Better disclosure, a faster patch release cycle, longer back-porting of patches and security features to older releases. There are a few things that would help, and it looks like they've recognized this and are moving in the right direction.
Pwn2Own has never been about "which is more secure". It's *always* been about glory and headlines. It's also been said at least twice (2009 and 2010) that a primary motivation for hacking the Macbook was because it was considered more valuable.
Citation needed, I've read interviews of these people on many occasions and have never heard that.
Want to see which is the most secure OS? Hook a Win 7, OS X, and standard Linux install (let's say Ubuntu) up to an unfiltered network port and see which drops first.
Probably none will; remotely exploitable holes in a default install (requiring no user interaction) are practically non existent due to inbound firewalls.
What the government fails to realise is that this only becomes a monopoly when privatised. Most government run utilities are in essence a monopoly and as long as the liberal government doesn't in the future turn around and privatise the national broadband network it won't be a monopoly but a utility.
The government is planning to privatize NBNCo; one of the main arguments its proponents bring up is that it will make so much money that the taxpayer will profit (we'll see)
"Most government run utilities are in essence a monopoly" followed by "as long as it doesn't get privatized it won't be a monopoly but a utility" doesn't make much sense.
Whether you class a utility as a monopoly, your definitions for either or those terms, doesn't really matter: In Australia and elsewhere utilities are getting split up, sold off, made to compete with each other, and the results for the consumer have been positive (a few years ago we could only use Telstra here, now we have loads of decent choices). It seems like we're only just getting away from Telstra and the NBN seems like a huge leap in the wrong direction
Whether they are or not doesn't really matter; the summary implied they walked out because it was bad for Nokia, but a better explanation may be that they walked out because it was bad for them.
Apple didn't do too badly (the second time around, at least), and if you look at Microsoft's list of acquisitions you'll see a lot of successful mergers. Many of Yahoo's stockholders think it would have been better had they accepted Microsoft's bid, and I have to say I agree with that outlook.
"Competition, motherfucker, have you heard of it?"
So what is the problem? This clearly is an interesting experiment in competition, which will have more support? Google pushing WebM with Youtube and Google Video and Chrome and other browsers, or MS with H.264 and IE?
Competition in standards isn't such a great thing. If you're going to release a new standard it should be for a very good reason, because everyone will have to support all standards (unless they totally fail, in which case they're just a waste of time).
I know H.264 has some sort of proprietary ties, but they're pretty weak, and introducing something completely new (instead of, say, enhancing and throwing their weight behind Ogg/Vorbis, which in itself would be somewhat irresponsible if less so) seems really crazy.
A couple of the tenets of pragmatic programming are making code reusable, and making it understandable. One of my issues with PHP is the naming conventions used in the myriad functions developed for it. Some are camel, some use underscores, some just use bunched up words, all for function names and for parameters.
That lack of standardization makes using PHP confusing for someone not sitting with a book next to them.
You can use the Zend framework, which builds on top of the standard library, and it is much more consistent. Also any decent IDE will have autocompletion and be able to look up the details of whatever function you need. (And I don't think any PHP functions use camel case)
I think it's not used in the enterprise mainly because most enterprises use Windows, and it's not a hand-in-glove fit when it comes to IIS. On UNIX platforms PHP use is pretty widespread.
That's the first time I've heard someone complain about Zend not being pragmatic.. Usually the argument is that they're too pragmatic and need to break backwards compatibility, fix inconsistencies, and make the language less forgiving.
As someone who has used PHP quite a bit I'm curious about what you think the alternative is though:
Is the RoR dev team really more pragmatic than Zend, and does it have better threading performance?
Is the Perl team spending its time more effectively?
Could a proprietary ASP.NET really fill PHP's shoes?
Most of all: If it's so terrible (as this nightmare of a bug demonstrates) why is it in use by many of the most popular websites and web software packages?
They develop and maintain a new language, originally created by someone with no experience, for a very hostile environment, staying fairly backwards compatible while still improving the language constantly, as an independent company using an FOSS license, and ending up as one of the main web-dev languages despite lots of well-funded/well-hyped/well-established competition..
I don't think the company that pulls that off deserves so much scorn..
Why does someone have to be a "chump" to pay more for it?
Because the only way you'll make money from it is by finding someone else who values it more. That can't go on forever.
People have made a lot of money off these sorts of things, so no you don't have to be a chump, but far more people have lost money off them than have made money off them.
If Apple one day decides to take that it now has the resources, it can and it will and the Microsoft of today stands no chance of stopping it.
What about Office, Visual Studio, the.NET Framework (LINQ, WPF, WCF, ADO.NET, etc, etc, all designed for business), legacy applications and documents, Active Directory, the ability to run it on hardware by the lowest bidder, etc,
OTOH there is another way the eye gets two different images of the same thing, which it then has to reinterpret into a 3D scene; looking at something in the real world.
Here at slashdot we try to be supportive when tech companies make mistakes; we never kick people when they're down or make fun.
Mozilla may not be our favorite tech company and we may not agree with their software development methodology; but damn it we're not going to treat them any differently, and will give them our support just like we would any down-on-their-luck company which made a silly one-off mistake!
You need to relax. It's quite simple if you understand Friedmannite economics. Cutting corporate taxes and deregulation will resolve all of our problems. The Free Market will come up with a cheaper, better solution to bee pollination.
Actually large-scale farms which want everything pollinated and thus ready for harvest in one go purchase the services of large-scale beekeepers, which drive farmed bees to the area in hive trucks and leave them there while they pollinate. By the time they die off it's mission accomplished, and growing bees artificially wherever you want isn't under threat like the naturally occurring bees that pollinate wild flowers.
The "free market (i.e. people earning a living) have already figured out the pollination of food crops, it's an environmental issue. (And not a calamitous one, but one that justifies some good research and reevaluation of the rules, which is a process of improvement that this article and discussion form a part of.)
This stuff is used because of a conditional waiver that was issued in 2003, against the scientific advices of the experts.
Bees are in decline in europe as well, and the decline has been going on since before 2003.
Maybe this conditional waiver was bad for the environment, I wouldn't be at all surprised, but to think that it's the root cause of the problem is pretty childish.. The world isn't so simple
Slashdot Mirror
I guess you just don't place as much importance on internet cafes as we do..
Better disclosure, a faster patch release cycle, longer back-porting of patches and security features to older releases. There are a few things that would help, and it looks like they've recognized this and are moving in the right direction.
Pwn2Own has never been about "which is more secure". It's *always* been about glory and headlines. It's also been said at least twice (2009 and 2010) that a primary motivation for hacking the Macbook was because it was considered more valuable.
Citation needed, I've read interviews of these people on many occasions and have never heard that.
Want to see which is the most secure OS? Hook a Win 7, OS X, and standard Linux install (let's say Ubuntu) up to an unfiltered network port and see which drops first.
Probably none will; remotely exploitable holes in a default install (requiring no user interaction) are practically non existent due to inbound firewalls.
What the government fails to realise is that this only becomes a monopoly when privatised. Most government run utilities are in essence a monopoly and as long as the liberal government doesn't in the future turn around and privatise the national broadband network it won't be a monopoly but a utility.
Whether they are or not doesn't really matter; the summary implied they walked out because it was bad for Nokia, but a better explanation may be that they walked out because it was bad for them.
Apple didn't do too badly (the second time around, at least), and if you look at Microsoft's list of acquisitions you'll see a lot of successful mergers. Many of Yahoo's stockholders think it would have been better had they accepted Microsoft's bid, and I have to say I agree with that outlook.
Wait until trash pickup day and drive around your neighborhood, and you'll probably find a computer capable of rendering websites.
If you ask me the address bar, tabs, forward/back buttons and browser search box should all scroll up with the page.
Damn waste of space fixed-position bullshit!
I think it's fine, I could come up with a few nitpicks if I wanted to, but you shouldnt look a gift horse in the mouth
That advice would be better directed at Google, since they are the ones dropping support for H.264.
We'll see about that..
"Competition, motherfucker, have you heard of it?"
So what is the problem? This clearly is an interesting experiment in competition, which will have more support? Google pushing WebM with Youtube and Google Video and Chrome and other browsers, or MS with H.264 and IE?
Competition in standards isn't such a great thing. If you're going to release a new standard it should be for a very good reason, because everyone will have to support all standards (unless they totally fail, in which case they're just a waste of time).
I know H.264 has some sort of proprietary ties, but they're pretty weak, and introducing something completely new (instead of, say, enhancing and throwing their weight behind Ogg/Vorbis, which in itself would be somewhat irresponsible if less so) seems really crazy.
A couple of the tenets of pragmatic programming are making code reusable, and making it understandable. One of my issues with PHP is the naming conventions used in the myriad functions developed for it. Some are camel, some use underscores, some just use bunched up words, all for function names and for parameters.
That lack of standardization makes using PHP confusing for someone not sitting with a book next to them.
You can use the Zend framework, which builds on top of the standard library, and it is much more consistent. Also any decent IDE will have autocompletion and be able to look up the details of whatever function you need. (And I don't think any PHP functions use camel case)
I think it's not used in the enterprise mainly because most enterprises use Windows, and it's not a hand-in-glove fit when it comes to IIS. On UNIX platforms PHP use is pretty widespread.
That's the first time I've heard someone complain about Zend not being pragmatic.. Usually the argument is that they're too pragmatic and need to break backwards compatibility, fix inconsistencies, and make the language less forgiving.
As someone who has used PHP quite a bit I'm curious about what you think the alternative is though:
They develop and maintain a new language, originally created by someone with no experience, for a very hostile environment, staying fairly backwards compatible while still improving the language constantly, as an independent company using an FOSS license, and ending up as one of the main web-dev languages despite lots of well-funded/well-hyped/well-established competition..
I don't think the company that pulls that off deserves so much scorn..
It's because they're stupid, that's why.. That's why everyone does everything..
I've always been a bit puzzled by why the owners of a company are so utterly sheltered from damage cause by or crimes committed by that company.
Example?
Why does someone have to be a "chump" to pay more for it?
Because the only way you'll make money from it is by finding someone else who values it more. That can't go on forever.
People have made a lot of money off these sorts of things, so no you don't have to be a chump, but far more people have lost money off them than have made money off them.
If Apple one day decides to take that it now has the resources, it can and it will and the Microsoft of today stands no chance of stopping it.
What about Office, Visual Studio, the .NET Framework (LINQ, WPF, WCF, ADO.NET, etc, etc, all designed for business), legacy applications and documents, Active Directory, the ability to run it on hardware by the lowest bidder, etc,
OTOH there is another way the eye gets two different images of the same thing, which it then has to reinterpret into a 3D scene; looking at something in the real world.
Here at slashdot we try to be supportive when tech companies make mistakes; we never kick people when they're down or make fun.
Mozilla may not be our favorite tech company and we may not agree with their software development methodology; but damn it we're not going to treat them any differently, and will give them our support just like we would any down-on-their-luck company which made a silly one-off mistake!
The fact that all browsers are doing it now should also be an indication of what people think of it
Fine here
You need to relax. It's quite simple if you understand Friedmannite economics. Cutting corporate taxes and deregulation will resolve all of our problems. The Free Market will come up with a cheaper, better solution to bee pollination.
Actually large-scale farms which want everything pollinated and thus ready for harvest in one go purchase the services of large-scale beekeepers, which drive farmed bees to the area in hive trucks and leave them there while they pollinate. By the time they die off it's mission accomplished, and growing bees artificially wherever you want isn't under threat like the naturally occurring bees that pollinate wild flowers.
The "free market (i.e. people earning a living) have already figured out the pollination of food crops, it's an environmental issue. (And not a calamitous one, but one that justifies some good research and reevaluation of the rules, which is a process of improvement that this article and discussion form a part of.)
This stuff is used because of a conditional waiver that was issued in 2003, against the scientific advices of the experts.
Bees are in decline in europe as well, and the decline has been going on since before 2003.
Maybe this conditional waiver was bad for the environment, I wouldn't be at all surprised, but to think that it's the root cause of the problem is pretty childish.. The world isn't so simple
They say it's a combination of many things, and that the populations have been in decline for some time now.
Growers of organic food still use pesticides (if you try growing crops without any pesticides you'll realize why).