Linux exploits and vulnerabilities: All the excuses are valid now!
-
Eddie Velasquez wrote: I see no reason why they cannot pull it off again with their security initiatives. Number one reason. Users are stupid Jared jparsons@jparsons.org www.prism.gatech.edu/~gte477n
I agree, but it's the designer/developer responsibility to prevent the user from making stupid mistakes. Microsoft han't been fulfilling that responsibility, that's where their trustworthy computing comes into play.
All of my opinions are correct, even when reality makes the mistake of disagreeing with me.
-
Eddie, I would have agreed with your assessment maybe a year or two ago. But the issue isn't really which OS is sexier at the moment. Microsoft simply cannot compete with a free product. It's that simple. As soon as Linux becomes easier to use (a goal that is easier to achieve than MS better securing their software) then it will be "good enough" for the general public, "good enough" for business as well. The applications are already streaming in to Linux. So MS has to innovate much faster than they are doing now or else their lower TCO argument (which works right now) will become false. I believe they hire top class people and I'm an ardent admirer of their vision. But you just can't compete with "free" when the free product is high quality. Impossible. Having said that, the decision to have ASP.NET support for Apache is a brilliant move intended to help stem the tide. But it won't be enough. I think if Palladium fails to catch on, then MS could begin a steady decline in dominance. If it DOES catch on however, it's bye bye to Linux forever :-) Finish this sentence: We're movin' on up, to the top...
Senkwe Chanda wrote: Microsoft simply cannot compete with a free product. It has, it currently does, and I think it will continue to do so. The free product you're talking about requires a computer nerd at the helm for it to EVER be able to do anything more than what is in the default install. This is of course fine and dandy for server-type setups, where Microsoft could really use the competition to make them beef up their own products. Talking about Linux like it's just on the cusp of becoming useful to the mainstream makes me think of all the other times over the past 3 years or so that people have said 'linux is just on the cusp of becoming mainstream! M$ is gonna die because there's a free lunch!". I think what alot of Linux zealots seem to forget is that the vast majority of the world A) wants to use a computer for a small, specific set of tasks, and B) can't understand(and does not want to) anything more than double click this and point to that. It's these people that heavily rely on MS. And it's these people that will tell you to get bent when asked to download a package and run 'rpm -i blah -ggq -v1.3.3.99584 -boogle -run', or to use an RPM UI frontend that has one checkbox for each of a litany of command-line options. It's these people that will do little more than turn up an eyebrow when asked whether or not they want a journaling filesystem. If the OpenSource model wins out, and indeed companies like MS die, the average person will have to rely on the whims of computer nerds for their software, and large corporations will (still) be funding the vast majority of software development. I really don't see how people think that consumers will benefit when the only ways you can make money off of software is by selling 'support' for it (how many people would accuse MS of making bugs on purpose if this was their model???), or by offering custom development of it to corporations for high $$$. But, of course, we'll need a TON more lawyers to navigate the bajillions of OpenSource licenses, so the legal profession doesn't have anything to worry about ;) -- Russell Morris "WOW! Chocolate - half price!" - Homer Simpson, while in the land of chocolate.
-
Senkwe Chanda wrote: Microsoft simply cannot compete with a free product But, remember, what do you get with a "free" product? Zero, nada, zip, nothing! Doesn't work? Too bad, it was free! Maybe the linux binaries are free, but the infrastructure needed and the highly trained sysadmins are not. Linux won't beat Windows in corporate market precisly because it's free. Linux has it's niches and there it's strong right now, but Microsoft is after them too. Don't underestimate Microsoft. Besides, Microsoft has spend millions and millions of dollars in usability tests, the free linux distributions cannot compete with that. They don't have the resources, there are hundreds of very bright developers working on linux right now but they have to eat too, so when the "real" work gets too intense they'll drop their open source cause and devote their full time to the "pay the rent" cause. I know, been there done that.
All of my opinions are correct, even when reality makes the mistake of disagreeing with me.
Eddie Velasquez wrote: They don't have the resources, there are hundreds of very bright developers working on linux right now but they have to eat too, so when the "real" work gets too intense they'll drop their open source cause and devote their full time to the "pay the rent" cause Don't know if that's necessarily true for the guys hacking the kernel and the core user level apps. Miguel DeIcaza works for Ximian, Bruce Perens is at Real Networks or is that IBM? Alan Cox is at RH as are other important kernel hackers, Linus is at Transmeta etc. That's not bad. Actually MS has more to fear from the likes of IBM and Oracle. Yes, hobbyists can't compete against MS but big business can. Recently some "anonymous donor" put up $200 000 as reward for getting Linux running on an X-Box for example, it's a useless project but the idea is to hurt MS in lost revenue for X-Box games. I'd bet that "anonymous donor" is Larry "Illusion" or Scott "McSquealy". So MS is up against it. Palladium better work ;P Finish this sentence: We're movin' on up, to the top...
-
Eddie Velasquez wrote: I see no reason why they cannot pull it off again with their security initiatives. Number one reason. Users are stupid Jared jparsons@jparsons.org www.prism.gatech.edu/~gte477n
jparsons wrote: www.prism.gatech.edu/~gte477n Go Jackets! :-D -- Russell Morris "WOW! Chocolate - half price!" - Homer Simpson, while in the land of chocolate.
-
Senkwe Chanda wrote: Microsoft simply cannot compete with a free product. It has, it currently does, and I think it will continue to do so. The free product you're talking about requires a computer nerd at the helm for it to EVER be able to do anything more than what is in the default install. This is of course fine and dandy for server-type setups, where Microsoft could really use the competition to make them beef up their own products. Talking about Linux like it's just on the cusp of becoming useful to the mainstream makes me think of all the other times over the past 3 years or so that people have said 'linux is just on the cusp of becoming mainstream! M$ is gonna die because there's a free lunch!". I think what alot of Linux zealots seem to forget is that the vast majority of the world A) wants to use a computer for a small, specific set of tasks, and B) can't understand(and does not want to) anything more than double click this and point to that. It's these people that heavily rely on MS. And it's these people that will tell you to get bent when asked to download a package and run 'rpm -i blah -ggq -v1.3.3.99584 -boogle -run', or to use an RPM UI frontend that has one checkbox for each of a litany of command-line options. It's these people that will do little more than turn up an eyebrow when asked whether or not they want a journaling filesystem. If the OpenSource model wins out, and indeed companies like MS die, the average person will have to rely on the whims of computer nerds for their software, and large corporations will (still) be funding the vast majority of software development. I really don't see how people think that consumers will benefit when the only ways you can make money off of software is by selling 'support' for it (how many people would accuse MS of making bugs on purpose if this was their model???), or by offering custom development of it to corporations for high $$$. But, of course, we'll need a TON more lawyers to navigate the bajillions of OpenSource licenses, so the legal profession doesn't have anything to worry about ;) -- Russell Morris "WOW! Chocolate - half price!" - Homer Simpson, while in the land of chocolate.
I'm also against the idea of open source software with regards to the GPL. Don't get me wrong. Russell Morris wrote: I think what alot of Linux zealots seem to forget is that the vast majority of the world A) wants to use a computer for a small, specific set of tasks, and B) can't understand(and does not want to) anything more than double click this and point to that. True, but when I was back at University in 1998, I remember a friend of mine took half the semester just to get X-Windows up and running on his RH box for his final year project. Now you buy a distro put in the CD and voila. Ok maybe it's not still THAT simple on some distros but you can't deny that progress has been made. I don't like Linux zealots any more than you do, but facts are facts. I'll always prefer my brand new XP box (God I love that thing, first computer I ever bought that I actually clean regularly, hehe) but I don't see too many obstacles left for Linux to conquer. Compare Linux of 1998 to Linux of today. You have to admit there has been a great deal of improvment :-) Finish this sentence: We're movin' on up, to the top...
-
Senkwe Chanda wrote: Microsoft simply cannot compete with a free product But, remember, what do you get with a "free" product? Zero, nada, zip, nothing! Doesn't work? Too bad, it was free! Maybe the linux binaries are free, but the infrastructure needed and the highly trained sysadmins are not. Linux won't beat Windows in corporate market precisly because it's free. Linux has it's niches and there it's strong right now, but Microsoft is after them too. Don't underestimate Microsoft. Besides, Microsoft has spend millions and millions of dollars in usability tests, the free linux distributions cannot compete with that. They don't have the resources, there are hundreds of very bright developers working on linux right now but they have to eat too, so when the "real" work gets too intense they'll drop their open source cause and devote their full time to the "pay the rent" cause. I know, been there done that.
All of my opinions are correct, even when reality makes the mistake of disagreeing with me.
just FYI, not all Linux programmers are working for free. RedHat, for example, employs a bunch of developers, testers, designers, etc. -c
To explain Donald Knuth's relevance to computing is like explaining Paul's relevance to the Catholic Church. He isn't God, he isn't the Son of God, but he was sent by God to explain God to the masses.
/. #3848917 -
Senkwe Chanda wrote: Microsoft simply cannot compete with a free product But, remember, what do you get with a "free" product? Zero, nada, zip, nothing! Doesn't work? Too bad, it was free! Maybe the linux binaries are free, but the infrastructure needed and the highly trained sysadmins are not. Linux won't beat Windows in corporate market precisly because it's free. Linux has it's niches and there it's strong right now, but Microsoft is after them too. Don't underestimate Microsoft. Besides, Microsoft has spend millions and millions of dollars in usability tests, the free linux distributions cannot compete with that. They don't have the resources, there are hundreds of very bright developers working on linux right now but they have to eat too, so when the "real" work gets too intense they'll drop their open source cause and devote their full time to the "pay the rent" cause. I know, been there done that.
All of my opinions are correct, even when reality makes the mistake of disagreeing with me.
Eddie Velasquez wrote: But, remember, what do you get with a "free" product? Zero, nada, zip, nothing! Doesn't work? Too bad, How is that any different than anything that comes from Microsoft (or any other software manufacturer for that matter)? ------- signature starts "...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001 Please review the Legal Disclaimer in my bio. ------- signature ends
-
Eddie Velasquez wrote: They don't have the resources, there are hundreds of very bright developers working on linux right now but they have to eat too, so when the "real" work gets too intense they'll drop their open source cause and devote their full time to the "pay the rent" cause Don't know if that's necessarily true for the guys hacking the kernel and the core user level apps. Miguel DeIcaza works for Ximian, Bruce Perens is at Real Networks or is that IBM? Alan Cox is at RH as are other important kernel hackers, Linus is at Transmeta etc. That's not bad. Actually MS has more to fear from the likes of IBM and Oracle. Yes, hobbyists can't compete against MS but big business can. Recently some "anonymous donor" put up $200 000 as reward for getting Linux running on an X-Box for example, it's a useless project but the idea is to hurt MS in lost revenue for X-Box games. I'd bet that "anonymous donor" is Larry "Illusion" or Scott "McSquealy". So MS is up against it. Palladium better work ;P Finish this sentence: We're movin' on up, to the top...
Senkwe Chanda wrote: DeIcaza works for Ximian, Bruce Perens is at Real Networks or is that IBM? Alan Cox is at RH as are other important kernel hackers, Linus is at Transmeta etc. Very bright and capable people indeed, but it will take ALOT more than a handful of smart people to bring Microsoft down (with technology that is, because it would only take only one dumb judge and alot of deep pockets!)
All of my opinions are correct, even when reality makes the mistake of disagreeing with me.
-
I'm also against the idea of open source software with regards to the GPL. Don't get me wrong. Russell Morris wrote: I think what alot of Linux zealots seem to forget is that the vast majority of the world A) wants to use a computer for a small, specific set of tasks, and B) can't understand(and does not want to) anything more than double click this and point to that. True, but when I was back at University in 1998, I remember a friend of mine took half the semester just to get X-Windows up and running on his RH box for his final year project. Now you buy a distro put in the CD and voila. Ok maybe it's not still THAT simple on some distros but you can't deny that progress has been made. I don't like Linux zealots any more than you do, but facts are facts. I'll always prefer my brand new XP box (God I love that thing, first computer I ever bought that I actually clean regularly, hehe) but I don't see too many obstacles left for Linux to conquer. Compare Linux of 1998 to Linux of today. You have to admit there has been a great deal of improvment :-) Finish this sentence: We're movin' on up, to the top...
There is a HUGE difference between a student who wants to install Linux and has a resonable idea about computers and your average Joe who just got a computer to balance his checkbook. We have people stamping on mice because they think it is a foot switch. But it is true that Linux is getting easier every day. Tim Smith "Programmers are always surrounded by complexity; we can not avoid it... If our basic tool, the language in which we design and code our programs, is also complicated, the language itself becomes part of the problem rather that part of the solution." Hoare - 1980 ACM Turing Award Lecture
-
jparsons wrote: ( easily runnable from cron ) This 'cron' thing - is that another linux desktop? ;P Tomasz Sowinski -- http://www.shooltz.com
- It's for protection
- Protection from what? Zee Germans?Oh, it isn't C. Ron? Hmm... Tim Smith "Programmers are always surrounded by complexity; we can not avoid it... If our basic tool, the language in which we design and code our programs, is also complicated, the language itself becomes part of the problem rather that part of the solution." Hoare - 1980 ACM Turing Award Lecture
-
just FYI, not all Linux programmers are working for free. RedHat, for example, employs a bunch of developers, testers, designers, etc. -c
To explain Donald Knuth's relevance to computing is like explaining Paul's relevance to the Catholic Church. He isn't God, he isn't the Son of God, but he was sent by God to explain God to the masses.
/. #3848917Chris Losinger wrote: not all Linux programmers are working for free. RedHat, for example, employs a bunch of developers, testers, designers, etc. I know that, but it only an handful of developers from the linux crowd that don't work for free. And it's not like the linux companies are in a very comfortable economic posicion right now. (Well the same could be said about Enron, Worldcom, etc. but I think you get my point)
All of my opinions are correct, even when reality makes the mistake of disagreeing with me.
-
Eddie Velasquez wrote: But, remember, what do you get with a "free" product? Zero, nada, zip, nothing! Doesn't work? Too bad, How is that any different than anything that comes from Microsoft (or any other software manufacturer for that matter)? ------- signature starts "...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001 Please review the Legal Disclaimer in my bio. ------- signature ends
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: How is that any different than anything that comes from Microsoft (or any other software manufacturer for that matter)? I must be the luckiest bastard of the world, because I've never had one thing to complain about Microsoft's support. I even had the explorer and shell lead developer help me out with something I was working on after 24 hours of requesting the help. And no, I didn't work with a huge company, it was you average dot-gone.
All of my opinions are correct, even when reality makes the mistake of disagreeing with me.
-
I'm also against the idea of open source software with regards to the GPL. Don't get me wrong. Russell Morris wrote: I think what alot of Linux zealots seem to forget is that the vast majority of the world A) wants to use a computer for a small, specific set of tasks, and B) can't understand(and does not want to) anything more than double click this and point to that. True, but when I was back at University in 1998, I remember a friend of mine took half the semester just to get X-Windows up and running on his RH box for his final year project. Now you buy a distro put in the CD and voila. Ok maybe it's not still THAT simple on some distros but you can't deny that progress has been made. I don't like Linux zealots any more than you do, but facts are facts. I'll always prefer my brand new XP box (God I love that thing, first computer I ever bought that I actually clean regularly, hehe) but I don't see too many obstacles left for Linux to conquer. Compare Linux of 1998 to Linux of today. You have to admit there has been a great deal of improvment :-) Finish this sentence: We're movin' on up, to the top...
Senkwe Chanda wrote: Compare Linux of 1998 to Linux of today. You have to admit there has been a great deal of improvment Compare the Windows of '94 with the Windows of today. You have to admit there has been a great deal of improvement. :)
All of my opinions are correct, even when reality makes the mistake of disagreeing with me.
-
Why is it that there's no justification for a Windows vulnerability, but when there's a Linux vulnerability all the Windows excuses are suddenly valid?
All of my opinions are correct, even when reality makes the mistake of disagreeing with me.
Maybe because Linux was built without a budget and Windows was built by the world's largest, most powerful software company. I'd expect more from a company that charges money for it's OS and has tens of billions in the bank. ------------------------------------------ When I was a kid, I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realized that the Lord, in his wisdom, didn't work that way. So I just stole one and asked him to forgive me. - Emo Phillips
-
There is a HUGE difference between a student who wants to install Linux and has a resonable idea about computers and your average Joe who just got a computer to balance his checkbook. We have people stamping on mice because they think it is a foot switch. But it is true that Linux is getting easier every day. Tim Smith "Programmers are always surrounded by complexity; we can not avoid it... If our basic tool, the language in which we design and code our programs, is also complicated, the language itself becomes part of the problem rather that part of the solution." Hoare - 1980 ACM Turing Award Lecture
Tim Smith wrote: There is a HUGE difference between a student who wants to install Linux and has a resonable idea about computers and your average Joe who just got a computer to balance his checkbook. I think part of the point was that in '98 it took someone with some technical know-how to install Linux, and today it doesn't.
-
I'm also against the idea of open source software with regards to the GPL. Don't get me wrong. Russell Morris wrote: I think what alot of Linux zealots seem to forget is that the vast majority of the world A) wants to use a computer for a small, specific set of tasks, and B) can't understand(and does not want to) anything more than double click this and point to that. True, but when I was back at University in 1998, I remember a friend of mine took half the semester just to get X-Windows up and running on his RH box for his final year project. Now you buy a distro put in the CD and voila. Ok maybe it's not still THAT simple on some distros but you can't deny that progress has been made. I don't like Linux zealots any more than you do, but facts are facts. I'll always prefer my brand new XP box (God I love that thing, first computer I ever bought that I actually clean regularly, hehe) but I don't see too many obstacles left for Linux to conquer. Compare Linux of 1998 to Linux of today. You have to admit there has been a great deal of improvment :-) Finish this sentence: We're movin' on up, to the top...
Senkwe Chanda wrote: Compare Linux of 1998 to Linux of today. You have to admit there has been a great deal of improvment Yes, there has been tremendous progress. However, there hasn't been as much progress between 98's linux and today's linux than there has been between Windows 98 and XP. And I think that is because MS pays developers (quite handsomely) to spend all day, every day busting their butt on that one product. It's their full-time job. Not to mention the fact that for every coder working on Windows there's a UI specialist tasked with making sure that the common person can actually make use of it. Linux should be seen for what it is - an ongoing research project. It has made tremendous gains, overcome alot, made lots of people famous, a few rich, provided 'OS Design 101' instructors with the world's best teaching resource, etc... . But it's not a magic bullet (neither was Java or OO). It won't make running lots of servers cheap, nor will it make their administrators less error-prone. It won't make everything secure out-of-the-box. It won't put a computer in every grass hut or ghetto. It won't make people want to work for free, and - for goodness sake! - it won't make people stop needing money to get things done. At the end of the day it is mostly run by academics (who live off of stipends and such) and people contributing in their spare time. Said in a toungue-in-cheek way, it's an asylum that's being run by the inmates. It's awesome for what it's intended to be. The thing is, it's not intended to be the common person's OS. I didn't intend to go into this much of an off-topic rant. I need to get more sleep... -- Russell Morris "WOW! Chocolate - half price!" - Homer Simpson, while in the land of chocolate.
-
Tim Smith wrote: There is a HUGE difference between a student who wants to install Linux and has a resonable idea about computers and your average Joe who just got a computer to balance his checkbook. I think part of the point was that in '98 it took someone with some technical know-how to install Linux, and today it doesn't.
and today it doesn't. ROFL. You have to be kidding me. Tim Smith "Programmers are always surrounded by complexity; we can not avoid it... If our basic tool, the language in which we design and code our programs, is also complicated, the language itself becomes part of the problem rather that part of the solution." Hoare - 1980 ACM Turing Award Lecture
-
Maybe because Linux was built without a budget and Windows was built by the world's largest, most powerful software company. I'd expect more from a company that charges money for it's OS and has tens of billions in the bank. ------------------------------------------ When I was a kid, I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realized that the Lord, in his wisdom, didn't work that way. So I just stole one and asked him to forgive me. - Emo Phillips
Linux is EXTREMELY well funded. This is another one of the big snow jobs of the last 10 years. While the fan boys work for free, the fat cats cash their checks. Tim Smith "Programmers are always surrounded by complexity; we can not avoid it... If our basic tool, the language in which we design and code our programs, is also complicated, the language itself becomes part of the problem rather that part of the solution." Hoare - 1980 ACM Turing Award Lecture
-
We'll reach a point where Linux is the dominant OS and then Windows will look sexy again, the same way people think the Mac is superior. Finish this sentence: We're movin' on up, to the top...
Senkwe Chanda wrote: We'll reach a point where Linux is the dominant OS Oh, you have just got to be kidding me, right? With the popularity of PCs for the masses, you now have a very large percentage of people who own PCs and yet are completely intimidated by anything as technical as even a VCR. These are people who have difficulty wiring up their home stereo without calling their techie friends, and there's a lot of them out there. You know, mere mortals? And you think they're going to be able to handle UNIX? :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: Chistopher Duncan Author - The Career Programmer: Guerilla Tactics for an Imperfect World (Apress)
-
Maybe because Linux was built without a budget and Windows was built by the world's largest, most powerful software company. I'd expect more from a company that charges money for it's OS and has tens of billions in the bank. ------------------------------------------ When I was a kid, I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realized that the Lord, in his wisdom, didn't work that way. So I just stole one and asked him to forgive me. - Emo Phillips
Brit wrote: I'd expect more from a company that charges money for it's OS and has tens of billions in the bank. Windows has had problems, like every other piece of software ever coded. But you make it sound like Windows is just a smelly pile of dong and you were ripped off. And I believe it's that is far from the truth. Windows is an amazing piece of software that has allowed even the most technophobic and clueless people access to a computer and the internet. I'd like to see how that could happen with any unix or unix clone out there.
All of my opinions are correct, even when reality makes the mistake of disagreeing with me.
