...their system where the advertisers call you? It's safe to assume they'll be adopting the platform and munging it with some sort of phone connection to achieve this. This could be just the step they're looking for to lower costs and make more profit. And on top of that, how many other messengers have an open voice protocol? How long before we see extensions etc? And how long before some wisespark tries that Skypecasting thing with it? Since jabber can technically support any mime type, all we would need is for someone to plug theora into it and instantly it can be done.
I don't think many people said it's crap (I haven't checked all the posts!). I think people are just disappointed that an important piece of open source has stopped being sponsored. We'll see if the open source version takes off, like ssh/openssh.
I'm disappointed too, but i can see the logic behind it and i'm optomistic that there will be some improvements. Don't get me wrong, i'm a big fan of free/libre software, and i write an awful lot of it, but that doesn't mean i won't use proprietary software. We will have to see how it turns out. Maybe this publicity boost will pull some more people into Gnessus.
Fair enough. However I have concerns that if the government hasn't done so already it will soon be secretly mandating backdoors in closed source software for the purposes of law enforcement. A security checker that is deliberately blind to FBI TCP/IP bugging for example. Ditto backdoors for commercial purposes. Open source isn't perfect but it's less likely to have those sorts of holes and in addition gives me the opportunity to check precisely what the scanner is doing.
I agree that you never know what the government is up to and this sort of thing could happen, but you aren't going to run this on it's own are you? When I say i'll stick with nessus, i mean that i'll be running Gnessus too, as added security. It's not like i have to run it as a daemon that hogs resources so I just run them both twice a week and all is fine.
The press release on businesswire referenced by this slashdot story did not say any of this.
The original complaint that was posted to slashdot a few weeks back (feel free to search but i'm too lazy) did reference a lack of contributed code as a definite factor
Hope for the best case, plan for the worst case. In a world of billions of people it's a statisical certainty you'll get at least a few bad apples.
I agree and I still say they should've, but by the time they realised, it was too late i guess
The license is part of the security architecture. I plan my security architecture in a way that has the minimum hidden dependencies on third parties. To give you an idea of the sort of thing that can happen at least one big name router vendor deliberately re-routed a small fraction of all http requests on at least one of their routers to their website for advertising purposes. I'm not saying Nessus are doing similar things, just that with closed source they have more of a temptation to do so, and over time there's less checks and balances.
You would have to audit the code to discover such things, and I'm a busy guy, it would be too much of a push to audit the code even if it was available
For you a nicety, for others core.
Opinion, fair enough
Security is defence in depth. You can't make it perfect. The degree that the new closed source version is technically superior to the previous open source version is a judgement call and may or may not be important.
Number of threats in the database would be one of the key factors, and the commonality of the attacks that it does detect. Yes, I know that isn't even nearly the only measure, but it's one of them
Depends on what you're doing as to whether the new version of the scanner is worthwhile.
The way you're talking it sounds purely like a monetary thing, as security is the entire purpose behind both. Unless you're talking about using closed source software which is no doubt immoral to you
You're the expert. You're the one that people know best. You're the one that people trust. People buy name brands (e.g. Nike) all the time for exactly that reason.
Presumably you'll be able to ratify how mandriva rebranded the LRP (linux router project) as embeddix and by using their superior brand and advertising power stole the thunder?
I didn't. I said there are many licensing options. Traditional closed source is just one of many. Parallel licensing with restrictions on branding is common.
I've said it before, i'll say it again. They can make new DRM til they're blue in the face and it will be cracked. Security through obscurity is poor security unless you do more to protect it on top of that. And I hardly think that hardware encoding a decryption key into a player or drive is going to be of much use. And fetching keys off the internet? They can be dumped to file easily enough, the file decrypted and everyone is happy.
Even without having the decryption key for a company leaked by an employee, a few hours on a beowulf cluster will be able to turn out the movie for sure. Isn't DRM effective? All the while they're pissing off legitimate customers. It's come to the point where you're getting something better through piracy than you are through purchase, so is it any wonder people pirate?
Oh and it's the end of me buying movies, I won't buy into DRM
As regards the monitors and encryption, they're still forgetting that it has to be decrypted in the end and so by modifying a monitor you will be able to dump the signals and convert them into a readable file. It's like connecting wires to the connections to a speaker, you can always tap into it and get the signal. Unless of course you figure out a way to make noise without the use of analogue (By defying physics). it's an old business model and DRM won't prop it up, they need to move on.
Google IMO has the best advert service because it's unintrusive and they're ads you want to see because they're context sensitive. To me that makes it more likely you'll be interested in what the ad's selling and you'll want to get it more because the ad doesn't piss you off. Because of this, google can charge whatever they like and most people will pay it.
Perhaps this is where the sidekick/PDA comes into it's own, they're naturally suited to this sort of application and you can get broadband internet connected to them to reduce download times somewhat (and a fixed monthly payment reduces overall charges). The only cost after that is the cost of streaming the TV show, placed on by philips (or whoever will actually be streaming the shows)
Re:Yeah, but there's also...
on
Nessus 3.0 Released
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Except for the license, which apparently took a major step backwards.
So it's crap because of the licence? I don't buy that
You have no idea. Likely, people who don't regard open and free licenses as important are reading cnet etc. anyway, not slashdot.
I regard them as a nicety, not an essential. End of the day, I want the best security across my servers, and I'd rather accept a closed source nessus with superior detection than an open source gnessus with inferior detection. (Of course if Gnessus takes off and becomes better, great stuff, I'd prefer that).
Which is? The two page press release said nothing.
It did say they were gaining very little benefit from being open source, very little code had been contributed, and when it happened, i remember reading it was about rebranding.
Wrong. They chose the license and if they wanted they could've had a variant of GPL with whatever branding exceptions they wanted.
When you go into making a product like this, you like to keep the nature of free software open, you don't go about assuming that people will take your product and rebrand it, thereby stealing your custom
Except for the license.
I won't, I'll be using the forked open source version.
So you're willing to settle for inferior security for the sake of a licence? A nicety only, security is the most important thing to their systems, you can't afford to skimp based on licence.
The license is part of the feature set of the program. Different people regard different features as important. Some people regard a quality license as important. No surprises there.
Naturally people will see different features as important, but i would say it was safe to assume that in security, effectivemess at creating security is the best thing, and so nessus would win out over gnessus. Of course I'm here purely thinking from the point of view that I want my servers to stay standing for the forseeable future...
I don't know the situation but just as likely it's Nessus' fault for not controlling their brand with the appropriate license, open or closed, and/or providing a service that consumers would prefer over the rebranders.
What can you provide to a free/beer product that makes it more valuable than rebrands? You can't pull closed source here because you're claiming the main fault with nessus is it's closed source. As for another open source licence, I agree this should have been done in the first place, but c'est la vie.
More likely Nessus is going closed source because they've got mindshare now and they think they can make more money closed source. It's happened before. Open source for them was simply a loss leader to get free advertising.
It would be interesting to take a look at their accounts and find out if this is indeed true.
Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. There are many motivations besides money for creating code and with 6,500,000,000+ people in the world all it takes is 0.0001% coding to get something happening.
Yes, but there is the small fact of having to live, and 100 hours a week is hard to fit around a job providing sufficient income to live.
Depends on the individual and whether they regard an open license as a negative, unimportant, important or essential.
Very few people would be in the negative group, and i would say it's about a 45 each on unimportant and important. Not so many regard it as essential, like you might think. There are those groups who would sacrifice security for openness, however, but they are the minority.
When was the last time you were able to pick out the words etc. written on products / scenery on a small screen, let alone a tiny cellphone one? Frankly, normal TV would be mostly unwatchable on a standard cellphone screen, movies certainly would. On the other hand, at least it means the end of in-program brand placement, as you'll be unable to read what the product is (the exception here being the movie `I,robot`, so stuffed full of placement that you can't miss it, especially when it's audibly spoken at every opportunity)
The question i see with it, is how does it tie in with the plans microsoft had for the HDMI style encryption to monitors? Perhaps this is one area where the two groups agree and can standardise?
All the same, the invasive DRM is a big turnoff, it won't be coming near my house until it's been cracked by someone with a publicly available crack (That's not illegal over here in britain, no DMCA, and even in america, linux users will be able to get around this due to the operability reason, which is the main reason).
What i notice is that they still haven't cottoned on that they aren't doing any good with all of this. Any system they have will be cracked, any cracked system is instantly useless, suing your fans doesn't work and people will do what they want to do, whether or not your technology enables them to do it.
I know, movies are expensive to make, but when was the last time anyone cared they spent millions on CGI effects etc. that don't really add to the movie? Frankly I personally could live without them, and given the infrequency with which I watch movies, I'm prepared to miss out on their crappy movies based on the DRM. It's about time the DMCA was lifted, it's unconstitutional.
On a windows environment (and most us have been there) there is little choice in the matter. You can't tell me you'd trust clam to give you a clean bill of health on it's own?
And how often do you audit all the code in the software anyway? You can't rely on the community to do that for you, very few in the community know the code well enough to know what everything does anyway. In the case of nessus where next to no code was contributed, how are you supposed to know it's safe just because it's free/libre?
Try finding a ready-built server with an ARM or PWRficient chip in it... Whitebox has the nice full featureset, so its a good platform for running a server off. That said, I may still buy RHEL because the support is excellent. All the same, it's not worth subscribing for up2date, i find yum a better alternative.
Simply they aren't out yet, and besides, apple gets first pick at them when they do come out, anyway. How many will be left for consumers, I wonder? That said, I'm much more looking forward to new AMDs, that said as someone who only has intel machines in his house.
...the fact it's majorly improved. Of the people here, most of them won't care that it's closed source, purely because of the reason they closed the source. If it hadn't been for rebranding issues, (IMO a fault with the GPL), nessus would still be open source. It's still the best there is, people will still use it.
Not everyone will avoid anything that isn't free/libre, especially if the quality is good. The free software community brought it upon themselves by not helping out and in the case of the rebranders, for stealing all sources of revenue nessus had when GPL. 100 hour weeks hacking on code don't come for free, you know. We'd all prefer it to be free, but it's not essential
Yes, and that's not the only reason opera are doing it either. Most of their money comes from the cellphone market, they have practically a monopoly of the cellphone browser market (which i don't see as a bad thing given the quality of their browser). By spreading more of opera, more people know about it, how long before a managing exec of a cellphone firm that hasn't used it decides to buy an opera licence for their new batch of cellphones?
No. AMDs have traditionally been more power-hungry and heat-generating, they payoff for the the performance as far as I can gather. I personally would happily take that extra for the performance gain, but I see this as just being intel getting greedy for more money that made them lose out.
Last I checked, AMD were on the whole more power-hungry than intels, they put out more heat for sure. I suppose given that they're using old chips, however with lower power requirements and heat output, this would become something of a non-issue with the levels involved.
Yes, but opera ads don't piss you off, they're unintrusive and if you wanted rid of them, you could pay a little fee to get rid of them which i'd be happy to do given my love of the opera browser (said hypocritically from epiphany browser). An overbearing annoying ad and complete lack of functionality won't make me upgrade to realplayer pro for sure, just desist using realplayer.
They're clearly jealous AMD snatched the opportunity to sponsor this project from under their noses when intel weren't even bothered. Since when was anyone expecting intel to say `the product with our competitor's chips in is better`? Intel's honeymoon is over, they're going to really have to work to get people to buy their products when this laptop is powerful enough for 90% of users.
They do it so they can stick a finger up to the cops and say `I'm better than you`, such is the mentality of the virus writer or cracker. They also get recognition within the blackhat community as the person who reaped havoc worldwide. Then there's that smug satisfaction that they haven't been caught. Scientifically, the risk of getting caught topped off with not actually having been caught triggers a dopamine release which makes people feel good. Such is the way virus writers get their thrills.
The only way they can make money is from a rival company wanting the worm to take down their competition, or a rival country in some cases, wanting to take down a lot of a country's infrastructure based on the net. We're all familiar with the hackers the russian government hired to try and rip down the internet, but it is often attempted with worms too
He's missing some requirements...
on
Sober Code Cracked
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
...namely that he isn't a multinational corporation and that the patent wouldn't fuck over everyone, er I mean wouldn't protect innovation...
Re:Everything since HTML has been too complex
on
The Future of HTML
·
· Score: 1
A child can't do it *well* though.
It's taken me a good 4 years to call myself a professional, to produce designs like i'm doing. As you get to know HTML and CSS better, you get to become natural with using it, you can make changes appropriate to the situation and know what's wrong without looking it up in a book. It takes practice to do it properly and it takes practice to produce a clean, accessible layout that doesn't use tables. Once you've got it though, you've got it.
Yes but I made the point that if even my 2.4Ghz box struggles with Qt based apps, then it's hardly likely poor macedonian families or even the project could afford to supply computers with the meat to run it. Besides, the article suggests they're using GNOME anyway... KDevelop is still my choice of Development Environment but I don't use it for Qt development because I prefer that programs don't hog 5% of my CPU each... Personally i'm addicted to the CLI and that's unlikely to change. But for GUI apps, there's nothing like GTK
Why would they put KDE on a system and yet not use Kubuntu instead? It seems likely to me they're using gnome, which given their wonderful new Cairo API would be a good thing. I personally went right off KDE when i realised most of the apps were eating huge proportions of CPU and memory. It got so bad that i switched to a GNOME media player, despite me loving amarok. Now i don't use KDE. I'm thinking of this from the point of view that presumably macedonian poor families can't afford the latest and greatest computers and so everything you can squeeze out of it would surely be welcome.
Slashdot Mirror
...their system where the advertisers call you? It's safe to assume they'll be adopting the platform and munging it with some sort of phone connection to achieve this. This could be just the step they're looking for to lower costs and make more profit. And on top of that, how many other messengers have an open voice protocol? How long before we see extensions etc? And how long before some wisespark tries that Skypecasting thing with it? Since jabber can technically support any mime type, all we would need is for someone to plug theora into it and instantly it can be done.
I'm disappointed too, but i can see the logic behind it and i'm optomistic that there will be some improvements. Don't get me wrong, i'm a big fan of free/libre software, and i write an awful lot of it, but that doesn't mean i won't use proprietary software. We will have to see how it turns out. Maybe this publicity boost will pull some more people into Gnessus.
Fair enough. However I have concerns that if the government hasn't done so already it will soon be secretly mandating backdoors in closed source software for the purposes of law enforcement. A security checker that is deliberately blind to FBI TCP/IP bugging for example. Ditto backdoors for commercial purposes. Open source isn't perfect but it's less likely to have those sorts of holes and in addition gives me the opportunity to check precisely what the scanner is doing.
I agree that you never know what the government is up to and this sort of thing could happen, but you aren't going to run this on it's own are you? When I say i'll stick with nessus, i mean that i'll be running Gnessus too, as added security. It's not like i have to run it as a daemon that hogs resources so I just run them both twice a week and all is fine.
The press release on businesswire referenced by this slashdot story did not say any of this.
The original complaint that was posted to slashdot a few weeks back (feel free to search but i'm too lazy) did reference a lack of contributed code as a definite factor
Hope for the best case, plan for the worst case. In a world of billions of people it's a statisical certainty you'll get at least a few bad apples.
I agree and I still say they should've, but by the time they realised, it was too late i guess
The license is part of the security architecture. I plan my security architecture in a way that has the minimum hidden dependencies on third parties. To give you an idea of the sort of thing that can happen at least one big name router vendor deliberately re-routed a small fraction of all http requests on at least one of their routers to their website for advertising purposes. I'm not saying Nessus are doing similar things, just that with closed source they have more of a temptation to do so, and over time there's less checks and balances.
You would have to audit the code to discover such things, and I'm a busy guy, it would be too much of a push to audit the code even if it was available
For you a nicety, for others core.
Opinion, fair enough
Security is defence in depth. You can't make it perfect. The degree that the new closed source version is technically superior to the previous open source version is a judgement call and may or may not be important.
Number of threats in the database would be one of the key factors, and the commonality of the attacks that it does detect. Yes, I know that isn't even nearly the only measure, but it's one of them
Depends on what you're doing as to whether the new version of the scanner is worthwhile.
The way you're talking it sounds purely like a monetary thing, as security is the entire purpose behind both. Unless you're talking about using closed source software which is no doubt immoral to you
You're the expert. You're the one that people know best. You're the one that people trust. People buy name brands (e.g. Nike) all the time for exactly that reason.
Presumably you'll be able to ratify how mandriva rebranded the LRP (linux router project) as embeddix and by using their superior brand and advertising power stole the thunder?
I didn't. I said there are many licensing options. Traditional closed source is just one of many. Parallel licensing with restrictions on branding is common.
And i suggested another open s
Even without having the decryption key for a company leaked by an employee, a few hours on a beowulf cluster will be able to turn out the movie for sure. Isn't DRM effective? All the while they're pissing off legitimate customers. It's come to the point where you're getting something better through piracy than you are through purchase, so is it any wonder people pirate?
Oh and it's the end of me buying movies, I won't buy into DRM
As regards the monitors and encryption, they're still forgetting that it has to be decrypted in the end and so by modifying a monitor you will be able to dump the signals and convert them into a readable file. It's like connecting wires to the connections to a speaker, you can always tap into it and get the signal. Unless of course you figure out a way to make noise without the use of analogue (By defying physics). it's an old business model and DRM won't prop it up, they need to move on.
Google IMO has the best advert service because it's unintrusive and they're ads you want to see because they're context sensitive. To me that makes it more likely you'll be interested in what the ad's selling and you'll want to get it more because the ad doesn't piss you off. Because of this, google can charge whatever they like and most people will pay it.
Perhaps this is where the sidekick/PDA comes into it's own, they're naturally suited to this sort of application and you can get broadband internet connected to them to reduce download times somewhat (and a fixed monthly payment reduces overall charges). The only cost after that is the cost of streaming the TV show, placed on by philips (or whoever will actually be streaming the shows)
So it's crap because of the licence? I don't buy that
You have no idea. Likely, people who don't regard open and free licenses as important are reading cnet etc. anyway, not slashdot.I regard them as a nicety, not an essential. End of the day, I want the best security across my servers, and I'd rather accept a closed source nessus with superior detection than an open source gnessus with inferior detection. (Of course if Gnessus takes off and becomes better, great stuff, I'd prefer that).
Which is? The two page press release said nothing.It did say they were gaining very little benefit from being open source, very little code had been contributed, and when it happened, i remember reading it was about rebranding.
Wrong. They chose the license and if they wanted they could've had a variant of GPL with whatever branding exceptions they wanted.When you go into making a product like this, you like to keep the nature of free software open, you don't go about assuming that people will take your product and rebrand it, thereby stealing your custom
Except for the license.I won't, I'll be using the forked open source version.
So you're willing to settle for inferior security for the sake of a licence? A nicety only, security is the most important thing to their systems, you can't afford to skimp based on licence.
The license is part of the feature set of the program. Different people regard different features as important. Some people regard a quality license as important. No surprises there.Naturally people will see different features as important, but i would say it was safe to assume that in security, effectivemess at creating security is the best thing, and so nessus would win out over gnessus. Of course I'm here purely thinking from the point of view that I want my servers to stay standing for the forseeable future...
I don't know the situation but just as likely it's Nessus' fault for not controlling their brand with the appropriate license, open or closed, and/or providing a service that consumers would prefer over the rebranders.What can you provide to a free/beer product that makes it more valuable than rebrands? You can't pull closed source here because you're claiming the main fault with nessus is it's closed source. As for another open source licence, I agree this should have been done in the first place, but c'est la vie.
More likely Nessus is going closed source because they've got mindshare now and they think they can make more money closed source. It's happened before. Open source for them was simply a loss leader to get free advertising.It would be interesting to take a look at their accounts and find out if this is indeed true.
Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. There are many motivations besides money for creating code and with 6,500,000,000+ people in the world all it takes is 0.0001% coding to get something happening.Yes, but there is the small fact of having to live, and 100 hours a week is hard to fit around a job providing sufficient income to live.
Depends on the individual and whether they regard an open license as a negative, unimportant, important or essential.Very few people would be in the negative group, and i would say it's about a 45 each on unimportant and important. Not so many regard it as essential, like you might think. There are those groups who would sacrifice security for openness, however, but they are the minority.
When was the last time you were able to pick out the words etc. written on products / scenery on a small screen, let alone a tiny cellphone one? Frankly, normal TV would be mostly unwatchable on a standard cellphone screen, movies certainly would. On the other hand, at least it means the end of in-program brand placement, as you'll be unable to read what the product is (the exception here being the movie `I,robot`, so stuffed full of placement that you can't miss it, especially when it's audibly spoken at every opportunity)
All the same, the invasive DRM is a big turnoff, it won't be coming near my house until it's been cracked by someone with a publicly available crack (That's not illegal over here in britain, no DMCA, and even in america, linux users will be able to get around this due to the operability reason, which is the main reason).
What i notice is that they still haven't cottoned on that they aren't doing any good with all of this. Any system they have will be cracked, any cracked system is instantly useless, suing your fans doesn't work and people will do what they want to do, whether or not your technology enables them to do it.
I know, movies are expensive to make, but when was the last time anyone cared they spent millions on CGI effects etc. that don't really add to the movie? Frankly I personally could live without them, and given the infrequency with which I watch movies, I'm prepared to miss out on their crappy movies based on the DRM. It's about time the DMCA was lifted, it's unconstitutional.
And how often do you audit all the code in the software anyway? You can't rely on the community to do that for you, very few in the community know the code well enough to know what everything does anyway. In the case of nessus where next to no code was contributed, how are you supposed to know it's safe just because it's free/libre?
Traditionally people have trusted closed source antiviruses and firewalls...
Try finding a ready-built server with an ARM or PWRficient chip in it... Whitebox has the nice full featureset, so its a good platform for running a server off. That said, I may still buy RHEL because the support is excellent. All the same, it's not worth subscribing for up2date, i find yum a better alternative.
Simply they aren't out yet, and besides, apple gets first pick at them when they do come out, anyway. How many will be left for consumers, I wonder? That said, I'm much more looking forward to new AMDs, that said as someone who only has intel machines in his house.
Not everyone will avoid anything that isn't free/libre, especially if the quality is good. The free software community brought it upon themselves by not helping out and in the case of the rebranders, for stealing all sources of revenue nessus had when GPL. 100 hour weeks hacking on code don't come for free, you know. We'd all prefer it to be free, but it's not essential
Yes, and that's not the only reason opera are doing it either. Most of their money comes from the cellphone market, they have practically a monopoly of the cellphone browser market (which i don't see as a bad thing given the quality of their browser). By spreading more of opera, more people know about it, how long before a managing exec of a cellphone firm that hasn't used it decides to buy an opera licence for their new batch of cellphones?
-nt-
No. AMDs have traditionally been more power-hungry and heat-generating, they payoff for the the performance as far as I can gather. I personally would happily take that extra for the performance gain, but I see this as just being intel getting greedy for more money that made them lose out.
Last I checked, AMD were on the whole more power-hungry than intels, they put out more heat for sure. I suppose given that they're using old chips, however with lower power requirements and heat output, this would become something of a non-issue with the levels involved.
Yes, but opera ads don't piss you off, they're unintrusive and if you wanted rid of them, you could pay a little fee to get rid of them which i'd be happy to do given my love of the opera browser (said hypocritically from epiphany browser). An overbearing annoying ad and complete lack of functionality won't make me upgrade to realplayer pro for sure, just desist using realplayer.
They're clearly jealous AMD snatched the opportunity to sponsor this project from under their noses when intel weren't even bothered. Since when was anyone expecting intel to say `the product with our competitor's chips in is better`? Intel's honeymoon is over, they're going to really have to work to get people to buy their products when this laptop is powerful enough for 90% of users.
Yeah, but it was fairly obvious what was meant. I'll go get my caffeine now
The only way they can make money is from a rival company wanting the worm to take down their competition, or a rival country in some cases, wanting to take down a lot of a country's infrastructure based on the net. We're all familiar with the hackers the russian government hired to try and rip down the internet, but it is often attempted with worms too
...namely that he isn't a multinational corporation and that the patent wouldn't fuck over everyone, er I mean wouldn't protect innovation...
It's taken me a good 4 years to call myself a professional, to produce designs like i'm doing. As you get to know HTML and CSS better, you get to become natural with using it, you can make changes appropriate to the situation and know what's wrong without looking it up in a book. It takes practice to do it properly and it takes practice to produce a clean, accessible layout that doesn't use tables. Once you've got it though, you've got it.
Yes but I made the point that if even my 2.4Ghz box struggles with Qt based apps, then it's hardly likely poor macedonian families or even the project could afford to supply computers with the meat to run it. Besides, the article suggests they're using GNOME anyway... KDevelop is still my choice of Development Environment but I don't use it for Qt development because I prefer that programs don't hog 5% of my CPU each... Personally i'm addicted to the CLI and that's unlikely to change. But for GUI apps, there's nothing like GTK
Why would they put KDE on a system and yet not use Kubuntu instead? It seems likely to me they're using gnome, which given their wonderful new Cairo API would be a good thing. I personally went right off KDE when i realised most of the apps were eating huge proportions of CPU and memory. It got so bad that i switched to a GNOME media player, despite me loving amarok. Now i don't use KDE. I'm thinking of this from the point of view that presumably macedonian poor families can't afford the latest and greatest computers and so everything you can squeeze out of it would surely be welcome.