It doesn't matter. Once the clueless Mass. officals responsible were persuaded to let Microsoft's mutated pseudo-open version of ODF into the picture, rather than insisting on the one truly open standard, they basically gave away the farm. This action by them will prevent OpenOffice from becoming a seriously used software by the state, no doubt. No one in the tech industry seriously believes that Micosoft's version is *really* necessary other than to perpetuate their monopoly. I just wonder if this decision was the result of actual cluelessness or was it in fact corruption on the part of the Mass. officials.
You can call bullshit all you want, but Microsoft could not care less. The reason Microsoft can get away with things like this (taking it's own sweet time fixing a major security issue) is because people just keep right on using Windows anyway. It doesn't matter how bad Microsoft screws over the 90% of computer users running their products, because these people are gluttons for punishment. They don't care if their computers are continuously being repeatedly over ran with viruses and spyware, or that they are being lead around by the nose with what they can and can not do with their computer, or that they are basically logging into an advertising system when they turn on their PCs... they just keep coming back for more of the same. So why WOULD Microsoft hurry to fix ANYTHING in Windows? If joe six pack were to pull his head out of his rear-end and spend the limited effort required to learn to use a different operating system and applications such as Mac, Linux, OpenOffice.org, etc... only then will Microsoft feel they are losing control of his balls and start to give their customers more credit than a bunch of sheep.
I sort of disagree here. I think what is most important is that we are on the outside of a black box trying to control what is within by sending in effectors and observing changes. Using this method, no matter how precise, we will never know what is in the box, and so will never know of all the possibilities that we are missing.
I think this is true, imagination IS more important than knowledge. Everything we know is based on models that we have developed to predict what is measurable. The next step is to do away with the models and know exactly what it is that we are measuring. This may be impossible to do using pure logical reasoning.
Ever heard of Qmail? All C, used by thousands for years, never been exploited, extremely secure. Just one example. There are many out there. Get a clue.
All this accomplishes is to keep Windows from automatically rendering the graphic when accessed by the Windows' system programs like file/Internet Explorer and Outlook email programs. If any other program on the system renders the graphic, if you do something that lets you see the graphic anywhere, you will activate the infection on your system. Since the WMF image file can be renamed to any other image type and the Windows graphic rendering engine will still recognize it as a WMF, the infected graphic can be disguised as almost anything - system icons, banners, pictures in my documents, template clip art... whatever.
Since a graphics rendering engine common to all versions of windblows uses file magic to determine the image file type - microsucks has a major problem on its hands as do all 90% of the world's computer users. An infected WMF image can simply be renamed to a.jpg or.gif and included in any displayable html (read any web page or html formatted email) and the code will be activated on any windblows box accessing it. This is MAJOR issue folks unless microsucks comes out with a fix for all versions of winblows very soon.
Claim: "No major distribution channels." Comment: There are many, but you really don't need one if you know what you are doing.
Claim: "No real cost advantage." Comment: Ha-ha, crack kills dude. There are HUGE cost advantages, give it a try sometimes.
Claim: "Stability is no longer an issue." Comment: Tell that to the 90% of computer users bringing their broken/infected Windows 2000/XP operating systems into the repair shop for reload at least once every 6 months.
Claim: "Nobody cares. At least, none of the PC desktop consuming masses care. If people have a working Windows PC, why should they switch?" Comment: Most people's Windows PC DOES NOT work reliably because of continous spyware & virus infections and the need to continously apply bandaids to hide Windows' insecure design.
Claim: "It's too hard to use." Comment: You're kidding, right?
Claim: "Zealots. I don't think this affects most people, but at least one of my co-workers hates Linux (and open source in general) because of the zealotry he was subjected to in the past." Comment: I think YOU are that person that hates Linux. Or perhaps a paid Microsoft FUD slinger?
Claim: "Easier development platform." Comment: So, you are saying that a closed, proprietary, secretive, expensive operating system + development environment is easier to develop with than a totally free, completely open, fully publically documented on the Internet including source code, development + operating system environment? I don't believe that you really think that unless you're nuts.
Claim: "As much as I love Linux (and have used it exclusively, at least at home, for nearly a decade), I feel that overall quality of a Linux-based desktop has suffered somewhat recently." Comment: I think that you probably have never used Linux in your life and actually work for Microsoft, spreading a little more FUD during the leisure time.
"There are three huge problems with linux in business as a workstation and as an infrastructure base. One, lack of a coherent and consistant interface throughout all apps and the OS."
Ever heard of gnome/gtk+ or kde/qt? Crack kills dude.
"Two, most drivers need to get the hell out of the kernel... There is no longer any compelling technical reason to keep all the drivers as kernel modules anymore."
Wrong. Modules are not "in the kernel", that's why they are called "modules" and are loaded from outside the kernel. Companies can write proprietary modules that will compile and run with any kernel at any time they like. They are not required to give up their intellectual property when creating driver modules. Ever heard of Nvidia? They make self-installing video driver modules available for downloading/distribution.
"Three, the big one for busines, a lack of enterprise thinking towards infrastructure. Yes, you can do single sign on (painfully). Yes, authentication/authorization is robust and do have some interoperability. And, yes, there is LDAP, X400, DAP, etc. available for a directory structure. The problem is that no one entity has brought it all together in a single package that works from the desktop to the router to NOC to the SAN to, well, you get the picture."
WTF? Most companies with 20 to 200 employees don't need anything more exotic than what is already offered in common distributions. Large companies with 200+ employees have enough resources to customize GNU/Linux to do whatever they need. Your problem description is very over rated.
These crazy bastards ought to realize that porting Autocad to Linux could greatly help to sell the Autocad product. There are MANY large networks out there running ten's and hundred's of strictly Autocad stations tied to central file servers. Enabling a company to convert such networks to Linux based ones would save that company tens of thousands of dollars in software licensing and down time due to infected/broken Windows boxes. These fools at Autodesk KNOW this but simply refuse to make the port.
Over the past six months I have seen several customer computers coming into our shop for repair which all had infected/disabled anti-virus programs running in the task bar. At first it was shocking and ironic to see this. Now it is just plain funny.
The higher number of updates required for Suse Linux was a misdirection by Security Innovation Inc. No self-respecting Linux admin would be using Suse, an rpm based distro, to run arbitrary commercial applications, knowing that the apps in question will require frequent updates and add-ons. Rpm based distros are more suitable for main stream Linux project software and particular versions of commercial applications. You don't go to freshrpm.net and get dependencies for updates and/or add-ons to commerical software that require non-standard library/kernel versions unless you enjoy living on the edge. No, you wait until Suse has the required libraries available, then do the updates.
If instead, the Security Innovation Inc test used a compiler/ports based distro like Gentoo or Debian, switching glibc's and kernel capabilities would be much easier, more stable, and quicker. The test results in this case would have been very different.
Using an rpm based distro and then requiring out-of-distribution libraries to be installed inorder to update the applications was an unfair pre-planned setup for failure. Typical Micro$oft monopolistic tactics. Yawn...
Slashdot Mirror
It doesn't matter. Once the clueless Mass. officals responsible were persuaded to let Microsoft's mutated pseudo-open version of ODF into the picture, rather than insisting on the one truly open standard, they basically gave away the farm. This action by them will prevent OpenOffice from becoming a seriously used software by the state, no doubt. No one in the tech industry seriously believes that Micosoft's version is *really* necessary other than to perpetuate their monopoly. I just wonder if this decision was the result of actual cluelessness or was it in fact corruption on the part of the Mass. officials.
"Sorry, but I'm calling bullshit..."
You can call bullshit all you want, but Microsoft could not care less. The reason Microsoft can get away with things like this (taking it's own sweet time fixing a major security issue) is because people just keep right on using Windows anyway. It doesn't matter how bad Microsoft screws over the 90% of computer users running their products, because these people are gluttons for punishment. They don't care if their computers are continuously being repeatedly over ran with viruses and spyware, or that they are being lead around by the nose with what they can and can not do with their computer, or that they are basically logging into an advertising system when they turn on their PCs... they just keep coming back for more of the same. So why WOULD Microsoft hurry to fix ANYTHING in Windows? If joe six pack were to pull his head out of his rear-end and spend the limited effort required to learn to use a different operating system and applications such as Mac, Linux, OpenOffice.org, etc... only then will Microsoft feel they are losing control of his balls and start to give their customers more credit than a bunch of sheep.
I sort of disagree here. I think what is most important is that we are on the outside of a black box trying to control what is within by sending in effectors and observing changes. Using this method, no matter how precise, we will never know what is in the box, and so will never know of all the possibilities that we are missing.
I think this is true, imagination IS more important than knowledge. Everything we know is based on models that we have developed to predict what is measurable. The next step is to do away with the models and know exactly what it is that we are measuring. This may be impossible to do using pure logical reasoning.
Ever heard of Qmail? All C, used by thousands for years, never been exploited, extremely secure. Just one example. There are many out there. Get a clue.
All this accomplishes is to keep Windows from automatically rendering the graphic when accessed by the Windows' system programs like file/Internet Explorer and Outlook email programs. If any other program on the system renders the graphic, if you do something that lets you see the graphic anywhere, you will activate the infection on your system. Since the WMF image file can be renamed to any other image type and the Windows graphic rendering engine will still recognize it as a WMF, the infected graphic can be disguised as almost anything - system icons, banners, pictures in my documents, template clip art... whatever.
Since a graphics rendering engine common to all versions of windblows uses file magic to determine the image file type - microsucks has a major problem on its hands as do all 90% of the world's computer users. An infected WMF image can simply be renamed to a .jpg or .gif and included in any displayable html (read any web page or html formatted email) and the code will be activated on any windblows box accessing it. This is MAJOR issue folks unless microsucks comes out with a fix for all versions of winblows very soon.
Claim: "No major distribution channels."
Comment: There are many, but you really don't need one if you know what you are doing.
Claim: "No real cost advantage."
Comment: Ha-ha, crack kills dude. There are HUGE cost advantages, give it a try sometimes.
Claim: "Stability is no longer an issue."
Comment: Tell that to the 90% of computer users bringing their broken/infected Windows 2000/XP operating systems into the repair shop for reload at least once every 6 months.
Claim: "Nobody cares. At least, none of the PC desktop consuming masses care. If people have a working Windows PC, why should they switch?"
Comment: Most people's Windows PC DOES NOT work reliably because of continous spyware & virus infections and the need to continously apply bandaids to hide Windows' insecure design.
Claim: "It's too hard to use."
Comment: You're kidding, right?
Claim: "Zealots. I don't think this affects most people, but at least one of my co-workers hates Linux (and open source in general) because of the zealotry he was subjected to in the past."
Comment: I think YOU are that person that hates Linux. Or perhaps a paid Microsoft FUD slinger?
Claim: "Easier development platform."
Comment: So, you are saying that a closed, proprietary, secretive, expensive operating system + development environment is easier to develop with than a totally free, completely open, fully publically documented on the Internet including source code, development + operating system environment? I don't believe that you really think that unless you're nuts.
Claim: "As much as I love Linux (and have used it exclusively, at least at home, for nearly a decade), I feel that overall quality of a Linux-based desktop has suffered somewhat recently."
Comment: I think that you probably have never used Linux in your life and actually work for Microsoft, spreading a little more FUD during the leisure time.
"There are three huge problems with linux in business as a workstation and as an infrastructure base. One, lack of a coherent and consistant interface throughout all apps and the OS."
Ever heard of gnome/gtk+ or kde/qt? Crack kills dude.
"Two, most drivers need to get the hell out of the kernel... There is no longer any compelling technical reason to keep all the drivers as kernel modules anymore."
Wrong. Modules are not "in the kernel", that's why they are called "modules" and are loaded from outside the kernel. Companies can write proprietary modules that will compile and run with any kernel at any time they like. They are not required to give up their intellectual property when creating driver modules. Ever heard of Nvidia? They make self-installing video driver modules available for downloading/distribution.
"Three, the big one for busines, a lack of enterprise thinking towards infrastructure. Yes, you can do single sign on (painfully). Yes, authentication/authorization is robust and do have some interoperability. And, yes, there is LDAP, X400, DAP, etc. available for a directory structure. The problem is that no one entity has brought it all together in a single package that works from the desktop to the router to NOC to the SAN to, well, you get the picture."
WTF? Most companies with 20 to 200 employees don't need anything more exotic than what is already offered in common distributions. Large companies with 200+ employees have enough resources to customize GNU/Linux to do whatever they need. Your problem description is very over rated.
Isn't it basically a way to save your ass when something doesn't work as advertised?
These crazy bastards ought to realize that porting Autocad to Linux could greatly help to sell the Autocad product. There are MANY large networks out there running ten's and hundred's of strictly Autocad stations tied to central file servers. Enabling a company to convert such networks to Linux based ones would save that company tens of thousands of dollars in software licensing and down time due to infected/broken Windows boxes. These fools at Autodesk KNOW this but simply refuse to make the port.
Over the past six months I have seen several customer computers coming into our shop for repair which all had infected/disabled anti-virus programs running in the task bar. At first it was shocking and ironic to see this. Now it is just plain funny.
The higher number of updates required for Suse Linux was a misdirection by Security Innovation Inc. No self-respecting Linux admin would be using Suse, an rpm based distro, to run arbitrary commercial applications, knowing that the apps in question will require frequent updates and add-ons. Rpm based distros are more suitable for main stream Linux project software and particular versions of commercial applications. You don't go to freshrpm.net and get dependencies for updates and/or add-ons to commerical software that require non-standard library/kernel versions unless you enjoy living on the edge. No, you wait until Suse has the required libraries available, then do the updates. If instead, the Security Innovation Inc test used a compiler/ports based distro like Gentoo or Debian, switching glibc's and kernel capabilities would be much easier, more stable, and quicker. The test results in this case would have been very different. Using an rpm based distro and then requiring out-of-distribution libraries to be installed inorder to update the applications was an unfair pre-planned setup for failure. Typical Micro$oft monopolistic tactics. Yawn...
WOW, image how much spam mail those babies will be able to kick out!!!