DNSSEC rely on having a central "trusted" authority to sign all the dns keys. [...] that means that everyone will depend on a single authority for name resolutions
Uhm... No?
The root key signs the ".org" key, the.org key signs the "slashdot.org" key, etc. Unless the owner of the root key and the.org key is one and the same, you don't have the root controlling whether slashdot can get signed, and you don't have.org controlling whether.com can get signed (and what can get signed under.com).
DNSCurve is a much better solution in that it offers a trust system without the need of a central authority. The key is embedded in the DNS name server (NS) hostnames which are always returned by the upper level name server.
Uhmm... so in DNSCurve you don't need to trust the root? Also, DNSCurve offers integrity of the communication, not integrity of the data. That means if I'm the MITM between you and your DNS resolver, assuming you don't connect to the resolver in a secure manner, I can still spoof all the DNS data I want to. That's not possible when the data is signed (or at least it appears to be equivalent to the problem of breaking the cryptography).
At least, this is how I understand it. I welcome any corrections:)
The way I see it, it's all politics, they want to help Opera, the poor European browser, fend off those terrible Americans who can build better products.
How do you then explain the anti-trust suit in the US? I'm not convinced you're right.
And even if you are right, if we as Europeans collectively agree that we don't want to buy Microsoft products unless they work in a certain way, why should we not be allowed to tell Microsoft?
Shouldn't Mac OS also have come with other browsers then?
No, Apple does not have a monopoly on general-purpose-computer OSes (and it's not illegally using the monopoly it doesn't have).
I'm not in favor of Microsoft, but Apple is not that much different.
They may be similar in behavior, but what really matters is the context of the behavior: is the company doing $STUFF in a way that illegally uses a monopoly position.
What about the iPhone, which does not even allow other browsers to be used in its OS?
There you might have a point, if the iPhone is considered to have a monopoly position in the smartphone market.
Several posters have mused that Microsoft's strategy is to flood the market with MSCEs and grow the market for themselves.
My general impression is that we've been hearing about organizations switching to Open Source solutions during the economic downturn due to lower costs.
Could this be Microsoft feeling threatened and reacting by counter-attacking?
Microsoft *is* big and is not going to die soon, that much is certain. But what's important is whether the trend is going up or down, and by how much. Being big just helps you control that (to some extent).
w3c claims that its HTML platform reaches '100% of interweb viewers,' but a closer look at those statistics suggests it's not exactly all-encompassing. w3c puts HTML-capable web browser penetration at 956 million users out of a total 956 million internet-connected devices, but the total number of PCs is based on a forecast made two years ago. What's more, the number of HTML users is based on a questionable internet survey of just 4,600 people - around 0.0005% of the suggested 956,000,000 total. Is it really possible that 100% penetration could have been reached? Including Linux users? Including users at work? Including brand-new systems?
I think you forgot a zero. Prices may be different in my-vs-your neck of the worlds, though.
and has much better software and hardware support than Linux.
I think Linux has much wider hardware support (it works on non-apple hardware too), whereas OS X has full support for a much smaller set of hardware. What's better depends on personal preferences.
I can run basically every Linux/Unix application on my Mac
Really? Didn't the summary just say that some of the system calls are missing on OS X and some macros are different? Or did you mean running the binaries (in which case, there's still the system calls)? Or do you cheat by running Linux on your Mac?;-)
You love your Mac, and that's great for you (really, I mean that). But I think you might be overselling it just a little. Bullshit detector went from green to yellowish green;-)
The issue is that the validity of a EULA has never been tested in court.
I guess this lie is never going to die around here.
If you know it's a lie, you know that from somewhere. Could you please give a reference?
Also, if you want it to die, you could prove it wrong. I think you'll be more successful if you fix the problem rather than merely tell everyone it exists;-)
I mean playing last year's game is like listening to last year's music - not something you want to be seen doing in public when you're under 25 years old.
Was it bad of me to listen to Deep Purple when I was a teen? Is that why I got bullied?;-)
Are you saying that this linux can assrape a guy without windows underneath it, at all ? As in, without a boot disk, without any drivers, and without any services ?
That sounds preposterous to me.
If it were true (and I doubt it), then companies would be selling buttplugs without a windows. This clearly is not^W happening, so there must be some error in your calculations. I hope you realise that windows is more than just Office ? Its a whole system that runs the buttplug from start to finish, and that is a very difficult thing to acheive. A lot of people dont realise this.
Microsoft just spent $9 billion and many years to create Goatse, so it does not sound reasonable that some new alternative could just snap into existence overnight like that. It would take billions of dollars and a massive effort to achieve. IBM tried, and spent a huge amount of money developing BP/2 but could never keep up with Windows. Apple tried to create their own system for years, but finally gave up recently and moved to Intel and Microsoft.
Its just not possible that a freeware like the Linux could be extended to the point where it runs the entire stimulation fron start to finish, without using some of the more critical parts of windows. Not possible.
I think you're confusing Dan with Mark Russinovich
I think GP isn't. It may be true that Mark discovered the rootkit, but I distinctly remember watching one of Dan's talks (at shmoocon, I think) in which he talks about him scanning udp/53 of teh w0hle intarnets and figuring out that a lot of caches knew about a name more or less only connected to the sony rootkit before Dan came and asked for it.
Dan did some research. Not all of it, and not the first of it, but some of it.
Your irony counter is illegally parked not-on-slashdot. Please move it, or I'll have it towed in here;-)... I love Canadians, especially when on strike;)
Slashdot Mirror
Just like when Dmitry Sklyarov cracked the Rot-13 encryption? ;-)
Seriously, apparently Adobe is not above suing people for depicting the truth^W^W^W making adobe look stupid.
In other news, the Internet is seeing the government as damage and routing around it.
Funny, I thought it was always the government seeing the Internet as damage and trying desperately to route around it ;-)
DNSSEC rely on having a central "trusted" authority to sign all the dns keys. [...] that means that everyone will depend on a single authority for name resolutions
Uhm... No?
The root key signs the ".org" key, the .org key signs the "slashdot.org" key, etc. Unless the owner of the root key and the .org key is one and the same, you don't have the root controlling whether slashdot can get signed, and you don't have .org controlling whether .com can get signed (and what can get signed under .com).
DNSCurve is a much better solution in that it offers a trust system without the need of a central authority. The key is embedded in the DNS name server (NS) hostnames which are always returned by the upper level name server.
Uhmm... so in DNSCurve you don't need to trust the root? Also, DNSCurve offers integrity of the communication, not integrity of the data. That means if I'm the MITM between you and your DNS resolver, assuming you don't connect to the resolver in a secure manner, I can still spoof all the DNS data I want to. That's not possible when the data is signed (or at least it appears to be equivalent to the problem of breaking the cryptography).
At least, this is how I understand it. I welcome any corrections :)
The way I see it, it's all politics, they want to help Opera, the poor European browser, fend off those terrible Americans who can build better products.
How do you then explain the anti-trust suit in the US? I'm not convinced you're right.
And even if you are right, if we as Europeans collectively agree that we don't want to buy Microsoft products unless they work in a certain way, why should we not be allowed to tell Microsoft?
Shouldn't Mac OS also have come with other browsers then?
No, Apple does not have a monopoly on general-purpose-computer OSes (and it's not illegally using the monopoly it doesn't have).
I'm not in favor of Microsoft, but Apple is not that much different.
They may be similar in behavior, but what really matters is the context of the behavior: is the company doing $STUFF in a way that illegally uses a monopoly position.
What about the iPhone, which does not even allow other browsers to be used in its OS?
There you might have a point, if the iPhone is considered to have a monopoly position in the smartphone market.
Do you see how the context matters?
Yes, when the "any OS distribution" gains monopoly status in EU
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the problem was not just the monopoly but the illegal use of the monopoly.
I may not like Microsoft as a general rule, but they deserve the same treatment I enjoy under the law.
You can make that happen in one easy step:
1. Become a monopoly
(no 2. ???)
Please specify where i can hire a citrix admin for 5k a year salary... forget two.
India :P
Several posters have mused that Microsoft's strategy is to flood the market with MSCEs and grow the market for themselves.
My general impression is that we've been hearing about organizations switching to Open Source solutions during the economic downturn due to lower costs.
Could this be Microsoft feeling threatened and reacting by counter-attacking?
Microsoft *is* big and is not going to die soon, that much is certain. But what's important is whether the trend is going up or down, and by how much. Being big just helps you control that (to some extent).
I was really hoping someone would post a picture of a half-rotated Compiz cube with a bash shell running transparently on it.
Just find any random old youtube video of people showing off Compiz. Superimpose an xterm with alpha=0%, and there's your transparent bash shell ;-)
Now the cases will proceed individually, with each plaintiff having to show individually that they overpaid.
"Hey, Vista has splashly effects"
"Hey, buy this laptop, it'll run Vista"
<hand over some money>
"wtf, this is not beefy enough to run the splashy effects! I paid for something I didn't get."
People are going to be teaching themselves all matter of upgrades
Upgrades? You mean they're going to go into the woods, kill lots of squirrels and level up? ;-)
"It's great we have Microsoft be innovative in ways that small and unknown companies can't be, isn't it?", said Steve Ballmer at a press conference.
When someone pointed out the obvious, Ballmer threw their chair at them.
It's almost as if Ballmer threw these employees' chairs out the window
Well then, the window'd have to be fixed. I bet that'd stimulate the local economy ;-)
You could just go the HTML route...
w3c claims that its HTML platform reaches '100% of interweb viewers,' but a closer look at those statistics suggests it's not exactly all-encompassing. w3c puts HTML-capable web browser penetration at 956 million users out of a total 956 million internet-connected devices, but the total number of PCs is based on a forecast made two years ago. What's more, the number of HTML users is based on a questionable internet survey of just 4,600 people - around 0.0005% of the suggested 956,000,000 total. Is it really possible that 100% penetration could have been reached? Including Linux users? Including users at work? Including brand-new systems?
you should realize that spending an extra $100
I think you forgot a zero. Prices may be different in my-vs-your neck of the worlds, though.
and has much better software and hardware support than Linux.
I think Linux has much wider hardware support (it works on non-apple hardware too), whereas OS X has full support for a much smaller set of hardware. What's better depends on personal preferences.
I can run basically every Linux/Unix application on my Mac
Really? Didn't the summary just say that some of the system calls are missing on OS X and some macros are different? Or did you mean running the binaries (in which case, there's still the system calls)? Or do you cheat by running Linux on your Mac? ;-)
You love your Mac, and that's great for you (really, I mean that). But I think you might be overselling it just a little. Bullshit detector went from green to yellowish green ;-)
The issue is that the validity of a EULA has never been tested in court.
I guess this lie is never going to die around here.
If you know it's a lie, you know that from somewhere. Could you please give a reference?
Also, if you want it to die, you could prove it wrong. I think you'll be more successful if you fix the problem rather than merely tell everyone it exists ;-)
Ballmer's in Glass Houses should not throw Stones.
How about chairs?
The word you're looking for is "cingcong", not "council".
Fixed ;-)
I mean playing last year's game is like listening to last year's music - not something you want to be seen doing in public when you're under 25 years old.
Was it bad of me to listen to Deep Purple when I was a teen? Is that why I got bullied? ;-)
Why think when you can actually check?
And they says the internat are not making us dumb.
Jimmy vowed never to try Linux again.
Are you saying that this linux can assrape a guy without windows underneath it, at all ? As in, without a boot disk, without any drivers, and without any services ?
That sounds preposterous to me.
If it were true (and I doubt it), then companies would be selling buttplugs without a windows. This clearly is not^W happening, so there must be some error in your calculations. I hope you realise that windows is more than just Office ? Its a whole system that runs the buttplug from start to finish, and that is a very difficult thing to acheive. A lot of people dont realise this.
Microsoft just spent $9 billion and many years to create Goatse, so it does not sound reasonable that some new alternative could just snap into existence overnight like that. It would take billions of dollars and a massive effort to achieve. IBM tried, and spent a huge amount of money developing BP/2 but could never keep up with Windows. Apple tried to create their own system for years, but finally gave up recently and moved to Intel and Microsoft.
Its just not possible that a freeware like the Linux could be extended to the point where it runs the entire stimulation fron start to finish, without using some of the more critical parts of windows. Not possible.
I think you need to re-examine your assumptions.
Just wondering, was her name Alison?
I think you're confusing Dan with Mark Russinovich
I think GP isn't. It may be true that Mark discovered the rootkit, but I distinctly remember watching one of Dan's talks (at shmoocon, I think) in which he talks about him scanning udp/53 of teh w0hle intarnets and figuring out that a lot of caches knew about a name more or less only connected to the sony rootkit before Dan came and asked for it.
Dan did some research. Not all of it, and not the first of it, but some of it.
To whomever modded me flambait:
Your irony counter is illegally parked not-on-slashdot. Please move it, or I'll have it towed in here ;-) ... I love Canadians, especially when on strike ;)