits to continue their innovations. This is perhaps different from "open source" software development, where turning the "design" (i.e. source) into "product" (a working application) can be done by anyone, including end users (by compiling the said source).
I am Russian. Your guess is basically correct. It was perhaps not wise to distribute state property that way. Vouchers should have been tied to particular person (i.e. with his name and surname printed on it) and forbidden to be resold. But nobody knew back then, and everyone wanted to get out of economical crisis as fast as possible - instant privatization was supposed to turn unprofitable state enterprises into prospering businesses and make everyone rich (voucher was promised to be worth two luxury cars by one of Russian officials).
What actually happened is that people already in power (including Communist party apparatus and semi-legal Soviet entrepreneurs which started to appear towards the end of 1980s) took over the state enterprises they had managed as public functionaries and turned them into their own private property, buying shares from workers for two bottles of vodka (anecdotal evidence). Arguably, privatization goal was achieved - some of those enterprises eventually became profitable in private hands (after extreme 'cost cutting'), but a lot of people feel robbed of their property... which was "theirs" (i.e. public) only formally anyway.
Then you could see (maybe) who was posting pictures of themselves from long ago (not like I've ever done that!).
You can see that already, because a lot of people do not remove EXIF data which has (among others) "date taken", "date digitized", "date modified" fields :)
When you stop prizing the competition, you suddenly lose the alternatives.
Linux, for example, permits viruses to be written. So does OS X. The reason why viruses do not proliferate on those systems is because they're not a particularly interesting attack target, and because (specifically in case of Linux) they are typically run by competent users who don't run random binaries off the Net.
Not only that. Linuxes are diverse, they vary across distributions and architectures and even kernel versions (on driver level), while Windows machines are much more uniform.
Basically, not having viruses is nothing to be proud about. This very variety makes it hard for commercial software vendors to develop for such an inconsistent "platform".
It's like being proud of receiving no spam just because of not having an e-mail address.
Mandatory Access Control. Which means rather policing the user than his programs :)
We need to stop fighting viruses. This secuirty-oriented crusade starts to seriously threaten our freedom.
And IMO it would be a crying shame to kill a competent browser because of bad PR.
They deserve it. Firefox should be renamed as FireAsaDotzler. You know, that "community coordinator" that said that .com (and apparently .edu, .gov, .mil) users were never a priority.
And this is bad. I remember the anticipation of Firefox .0 releases: 2.0, 3.0, 4.0. Now... there's no fun in seeing Firefox 8.0 being released. They lost their identity, willingly. I am no more interested in following progress in FF, if there's any.
BTW, I do not use Chrome/-ium either. Never liked this unconfigurable "kiosky" browser that had its own ideas about how GUI should look like.
These two lost their minds. Now I'm back to classic browsers like Opera, who actually values its heritage. And I value my memories of running Opera 3.0 back in 1990s.
Firefox should be rebranded as FireAsaDotzler 1.0