I'm not really focusing on what he's proposed as an end, but that such a mind could come up with such total crap. He's got to be suffering dementia. He's lost it.
Why would someone give up a billion dollars to get absolutely little back? He can't possibly expect to earn over a billion from that proposal. He's just throwing it away. He certainly could make more money from that billion in other ways. Why would any top 1000 Internet sites even consider his proposal? They have to think he's just as stupid as his proposal.
The man is after attention. His action couldn't impact anyone for more than a few months and then he'd look like a crazy moronic fool to everyone.
Not only that this is interference with business. He's actually attempting to interfere with the ability of businesses to make money by means other than competition, which I believe is illegal. He's already been investigated for other things and found a way out from under it. This time he'll probably get nailed.
Microsoft does nothing to prove a thing. They do nothing but release to make money and to monopolize markets.
All your examples indicate they have something to prove, to which I say, they don't think they have a thing to prove. And to that I say that some of the Linux community would love for them to prove exactly what you state in your examples.
The major projects that might be threatened by what you speak of have version control systems and know where the code comes from. People don't just dump their code into a huge bit bin and it's soaked up and used. These people know where the code comes from. Yes, it could be hard to pin it on an individual because they may upload and run, but most of the code is vetted against such things as this and attempts to insert malicious code.
And at the level of open source the solutions are easier than closed source. If infringing code is found it can much more easily be removed or made to comply, whereas with closed source programs that have been distributed it is much harder. The system for distribution of changes in the open source world through the distros is much more refined than with closed source.
In my opinion there's only one version of linux. There are many companies that package it with various options but there's only one version. Package management differences don't equate to variations on Linux, nor does slight variation in folder structure or the level of "customization" of any given distribution. It's all Linux.
I have postulated in the past that the consumer should sue the advertisers. That's where the spam and pop ups are coming from. When others attempted to investigate this very suggestion those entities paying for the ads are feigning ignorance claiming that they just spend the ad dollars and aren't paying attention to how the dollar is being used. To me this is a great cop out and an indication of a great liability.
If you think about it it would certainly cut down the amount of ads on the net if these ad entities were sued and they began to lose money and I think you'd see far less spam. But suing the advertisers is a catch 22, it drives the web (which it shouldn't--there are other ways).
Imagine the viagra type companies getting sued because they knowingly support companies that spam your inbox. We've all heard the dollar amounts that businesses loose to this spam, often incredible amounts a year. Someone besides the consumer paying for the Internet access should have to compensate them for it.
Regarding my comment about using a second machine to do the initial cleaning. I would have to say that you are quite short sighted. If you think ahead you'll understand the reasoning. And, if you are wise you'll understand that I would not recommend using a Windows box as the second machine.
You are correct in that there are parts of the infections that a scanning from a second machine can't get. I don't dispute that, but that's why I said "initial" cleaning. The purpose of the initial cleaning is to allow you to go into certain folders and to delete files that you know are common havens for malware. After doing that you can use any of the several native Linux anti-malware products that will detect and remove infections from NTFS drives attached to the system.
Today's malware is good at what it does. This isn't saying that some of the malware writers are not idiots. If they were competent at what they were doing they'd have your system infected and you'd never know it. Instead they pop up ads and slow your computer down and alter permissions to folders/files/registry entries--all of which are tell tale signs of an infection. What I'm saying is that malware has become quite aggressive and the authors experienced, it's just that they are sometimes dumb as a post at how to get it done without alerting the users.
There are some pitfalls to leaving the drive in the infected computer. Some of these are exploited by malware authors. Several examples would be: some malware products will attempt to delete any anti-malware product (including the installers when you try to execute them), some malware products will disable the ability to run certain anti-malware products (even if they were installed prior to the infection), some malware products will use the system (e.g., autorun on flash drives) to copy malware onto your flash drive in order to copy their infections to new machines.
Yes, there will be missed traces of an infection when putting the drive into another computer. If you are any good at what you do then you'll know that you have removed the vast majority of the infection prior to putting it back into the original computer. You'll have deleted known malware folders, rogue programs, the temporary folders (go through your computer and count the number of \temp located under the OS and user areas), such as temporary Internet, prefetch, temp, history. At that time you then copy over the necessary software (anti-malware installers) that you'll use to do the cleaning. After putting the drive back in the original computer you then can begin the full process of cleaning.
I do agree that you have to clean heavy and use only what's necessary to keep yourself clean (though that requires due diligence on the part of the user, which is an uncommon characteristic of their behavior). If you over compensate you'll end up with a machine that is worse than the infection--just as some popular commercial products do.
I generally recommend using Linux as the secondary machine as it will allow you to bypass Windows security. Unlike XP, where you can get caught by Windows security but can get past it, Vista and Win7 really try to lock out user accounts from each other and that security can get in the way. Not to mention the fact that malware is often running and using the infected machine just prolongs the cleaning.
I guess so. I guess you can call me that if you are willing to call someone that installs software an interior decorator, or someone that builds computers an assembly worker.
What happens with recommendations here on slashdot in threads such as this is that they almost always turn into nothing more than "my product defies those test results". And then we degenerate into threads about why this product is no good and that one is and everyone has their own reasoning, which ultimately ends up with people confused and misguided about resolving their problems.
The second thing that happens is that people tend to conclude from the recommendations that the recommended product is the one necessary to solve all their problems. And that is somewhat tragic as almost no product can handle what's out there today.
It is better to teach them good practices and that they should use many products to scan their computer rather than giving them the false sense that they are clean after scanning with a single product.
Most of what you are saying is exaggerated. It is likely that one out of half a million Linux boxes are infected and are infected in a way that requires far far less work to clean than a windows box (vista and win7) included. As someone that spends the greater part of my day cleaning infected windows boxes (having done so for the better part of 6 years--and having over 25 years supporting PCs) I can attest to the fact that windows machines almost seem to be designed to become infested. There are so many design issues that allow for the easy compromising of units that one must wonder whether the purpose of the EULA wasn't written specifically to protect the liability behind that design alone.
There are so few accounts of Linux infections that I have never heard of a single one--one where there is something more than anecdotal evidence. I have heard of some wine installs becoming infected in a minor way.
I have heard of OS X machines becoming infected, but as I also repair Macintosh computers, there has never been an infected box in my shop.
Windows claims over a billion installs worldwide leaving four to five percent to Linux and another couple percent to OS X. The Linux installed base comes to (of the known installs) between fourth and fifty million worldwide). If you account for the unaccounted for installs you are likely looking at nearly one hundred million worldwide.
The infection rate of windows boxes is considered to be around eighty percent. My experience demonstrates that accurately. If you look at Linux boxes you can accurately testify that Linux infections are no where near that, if they come to one tenth of one percent of the installs -- essentily non-existent.
If you attempt to say that windows is a more lucrative market I will not dispute that fact. But I will say that diversity is the key to success. Every organism adheres to that. So diversify and live longer. Linux is an incredible OS with a stable and strong backbone that is highly resistant -- nay, nearly immune -- to infection.
To say the least your examples are exaggerations when compared to real world numbers. Windows' rate of infections are extremely high and are due to endemic flaws in it's design, and the implementation rate. If you want to reduce to near zero the chance of infection you should diversify to an OS known to be nearly immune.
Stop recommending products. The tests demonstrate that av products don't perform well. It is right on. 80% of my day is spent cleaning malware. I have written here many times about how you need a combination of products. I've also emphasized the need to do the initial cleaning with the infected drive as the secondary in a second machine.
Until you do this day in and day out please stop with the recommendations, as you are not helping anyone one bit.
Yours is a complete exaggeration of everything GPL. Stop using GPL code and write it yourself if you don't want a problem. If you use it you have to consider the circumstance. Corporations have a responsibility to ensure their code isn't copied from other projects. Period.
I had an agreement with one of my employers that (because I didn't like writing code where they would make profit off my blood & sweat when I did all the work and not being hired as a programmer) all code I wrote was mine to freely do with as I wished.
In the case of the Executive that didn't properly get the code vetted that's the company's responsibility. You would let them claim executive incompetence over responsibility? They could get away with anything! That product should be pulled and/or should be open sourced and the code released as is required.
In the case of the "individual" that released the code that they wrote to GPL, they are either in violation of the GPL, or they had the right to do it. This isn't open source's community's responsibility. The larger company making a profit off the work of others and being in violation of the GPL have a greater obligation and responsibility than the open source community where a programmer may have contributed all or part of a project.
And, it isn't common to hear that the open source community is using closed source proprietary code illegally. The open source community prides itself on removal of that offending code, period! It is not uncommon to hear that a large corporation is in violation of the GPL.
The differences you fail to make clear is that copyright infringement isn't stealing something physical as in all your cases. Copyright infringement is making a copy without the permission of the copyright holder. It isn't like you denied the copyright holder any of their possessions as NO ONE can guarantee that the infringer would have bought the work to begin with. This is well a established precept.
Right now comcast seems to be screwing things up. Every website takes me quite a while to hit. I get this "looking up...". It seems to take forever.
I think in part it has to do with comast's DNS servers. I have tried to have them exclude me from their servers but they keep making the excuse that my cable modem mac address isn't found in their database--which is ludicrous because I couldn't be getting service nor paying for that service if I wasn't.
Needless to say the speed has been good but the DNS lookup is very bad. I despise seeing comcast's advertisement page when I get the wrong url.
I so dislike comcast for stealing away what I paid for at the beginning.
I have avoided investing any money into those types of drives for that very reason. As a small business owner I see customer units come in that make use of those types of devices and I see a lot of failure. I'm still being patient.
I have 25 years of computer experience from large businesses to my own shop. I have managed large networks where I flew back and forth across the country setting up servers and dealing with all levels of computer support.
Vista has stability issues because it is Vista. My point pal, was to point out that I have more exposure to computers that have Vista on them than you probably do, and that the majority here posting do.
There are just too many endemic issues with Vista to create a stable environment without a lot of user intervention, which most people don't have the knowledge to perform.
Linux is not written for the programming geek. You are living 5+ years in the past when it comes to Linux. And, frankly it is foolish to attempt a demeaning of Linux based on your standard of measure since Windows was years ago far less user friendly than Linux is, and there were plenty of people using those unfriendly versions of Windows back then.
In the realm of Windows 5 years is nothing as Windows didn't change for a good 7 years. But 5 years to Linux is like a decade in the computing world.
I know old and young (and everyone in-between) that use Linux and don't have the problems that you allege.
Every time Microsoft releases and OS it has to be relearned. Vista was different enough from XP to prove you wrong-- Win7 is just Vista with a few changes.
The keyword is perceived and it is propagated by not just you but by so many others that have no idea what Linux is like.
GUIs are standard enough in functionality that any "learning of a new OS" is almost silly in light of the fact that the majority of people do not get under the hood of their cars, so to speak. If you would stop spreading inaccuracies and focus on ensuring people understand there is a choice and that choice is a good one we'd have less perceived and more factual getting into the hearts and minds of those that deserve choice.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not really focusing on what he's proposed as an end, but that such a mind could come up with such total crap. He's got to be suffering dementia. He's lost it.
Why would someone give up a billion dollars to get absolutely little back? He can't possibly expect to earn over a billion from that proposal. He's just throwing it away. He certainly could make more money from that billion in other ways. Why would any top 1000 Internet sites even consider his proposal? They have to think he's just as stupid as his proposal.
The man is after attention. His action couldn't impact anyone for more than a few months and then he'd look like a crazy moronic fool to everyone.
Not only that this is interference with business. He's actually attempting to interfere with the ability of businesses to make money by means other than competition, which I believe is illegal. He's already been investigated for other things and found a way out from under it. This time he'll probably get nailed.
And where'd you get that bit of insight?
A promise isn't legally binding.
Extend...Extinguish
Microsoft does nothing to prove a thing. They do nothing but release to make money and to monopolize markets.
All your examples indicate they have something to prove, to which I say, they don't think they have a thing to prove. And to that I say that some of the Linux community would love for them to prove exactly what you state in your examples.
The major projects that might be threatened by what you speak of have version control systems and know where the code comes from. People don't just dump their code into a huge bit bin and it's soaked up and used. These people know where the code comes from. Yes, it could be hard to pin it on an individual because they may upload and run, but most of the code is vetted against such things as this and attempts to insert malicious code.
And at the level of open source the solutions are easier than closed source. If infringing code is found it can much more easily be removed or made to comply, whereas with closed source programs that have been distributed it is much harder. The system for distribution of changes in the open source world through the distros is much more refined than with closed source.
In my opinion there's only one version of linux. There are many companies that package it with various options but there's only one version. Package management differences don't equate to variations on Linux, nor does slight variation in folder structure or the level of "customization" of any given distribution. It's all Linux.
How is this different than making a car? A patent can stop that too.
I have postulated in the past that the consumer should sue the advertisers. That's where the spam and pop ups are coming from. When others attempted to investigate this very suggestion those entities paying for the ads are feigning ignorance claiming that they just spend the ad dollars and aren't paying attention to how the dollar is being used. To me this is a great cop out and an indication of a great liability.
If you think about it it would certainly cut down the amount of ads on the net if these ad entities were sued and they began to lose money and I think you'd see far less spam. But suing the advertisers is a catch 22, it drives the web (which it shouldn't--there are other ways).
Imagine the viagra type companies getting sued because they knowingly support companies that spam your inbox. We've all heard the dollar amounts that businesses loose to this spam, often incredible amounts a year. Someone besides the consumer paying for the Internet access should have to compensate them for it.
Regarding my comment about using a second machine to do the initial cleaning. I would have to say that you are quite short sighted. If you think ahead you'll understand the reasoning. And, if you are wise you'll understand that I would not recommend using a Windows box as the second machine.
You are correct in that there are parts of the infections that a scanning from a second machine can't get. I don't dispute that, but that's why I said "initial" cleaning. The purpose of the initial cleaning is to allow you to go into certain folders and to delete files that you know are common havens for malware. After doing that you can use any of the several native Linux anti-malware products that will detect and remove infections from NTFS drives attached to the system.
Today's malware is good at what it does. This isn't saying that some of the malware writers are not idiots. If they were competent at what they were doing they'd have your system infected and you'd never know it. Instead they pop up ads and slow your computer down and alter permissions to folders/files/registry entries--all of which are tell tale signs of an infection. What I'm saying is that malware has become quite aggressive and the authors experienced, it's just that they are sometimes dumb as a post at how to get it done without alerting the users.
There are some pitfalls to leaving the drive in the infected computer. Some of these are exploited by malware authors. Several examples would be: some malware products will attempt to delete any anti-malware product (including the installers when you try to execute them), some malware products will disable the ability to run certain anti-malware products (even if they were installed prior to the infection), some malware products will use the system (e.g., autorun on flash drives) to copy malware onto your flash drive in order to copy their infections to new machines.
Yes, there will be missed traces of an infection when putting the drive into another computer. If you are any good at what you do then you'll know that you have removed the vast majority of the infection prior to putting it back into the original computer. You'll have deleted known malware folders, rogue programs, the temporary folders (go through your computer and count the number of \temp located under the OS and user areas), such as temporary Internet, prefetch, temp, history. At that time you then copy over the necessary software (anti-malware installers) that you'll use to do the cleaning. After putting the drive back in the original computer you then can begin the full process of cleaning.
I do agree that you have to clean heavy and use only what's necessary to keep yourself clean (though that requires due diligence on the part of the user, which is an uncommon characteristic of their behavior). If you over compensate you'll end up with a machine that is worse than the infection--just as some popular commercial products do.
I generally recommend using Linux as the secondary machine as it will allow you to bypass Windows security. Unlike XP, where you can get caught by Windows security but can get past it, Vista and Win7 really try to lock out user accounts from each other and that security can get in the way. Not to mention the fact that malware is often running and using the infected machine just prolongs the cleaning.
I guess so. I guess you can call me that if you are willing to call someone that installs software an interior decorator, or someone that builds computers an assembly worker.
I own and operate my own computer repair shop.
What happens with recommendations here on slashdot in threads such as this is that they almost always turn into nothing more than "my product defies those test results". And then we degenerate into threads about why this product is no good and that one is and everyone has their own reasoning, which ultimately ends up with people confused and misguided about resolving their problems.
The second thing that happens is that people tend to conclude from the recommendations that the recommended product is the one necessary to solve all their problems. And that is somewhat tragic as almost no product can handle what's out there today.
It is better to teach them good practices and that they should use many products to scan their computer rather than giving them the false sense that they are clean after scanning with a single product.
I own and operate a computer repair shop. Haha you and your suggestions.
And yes I'm frustrated with the infection rate and the aggressive nature of today's malware.
Most of what you are saying is exaggerated. It is likely that one out of half a million Linux boxes are infected and are infected in a way that requires far far less work to clean than a windows box (vista and win7) included. As someone that spends the greater part of my day cleaning infected windows boxes (having done so for the better part of 6 years--and having over 25 years supporting PCs) I can attest to the fact that windows machines almost seem to be designed to become infested. There are so many design issues that allow for the easy compromising of units that one must wonder whether the purpose of the EULA wasn't written specifically to protect the liability behind that design alone.
There are so few accounts of Linux infections that I have never heard of a single one--one where there is something more than anecdotal evidence. I have heard of some wine installs becoming infected in a minor way.
I have heard of OS X machines becoming infected, but as I also repair Macintosh computers, there has never been an infected box in my shop.
Windows claims over a billion installs worldwide leaving four to five percent to Linux and another couple percent to OS X. The Linux installed base comes to (of the known installs) between fourth and fifty million worldwide). If you account for the unaccounted for installs you are likely looking at nearly one hundred million worldwide.
The infection rate of windows boxes is considered to be around eighty percent. My experience demonstrates that accurately. If you look at Linux boxes you can accurately testify that Linux infections are no where near that, if they come to one tenth of one percent of the installs -- essentily non-existent.
If you attempt to say that windows is a more lucrative market I will not dispute that fact. But I will say that diversity is the key to success. Every organism adheres to that. So diversify and live longer. Linux is an incredible OS with a stable and strong backbone that is highly resistant -- nay, nearly immune -- to infection.
To say the least your examples are exaggerations when compared to real world numbers. Windows' rate of infections are extremely high and are due to endemic flaws in it's design, and the implementation rate. If you want to reduce to near zero the chance of infection you should diversify to an OS known to be nearly immune.
Stop recommending products. The tests demonstrate that av products don't perform well. It is right on. 80% of my day is spent cleaning malware. I have written here many times about how you need a combination of products. I've also emphasized the need to do the initial cleaning with the infected drive as the secondary in a second machine.
Until you do this day in and day out please stop with the recommendations, as you are not helping anyone one bit.
Yours is a complete exaggeration of everything GPL. Stop using GPL code and write it yourself if you don't want a problem. If you use it you have to consider the circumstance. Corporations have a responsibility to ensure their code isn't copied from other projects. Period.
I had an agreement with one of my employers that (because I didn't like writing code where they would make profit off my blood & sweat when I did all the work and not being hired as a programmer) all code I wrote was mine to freely do with as I wished.
In the case of the Executive that didn't properly get the code vetted that's the company's responsibility. You would let them claim executive incompetence over responsibility? They could get away with anything! That product should be pulled and/or should be open sourced and the code released as is required.
In the case of the "individual" that released the code that they wrote to GPL, they are either in violation of the GPL, or they had the right to do it. This isn't open source's community's responsibility. The larger company making a profit off the work of others and being in violation of the GPL have a greater obligation and responsibility than the open source community where a programmer may have contributed all or part of a project.
And, it isn't common to hear that the open source community is using closed source proprietary code illegally. The open source community prides itself on removal of that offending code, period! It is not uncommon to hear that a large corporation is in violation of the GPL.
The differences you fail to make clear is that copyright infringement isn't stealing something physical as in all your cases. Copyright infringement is making a copy without the permission of the copyright holder. It isn't like you denied the copyright holder any of their possessions as NO ONE can guarantee that the infringer would have bought the work to begin with. This is well a established precept.
Right now comcast seems to be screwing things up. Every website takes me quite a while to hit. I get this "looking up ...". It seems to take forever.
I think in part it has to do with comast's DNS servers. I have tried to have them exclude me from their servers but they keep making the excuse that my cable modem mac address isn't found in their database--which is ludicrous because I couldn't be getting service nor paying for that service if I wasn't.
Needless to say the speed has been good but the DNS lookup is very bad. I despise seeing comcast's advertisement page when I get the wrong url.
I so dislike comcast for stealing away what I paid for at the beginning.
I have avoided investing any money into those types of drives for that very reason. As a small business owner I see customer units come in that make use of those types of devices and I see a lot of failure. I'm still being patient.
If you follow his video podcasts you'll know that is not the case. In your case it is clearly that you don't know the man.
I have 25 years of computer experience from large businesses to my own shop. I have managed large networks where I flew back and forth across the country setting up servers and dealing with all levels of computer support.
Vista has stability issues because it is Vista. My point pal, was to point out that I have more exposure to computers that have Vista on them than you probably do, and that the majority here posting do.
There are just too many endemic issues with Vista to create a stable environment without a lot of user intervention, which most people don't have the knowledge to perform.
Please, work on your reading comprehension.
Linux is not written for the programming geek. You are living 5+ years in the past when it comes to Linux. And, frankly it is foolish to attempt a demeaning of Linux based on your standard of measure since Windows was years ago far less user friendly than Linux is, and there were plenty of people using those unfriendly versions of Windows back then.
In the realm of Windows 5 years is nothing as Windows didn't change for a good 7 years. But 5 years to Linux is like a decade in the computing world.
I know old and young (and everyone in-between) that use Linux and don't have the problems that you allege.
Every time Microsoft releases and OS it has to be relearned. Vista was different enough from XP to prove you wrong-- Win7 is just Vista with a few changes.
The keyword is perceived and it is propagated by not just you but by so many others that have no idea what Linux is like.
GUIs are standard enough in functionality that any "learning of a new OS" is almost silly in light of the fact that the majority of people do not get under the hood of their cars, so to speak. If you would stop spreading inaccuracies and focus on ensuring people understand there is a choice and that choice is a good one we'd have less perceived and more factual getting into the hearts and minds of those that deserve choice.