Their benefits arguments don't make sense. On the one hand, they claim that the major benefit is that if someone steals your computer, then uses it to connect to the internet, it will give itself away. On the other hand, they claim that they will make software available to easily disable the autoidentification... which is it, it can't work both ways!
IMHO, I think security takes a giant step backwards when you start authenticating machines instead of people. My take on this is that now anybody with physical access to my computer is me for the sake of ecommerce... I find this very disturbing. Also, unlike a password, once somebody figures out how to spoof your CPU ID, it can't be changed!. Finally, I don't understand what this will do for me that a good public key system won't do much better...
Um, I'd say it's not ported until these are unbroken... I'd be interested in paying money for this when it works at least as well (frame rate, sound, death match, etc.) as the Windows version. Until then, this ain't news...
This could turn out to be an interesting Class Action Lawsuit. Interesting way to repeal the Microsoft tax. Are there any lawyers here that have on opinion on whether or not per-processor licensing violates the consent decree? Anybody lawyer want to take on this case? How many people can truthfully claim to have _never_ used the software that came preinstalled on their hard drive?
For some reason, this reminds me of the Boston Tea party... could be the start of something big.
Bravo! Ok, FrontPage sucks. But it may fall under the rule "Never attribute to malice what is adequately explained by stupidity." In other words, it may suck because of a sinister plot to trick people into building web pages that can only be hosted on IIS and only be viewed by IE, or it may suck simply because it's implementors are lazy and ignorant. Choose whichever you wish to beleive. I personally feel that M$ breaks compatibility far to often to be purely coincidental, but unfortunately they do it in such a way as to leave enough doubt that intentional malice could never be proven in court. Then again, I could be paranoid...
To those of you that think a touchscreen angle into the desk is bad, because you have to lean to look at it: I went all through school leaning to see my books and notepads. How is this any different? Why not just mount the touchpad with enough degrees of freedom so that you can put it anywhere you're comfortable with. The real problem with a touchpad is that you have to clean the thing regularly, especially after working while eating pizza...;-)
First, Microsoft is irrelevant. Totally... We run the real risk that by concentrating too hard on killing Windows, we will become just like them. People are calling for 'feature parity' with the Office(TM, Pat Pend) applications to ease the transition of newbie users without once questioning whether that is a good thing.
Personally, I like the idea of giving all those potential new users a nasty shock to the complacency... I don't want Linux to be "Just like Windows only Better!", I want it to challenge the basic assumptions that the Microsoft engineers have made...
Choice is good. Linux should support LOTS of different user interfaces, which should all compete for user mindshare. However, since the cost of retraining far exceeds the cost of continuing to upgrade to the latest M$ bloatware, there should be at least one interface available that mimics as closely as legally possible the UI of Windows and Office, and is capable of reading and writing M$ file formats! Unlike developers, who enjoy constantly learning new things, most people can't be bothered to learn ANYTHING new. I know lots of people who are perfectly content to continue using their Windows 3.1 and old M$ Office, 'cause upgrading would be too much money and hastle...
As far as the other points in the article: No, Micr$oft is NOT the enemy, and if we focus on Micro$oft, it makes us reactive, not proactive. One of Micr$oft's main problems currently is that it focuses entirely on the latest perceived threat, making it almost entirely reactive, then never completely follows through because a new threat inevitably comes along before they have finished implementing a solution to the old one... do we really want OSS to operate like that???
The argument that as Red Hat gains market share, it will become more like M$ is certainly valid, IMHO. However, even one other company entirely motivated by profit that can compete on an even footing with M$ would be an improvement; it would keep Redmond honest, and force them to rethink their strategies to provide more value to the consumer. In the end, it's not important that M$ wins or Netscape wins or even the Linux wins... what is important is that the consumers win, by being given access to the latest innovative ideas in software at a reasonable price. Also, OSS itself acts as a moderating effect on Red Hat's behaviour. How much more responsive would M$ be to their customers, if all their source was freely available, and disgruntled customers could simply fork their source tree and start shipping their own version of Windoze?
Micro$oft will always be with us, in much the same way that IBM System 370s and VAXen are still with us... they are still in use, but nobody is buying new ones, and all the exciting, cutting edge development is being done on newer platforms. Micro$oft has learned a lot from IBM... have they learned enough to avoid following the same path?
I wonder how many people would have to do this before Toshiba would get a clue and start offering a product WITHOUT Windoze preinstalled? (Granted, this would probably require setting up a separate company to distribute the same hardware under a different name to get around the fascist M$ contract. But still, it should be doable, and even profitable if there is enough demand...)
Language: Yes, Java. IDE & tools: Sadly no. I'm still waiting for an Open Source equivalent of Visual Studio, which after several iterations had actually become a fairly decent Integrated Development Environment. Note that without preprocessor or header files, IDE's for Java should be easier to implement than C/C++... Is anybody out there working on a GNU IDE, or at least a free Java IDE?
No, we need to hear these, if only because the highest and best use of the fabled "slashdot effect" is to provide a clue-by-four to hit these guys in the head with. Trademarks do NOT apply to businesses in other categories with the same name, and trademark law says NOTHING about domain names! Perhaps EFF should start a legal fund to establish to precedents, which may discourage these corporations from playing this infantile "my lawyer is bigger than your lawyer" game.
The biggest fault of this article is it's continued insistence that Micro$oft was once innovative! The conclusion is also wrong, M$ will continue to be around in some way, shape, or form for a long, long time, for the same reasons that IBM is still around. The main reason being that they can afford to lose $1 billion/year for 20 years and still remain in business! However, M$ may become irrelevant in many markets, like the server market, in much the same way that Banyan is irrelevant in the corporate network market, despite the fact that it is still being supported and used. (Banyan was still being used at Intel and Tektronix the last time I checked.) Linux is already a better Windows server than NT is, and Micro$oft's shift to per-seat pricing provides even more incentive to switch. The price/performance numbers for using NT as your server simply cannot compete!
Are ridiculous. Companies like Netgrocer and Amazon are operating with the motto "We lose money on every sale, but we make up for it in volume!" Seriously, the more books Amazon.com sells, the more money it loses!!! Apparently these companies think it is worth selling things for less then cost to build market share.My personal theory is that the use of intelligent agents for comparison shopping will make evertything sold on the 'net a commodity, so as soon as these companies raise their prices enough to show a profit, customers will flock to the new cost leader. You can't expect brand loyalty on the net! Conclusion: 99% of people buying internet stocks are going to get badly burned!
Yes, you've got a right to defend yourself (with arms if necessary). But you DON'T have a right to go firing off shotguns when you have no idea what you're hitting. I would argue that on the Internet, it's never quite certain that the IP address you're retaliating against is in any way connected to the actual culprit you want to "get". Start blasting away at muggers and hit innocent bystanders, and you're likely to be staring down the barrel of a VERY expensive lawsuit...
Pardon my ignorance, but can anyone even cite a legal precedent that proves that trademark law applies to domain names at all, let alone derivate domain names? What next, cease and desist letters claiming "Your 1-800 number differs from ours by only 1 digit, creating confusion in the minds of our customers. Therefore we demand that you immediately turn this number over to us!"
As I understand trademark law, "yahoo" is a standard english word which shouldn't be trademark able. "Yahoo!" may be trademarkable, and the Yahoo logo is certainly trademarkable. Perhaps a reasonable solution would be for YaHooka to drop the "!" from their logo.
Personally, I think anybody that would actually confuse the two sites would most likely be more interested in visiting YaHooka anyway. I never visit either anyway...
NeXT had a gosh-awful slow optical disk! But is was a good machine for geeks, good development environment, it WASN'T beige... yes, I'm sad it didn't take off too...
The U.S. government has also issued guidelines mandating the use of Ada as a computer language and GOSIP compliance (does this imply POSIX?)... both of which were promptly ignored. Simply put, the government usually buys it's software from whomever is offering the biggest kickbacks...
My point was, that if you pay alot of money for a product whose producers have spent billions of dollars in advertising to tell you it IS suitable for a specific purpose, there SHOULD be an implied waranty. Software seems a consicous exception to the rule of implied waranty; would you by a car with a sticker over the ignition that said "We don't waranty this product to be good for anything, in fact it may (literally) crash and burn the first time you use it. By inserting the key in the ignition, you accept the terms of this agreement."
My experience has been that the people who charge the big bucks for their software HAVE to make big claims for it; otherwise no one will buy it! The people who do open source have more of a "this may be helpful to you, or it may not" attitude. Sure, if someone is making big claims for their free software, and the claims turn out to be false, go ahead and bitch. Again, can you cite ANY specific examples of open source software that do this.
Also, complaining about a bug when you have the source is like standing outside in a blizzard complaining about the cold -- you ain't gonna get any sympathy from me -- come inside, you idiot! What, you don't know HOW to build a fire? Ask a friend for help... What, you don't have any friends? Well, that's what happens when you work for Micro$oft...
Uh, Chris... next time you see BillG, say hi to him for me, ok?
I'm responding to an obvious troll, but here goes: Microsoft is to be admired for their success. They do not, however, in the eyes of myself and most others on here, have "focus and a commitment to a great OS." Their focus and commmitment to maximizing shareholder ROI seems to invariably take precedence over any commitment provide value to their customers. Ultimately this short-sighted corporate mindset will backfire, as it has already alienated much of their customer base, who are ready to jump ship as soon as they perceive a viable alternative.
Linux has already overtaken Microsoft as a web server platform. It will soon overtake Microsoft as a general server. It will probably never overtake Microsoft in the shrink-wrapped software or desktop client markets -- but these markets will soon be as obsolete as the mainframe market -- e.g. people will still be using them, but all the exciting new development and profit will be on a different architecture.
Contrary to popular opinion, the vast majority of computers are not running any M$ software. They're called "embedded processors", and are usually invisible to their owners. But there are 10 times as many of them as there are desktops! 90% of the computers out there have NO M$ software running on them!
Oh sure, having a single entity control all production of a comodity works just great -- just look at what it did for the Soviet Union!
Is anyone working on getting Linux to pass FIPS 1-140 certification? Is this something else we all need to chip in for? It seems to me that RedHat is fairly cash-rich right now, and could afford to carry the ball on this one for us... How 'bout it guys, at least get one of your own distributions certified (Red Hat 6.0 would be an ideal one to start with)
Yes, but the difference is, if you got it for free, and you've got the source, you don't really have any right to bitch about the bugs, do you?
If you paid money for something, it creates a reasonable expectation that it will perform as promised, without paying additional money in the HOPE that the next release will fix the problem. If vendors are charging money for buggy Linux software, or not releasing the source to you so that you can fix your own problems, then yes, that is very sad...
Re: Why this bugs the heck out of me
on
Cyber Vigilantes
·
· Score: 1
My sentiments exactly. No sane person would seriously contemplate active countermeasures...
1) Who the heck uses a browser for a Denial of Service attack??? Methinks the author of the article must be near clueless...
2) What happens when your automatic strike-back firewall accidentally targets another automatic strike-back firewall?
3) Doesn't strike-back invite a whole new brand of DoS attach, wherein one fakes a route to goad a company into "striking back" against an innocent party?
4) If you make a point of sending out goons to pound on the doors of suspected hackers and threaten them with physical violence, what's to stop the crackers from being prepared for the goons... with something more than just baseball bats? (Like for instance, video cameras taping you saying "Hello, we're from XYZ corporation and we're here to beat the snot out of you!" Can you say "Civil lawsuit?" I knew you could!) Remember, you're at a BIG disadvantage on someone else's home field, where they may or may not be the son of the local police chief!
5) Doesn't use of force always beget use of force? If you claim a my attack justifies your attack, can't I claim your counter-attack justifies a counter-attack from me? Isn't this sort of stupid, short-sighted think exactly what causes minor disagreements to escalate into wars, or Hatfield-and-McCoy-style feuds that go on for generations?
Overall, I found the article to be blatant sensationalism, without the slightest hint of being based in research of facts. Even the poll about the correct response didn't have ANY reasonible choices! The correct response to an attack is to 1) Filter out the offending packets 2) alert all upstream ISPs to the problem 3) working with the ISPs, try to trace the problem back to it's source 3) shut off the connection as close as possible to the source.
Yes, I did once work for a firewall company that considered active counter-measures -- and then quickly discarded the idea for obvious reasons.
I disagree with this specific article by Katz, but I really find the censorship of responses offensive. Some ignorant oaf made a comment to the effect of "I don't want to hear any more of you're leftist whining, Katz". This has now mysteriously disappeared, along with a half dozen responses to it. This leaves many readers wondering what the hell is going on when they read the references to "leftist whining" in the subsequent posts.
Please, freedom of speech means freedom even for idiots. Katz has a right to say what he wants, and ACs have right to disagree, although I do wish they would be more polite out about it, and stick to reasoning debate instead of emotion, personal attacks, and name-calling.
Slashdot Mirror
Their benefits arguments don't make sense. On the one hand, they claim that the major benefit is that if someone steals your computer, then uses it to connect to the internet, it will give itself away. On the other hand, they claim that they will make software available to easily disable the autoidentification... which is it, it can't work both ways!
IMHO, I think security takes a giant step backwards when you start authenticating machines instead of people. My take on this is that now anybody with physical access to my computer is me for the sake of ecommerce... I find this very disturbing. Also, unlike a password, once somebody figures out how to spoof your CPU ID, it can't be changed!. Finally, I don't understand what this will do for me that a good public key system won't do much better...
Um, I'd say it's not ported until these are unbroken... I'd be interested in paying money for this when it works at least as well (frame rate, sound, death match, etc.) as the Windows version. Until then, this ain't news...
This could turn out to be an interesting Class Action Lawsuit. Interesting way to repeal the Microsoft tax. Are there any lawyers here that have on opinion on whether or not per-processor licensing violates the consent decree? Anybody lawyer want to take on this case? How many people can truthfully claim to have _never_ used the software that came preinstalled on their hard drive?
For some reason, this reminds me of the Boston Tea party... could be the start of something big.
Bravo! Ok, FrontPage sucks. But it may fall under the rule "Never attribute to malice what is adequately explained by stupidity." In other words, it may suck because of a sinister plot to trick people into building web pages that can only be hosted on IIS and only be viewed by IE, or it may suck simply because it's implementors are lazy and ignorant. Choose whichever you wish to beleive. I personally feel that M$ breaks compatibility far to often to be purely coincidental, but unfortunately they do it in such a way as to leave enough doubt that intentional malice could never be proven in court. Then again, I could be paranoid...
To those of you that think a touchscreen angle into the desk is bad, because you have to lean to look at it: I went all through school leaning to see my books and notepads. How is this any different? Why not just mount the touchpad with enough degrees of freedom so that you can put it anywhere you're comfortable with. The real problem with a touchpad is that you have to clean the thing regularly, especially after working while eating pizza... ;-)
Personally, I like the idea of giving all those potential new users a nasty shock to the complacency... I don't want Linux to be "Just like Windows only Better!", I want it to challenge the basic assumptions that the Microsoft engineers have made...
Choice is good. Linux should support LOTS of different user interfaces, which should all compete for user mindshare. However, since the cost of retraining far exceeds the cost of continuing to upgrade to the latest M$ bloatware, there should be at least one interface available that mimics as closely as legally possible the UI of Windows and Office, and is capable of reading and writing M$ file formats! Unlike developers, who enjoy constantly learning new things, most people can't be bothered to learn ANYTHING new. I know lots of people who are perfectly content to continue using their Windows 3.1 and old M$ Office, 'cause upgrading would be too much money and hastle...
As far as the other points in the article: No, Micr$oft is NOT the enemy, and if we focus on Micro$oft, it makes us reactive, not proactive. One of Micr$oft's main problems currently is that it focuses entirely on the latest perceived threat, making it almost entirely reactive, then never completely follows through because a new threat inevitably comes along before they have finished implementing a solution to the old one... do we really want OSS to operate like that???
The argument that as Red Hat gains market share, it will become more like M$ is certainly valid, IMHO. However, even one other company entirely motivated by profit that can compete on an even footing with M$ would be an improvement; it would keep Redmond honest, and force them to rethink their strategies to provide more value to the consumer. In the end, it's not important that M$ wins or Netscape wins or even the Linux wins... what is important is that the consumers win, by being given access to the latest innovative ideas in software at a reasonable price. Also, OSS itself acts as a moderating effect on Red Hat's behaviour. How much more responsive would M$ be to their customers, if all their source was freely available, and disgruntled customers could simply fork their source tree and start shipping their own version of Windoze?
Micro$oft will always be with us, in much the same way that IBM System 370s and VAXen are still with us... they are still in use, but nobody is buying new ones, and all the exciting, cutting edge development is being done on newer platforms. Micro$oft has learned a lot from IBM... have they learned enough to avoid following the same path?
I wonder how many people would have to do this before Toshiba would get a clue and start offering a product WITHOUT Windoze preinstalled? (Granted, this would probably require setting up a separate company to distribute the same hardware under a different name to get around the fascist M$ contract. But still, it should be doable, and even profitable if there is enough demand...)
Actually, VisualCOBOL (See http://www.microfocus.com/visualcobol/) is the COBOL of the nineties...
Language: Yes, Java.
IDE & tools: Sadly no. I'm still waiting for an Open Source equivalent of Visual Studio, which after several iterations had actually become a fairly decent Integrated Development Environment. Note that without preprocessor or header files, IDE's for Java should be easier to implement than C/C++... Is anybody out there working on a GNU IDE, or at least a free Java IDE?
Dell, are you paying attention?
No, we need to hear these, if only because the highest and best use of the fabled "slashdot effect" is to provide a clue-by-four to hit these guys in the head with. Trademarks do NOT apply to businesses in other categories with the same name, and trademark law says NOTHING about domain names! Perhaps EFF should start a legal fund to establish to precedents, which may discourage these corporations from playing this infantile "my lawyer is bigger than your lawyer" game.
The biggest fault of this article is it's continued insistence that Micro$oft was once innovative! The conclusion is also wrong, M$ will continue to be around in some way, shape, or form for a long, long time, for the same reasons that IBM is still around. The main reason being that they can afford to lose $1 billion/year for 20 years and still remain in business! However, M$ may become irrelevant in many markets, like the server market, in much the same way that Banyan is irrelevant in the corporate network market, despite the fact that it is still being supported and used. (Banyan was still being used at Intel and Tektronix the last time I checked.) Linux is already a better Windows server than NT is, and Micro$oft's shift to per-seat pricing provides even more incentive to switch. The price/performance numbers for using NT as your server simply cannot compete!
Are ridiculous. Companies like Netgrocer and Amazon are operating with the motto "We lose money on every sale, but we make up for it in volume!" Seriously, the more books Amazon.com sells, the more money it loses!!! Apparently these companies think it is worth selling things for less then cost to build market share.My personal theory is that the use of intelligent agents for comparison shopping will make evertything sold on the 'net a commodity, so as soon as these companies raise their prices enough to show a profit, customers will flock to the new cost leader. You can't expect brand loyalty on the net! Conclusion: 99% of people buying internet stocks are going to get badly burned!
Yes, you've got a right to defend yourself (with arms if necessary). But you DON'T have a right to go firing off shotguns when you have no idea what you're hitting. I would argue that on the Internet, it's never quite certain that the IP address you're retaliating against is in any way connected to the actual culprit you want to "get". Start blasting away at muggers and hit innocent bystanders, and you're likely to be staring down the barrel of a VERY expensive lawsuit...
As I understand trademark law, "yahoo" is a standard english word which shouldn't be trademark able. "Yahoo!" may be trademarkable, and the Yahoo logo is certainly trademarkable. Perhaps a reasonable solution would be for YaHooka to drop the "!" from their logo.
Personally, I think anybody that would actually confuse the two sites would most likely be more interested in visiting YaHooka anyway. I never visit either anyway...
NeXT had a gosh-awful slow optical disk! But is was a good machine for geeks, good development environment, it WASN'T beige... yes, I'm sad it didn't take off too...
The U.S. government has also issued guidelines mandating the use of Ada as a computer language and GOSIP compliance (does this imply POSIX?)... both of which were promptly ignored. Simply put, the government usually buys it's software from whomever is offering the biggest kickbacks...
My point was, that if you pay alot of money for a product whose producers have spent billions of dollars in advertising to tell you it IS suitable for a specific purpose, there SHOULD be an implied waranty. Software seems a consicous exception to the rule of implied waranty; would you by a car with a sticker over the ignition that said "We don't waranty this product to be good for anything, in fact it may (literally) crash and burn the first time you use it. By inserting the key in the ignition, you accept the terms of this agreement."
My experience has been that the people who charge the big bucks for their software HAVE to make big claims for it; otherwise no one will buy it! The people who do open source have more of a "this may be helpful to you, or it may not" attitude. Sure, if someone is making big claims for their free software, and the claims turn out to be false, go ahead and bitch. Again, can you cite ANY specific examples of open source software that do this.
Also, complaining about a bug when you have the source is like standing outside in a blizzard complaining about the cold -- you ain't gonna get any sympathy from me -- come inside, you idiot! What, you don't know HOW to build a fire? Ask a friend for help... What, you don't have any friends? Well, that's what happens when you work for Micro$oft...
I'm responding to an obvious troll, but here goes: Microsoft is to be admired for their success. They do not, however, in the eyes of myself and most others on here, have "focus and a commitment to a great OS." Their focus and commmitment to maximizing shareholder ROI seems to invariably take precedence over any commitment provide value to their customers. Ultimately this short-sighted corporate mindset will backfire, as it has already alienated much of their customer base, who are ready to jump ship as soon as they perceive a viable alternative.
Linux has already overtaken Microsoft as a web server platform. It will soon overtake Microsoft as a general server. It will probably never overtake Microsoft in the shrink-wrapped software or desktop client markets -- but these markets will soon be as obsolete as the mainframe market -- e.g. people will still be using them, but all the exciting new development and profit will be on a different architecture.
Contrary to popular opinion, the vast majority of computers are not running any M$ software. They're called "embedded processors", and are usually invisible to their owners. But there are 10 times as many of them as there are desktops! 90% of the computers out there have NO M$ software running on them!
Oh sure, having a single entity control all production of a comodity works just great -- just look at what it did for the Soviet Union!
Is anyone working on getting Linux to pass FIPS 1-140 certification? Is this something else we all need to chip in for? It seems to me that RedHat is fairly cash-rich right now, and could afford to carry the ball on this one for us... How 'bout it guys, at least get one of your own distributions certified (Red Hat 6.0 would be an ideal one to start with)
If you paid money for something, it creates a reasonable expectation that it will perform as promised, without paying additional money in the HOPE that the next release will fix the problem. If vendors are charging money for buggy Linux software, or not releasing the source to you so that you can fix your own problems, then yes, that is very sad...
My sentiments exactly. No sane person would seriously contemplate active countermeasures...
1) Who the heck uses a browser for a Denial of Service attack??? Methinks the author of the article must be near clueless...
2) What happens when your automatic strike-back firewall accidentally targets another automatic strike-back firewall?
3) Doesn't strike-back invite a whole new brand of DoS attach, wherein one fakes a route to goad a company into "striking back" against an innocent party?
4) If you make a point of sending out goons to pound on the doors of suspected hackers and threaten them with physical violence, what's to stop the crackers from being prepared for the goons... with something more than just baseball bats? (Like for instance, video cameras taping you saying "Hello, we're from XYZ corporation and we're here to beat the snot out of you!" Can you say "Civil lawsuit?" I knew you could!) Remember, you're at a BIG disadvantage on someone else's home field, where they may or may not be the son of the local police chief!
5) Doesn't use of force always beget use of force? If you claim a my attack justifies your attack, can't I claim your counter-attack justifies a counter-attack from me? Isn't this sort of stupid, short-sighted think exactly what causes minor disagreements to escalate into wars, or Hatfield-and-McCoy-style feuds that go on for generations?
Overall, I found the article to be blatant sensationalism, without the slightest hint of being based in research of facts. Even the poll about the correct response didn't have ANY reasonible choices! The correct response to an attack is to 1) Filter out the offending packets 2) alert all upstream ISPs to the problem 3) working with the ISPs, try to trace the problem back to it's source 3) shut off the connection as close as possible to the source.
Yes, I did once work for a firewall company that considered active counter-measures -- and then quickly discarded the idea for obvious reasons.
Sorry, my mistake. Ratings != censorship. Now if somebody would please delete or downgrade my above post...
Please, freedom of speech means freedom even for idiots. Katz has a right to say what he wants, and ACs have right to disagree, although I do wish they would be more polite out about it, and stick to reasoning debate instead of emotion, personal attacks, and name-calling.