Slashback: Gopherectomy, Portacinema, Disunity 210
Throwing the gopher out with the bathwater. An Anonymous Coward writes: "As reported on News.com and discussed on Slashdot, MSIE's gopher support had a serious security vulnerability that allowed your machine to get ROOT'ed.
Well, it seems that Microsoft is unwilling or unable to make the fix, so it is removing support for the gopher protocol from IE. Not that MSIE's gopher support isn't very poorly implemented anyways."
Kept out of the U.S. by the secret conspiracy, no doubt. Buggalo writes "When I saw the article about the Pogo Flipster I thought I'd mention this too. Of course, it's not available in the US (not yet at least), but it sounds cool anyway. It plays MP4 video as well as MP3 audio. One thing that differentiates it from the Flipster is that this one includes video inputs so you don't even need a computer to get anything onto it. It also seems to have a larger screen. From what I can tell it has 64 megs of flash memory built in, and has an SD memory card slot as well. Sorry the website is in Japanese, but you can use Babelfish to translate it."
Not betting on a United front. dgb2n writes "Smart Money Magazine published an excellent article covering the business implications of the United Linux consortium. It provides some good insight into Red Hat's business model, stock price, and future prospects and names a potential winner in the Linux market."
At least this one aspect is happy. Hellkitten writes "The password for the database has been found, it was as simple as 'ladepujd', the name of the database's creator spelt backwards This previous Slashdot article explains the problem they had.
Aasentunet posted this notice, telling the password and thanking everyone that helped"
ZDNet has the story here as well."
The confusion (Score:4, Funny)
Re:The confusion (Score:2, Offtopic)
You have trouble parsing sentences of the form:
Not that A isn't B.
???
For the english impaired, it means that A isn't B is false. And in a lot of cases, thus A is B.
So the quoted sentence means:
MSIE's gopher support is very poorly implemented.
But stated in a more diplomatic style, which I guess is not so common for slashdot
Re:The confusion (Score:2)
Re:The confusion (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The confusion (Score:2)
Another way to look at it is to see a progressive scale of implementation, which is a natural reaction to seeing words of gradation such as "poorly" or "well." "Not" implemented will be one extreme, "perfectly" will be another. An unqualified "implemented" would appear in the middle of that line. Between that unqualified "implementation" (say, a 0.5 on the implementation grade) and "not" (say, 0.0) "poorly" might appear as 0.2 or 0.3. If there's a threshold value for negative that might be influenced, say, by a perception of the need to re-do a task, and "poorly" is below that threshold, then it will be "parsed" as a negative (or, more accurately, there will be some activation of the node for negation.)
Even people who are fluent at parsing utterances as logical propositions will show difficulties when you task them with, say, coming up with the correct inferences within (x) amount of time (this is a very common form of experimentation for cognitive science research). Remember, human brains are parallel processors which can, in some context, emulate serial ones, but at a cost of effiency.
M$FT never ceases to underwhelm me (Score:3, Funny)
Re:M$FT never ceases to underwhelm me (Score:1)
Now THAT's support!
No more gopher? What a cop out (Score:3, Funny)
Re:No more gopher? What a cop out (Score:5, Insightful)
The sarcasm and humor in the parent post aside, this is a very serious issue.
I think most of us know that Gopher is not used very much anymore, so MS supporters are definitely downplaying this hole. However, by not releasing a patch and instead just removing Gopher support, MS is leaving millions of people still open to vulnerabilities!
Not everyone who uses IE is going to upgrade to the next version of IE which will have no Gopher support. Not everyone runs WinXP, and can install the latest service pack that turns off Gopher support. People are going to keep their system the way it is, but because a patch is not available, they will be vulnerable to arbitrary code being executed at system-level just by clicking a link. And god forbid someone DOES actually want to use Gopher under IE, I guess they can't upgrade to the next version of IE. (Hey, they can always use Mozilla though!)
This could have a major spiral effect too; think of the Code Red worms. When worm writers realized that people were not patching their system, they released variants of the same worm, to do even more damage. If malicious people now hear that MS is not planning on patching this vulnerability, they might very well have a field day with it.
I guess all that talk from MS about their "trustworthy computing initiative" was exactly what we all thought; complete and utter hogwash. This type of behavior is simply unacceptable, but especially from a company that claims to be on a company-wide security audit.
Re:No more gopher? What a cop out (Score:3, Insightful)
Not everyone who uses IE is going to upgrade to the next version of IE which will have no Gopher support.
Yeah, but those are the same people who wouldn't install the patch, so what difference does it make?
Actually, it's much more likely that people will install the new version of MSIE than that they will install a patch.
I agree that it's a cop-out, and probably indicative of MS' security future, despite all their lip-service to the contrary, but lets be honest here; people are stupid, so there will be millions left vulnerable no matter what MS does because those millions are too ignorant to protect themselves.
The only thing they could do that would actually make a difference is release the patch as a worm that would patch it's own exploit after emailing itself to your whole address book.
Re:No more gopher? What a cop out (Score:3, Informative)
Pleeeeeze - it can't be that hard scanning your code for unchecked buffers! So I don't think that fixing the thing even after the fact would be that insanely difficult...
Lastly how about software liability?
The only time that MS really fixes things (or anyone else for that matter) will be when it costs them. When they have to go before a jury, and explain how they didn't use any due dilligence, and that that total system crash that took down the First Interstate Loan Center (Portland Oregon) in the early-mid 90's for hours and hours every week was their own fault. (As I recall it was an undocumented switch in the TCP stack that fixed the SNA session dying thing...) [I know, I had friends that worked there then - NT 3.1, 3.5? dunno]
When companies no longer can shield themselves from liability by claiming that software is _SO_ different than the rest of the known world, they'll actually do somthing - till then, just get ready to take it like a good consumer!
Cheers!
Re:No more gopher? What a cop out (Score:3, Interesting)
In other words, you have to figure that, as many clueless people are not patching their systems, our co-worker represents a large number of quite saavy people that are completely apathetic to wanting to be bothered. They don't have the interest to want to take the time; we can't reach these people using fear or logic. How, then, do we protect ourselves?
Re:No more gopher? What a cop out (Score:3, Funny)
They ought to just hire Bill Murray and be done with the problem. (Hey, it wouldn't be any worse than anything else they've done...)
Re:No more gopher? What a cop out (Score:2, Insightful)
Portmacinema? (Score:1, Interesting)
Did the data need to be encrypted? Nope.
Re:Portmacinema? (Score:1)
Ummm... AFAIK it wasn't cracked it was guessed. Just b/c the administrator chose one of the crappiest passwords ever you can't fault the system.
That's like when someone kills themselves drunk driving you say 'see, roads are dangerous.'
Re:Portmacinema? (Score:1)
Gopher probably is poorly implemented.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Gopher probably is poorly implemented.. (Score:4, Funny)
(complete reposting, for the parent is an AC)
Right, so there's a big conspiracy for Microsoft to create bloated software to force hardware upgrades. Right. And that's why IE 5.x was slimmed down and much faster than the old IE4? Hrm, looks like that right there breaks your argument. But go ahead and continue believing in the conspiracy theory, because it's apparently a lot more interesting than believing that Microsoft will add and remove features based on real criteria, like customer demand and usefulness.
Re:Gopher probably is poorly implemented.. (Score:4, Interesting)
See, if you really think customer demand and usefulness doth an MS product make, you're just as bad as our conspiracy theorist. Of course it enters the equation. But if you think its the only factor, keep dreaming.
Customers dont know what to demand. Go ask your mother what the next feature of Windows should be. Most people dont know. I dont believe that MS and Intel have an agreement to push hardware requirements, however, the possibility that execs and project managers 'suggest' things to eath other (hey, keep that feature in there, whats the damage, or hey, we're thinking of do this and that, what do you think) doesn't require a conspiracy to influence the design decisions. And if you think glib, ignorant purely business strategy speak doesnt influence decision decisions suggests that your no less niave than he is conspiracy theorist.
Re:no agreement needed (Score:2)
Re:Gopher probably is poorly implemented.. (Score:2, Interesting)
While I didn't explicitly say that customer demand and usefulness of a feature were all that go into making feature decisions, I can see how you would read that out of my post. I wasn't trying to make that point. Obviously other factors matter (say, feasability -- if the cost and time-to-market of implementing a customer-demanded and/or useful feature is too expensive, it probably won't get done until V.Next).
I think you'd be surprised at the amount of autonomy given to product groups, and even feature teams within product groups, at any company (not just Microsoft). Sure, the higher-ups will usually need to sign-off on the big-picture design, but do you really think BillG or Steve Balmer care whether or not IE still supports Gopher (using the current discussion as an example)? Maybe the feature team leads or the product group leads are in communication with hardware companies like Intel (probably only if their product is related in some way to that company), but in that case I would classify that business relationship as a "customer" relationship (some may call it a "partner" relationship, but that's essentially the same thing except that the "partner" has a little more direct control over feature suggestions).
Also, let me reiterate that I believe this applies to all companies, not just Microsoft. I'm sure Apple's software division isn't in cahoots with their hardware division to slow down OS X so people will ditch their G3s and go buy G4s (if so, then X.1 wouldn't have been released). AOL likely doesn't conspire with AMD or Intel to push hardware sales by writing a crappy, bloated walled-garden UI. And so on, and so on. It's just business, not tin-foil hat paranoid conspiracies.
Re:Gopher probably is poorly implemented.. (Score:4, Insightful)
1. No, I do not believe this gopher issue had anything to do with any partnership. More likely, it was the 'well, the code was written by some temp who was here 10 years ago' (or better yet, to be topical, the code was borrowed by someone we've lost track of, but thank god they licensed under BSD or we'd have had to write our own
2. Of course, Apples hardware and software divisions are 'in cahoots' (if I were a stockholder, I'd hope so, they work at the same freakin company)
Another poster made the wise observation that given how much of MS's revenue comes from new computer software royalties, they do have a massive vested interest in keeping the hardware upgrade cycle very short in order to keep the market fueling the damand for new computers, and thus provide a steady, reliable revenue stream.
Re:Gopher probably is poorly implemented.. (Score:3)
I think the difference between what I'm trying to say and what you're trying to say is this: you make it seem as though making software slower is the goal. I don't believe so. Yes, software drives hardware, and yes, newer software typically runs slower on older hardware. That's not because the developers set out to make the software run slow on old hardware. Instead, the idea is that as hardware advances, so can software. To give an example, let's look at Windows XP. The fancy new gui can be a bit of a resource hog. However, Microsoft has provided very granular controls to turn off the effects you don't want, or even switch back to the "Classic" style (which is actually native controls, not pixmaps that look like the old style). If the goal here was to slow XP down on old computers, those features would not have been provided. Instead, the goal was that as computer hardware advances, Windows can do some more cool presentational things. Don't like those, or your machine can't handle it? Turn them off. Windows XP runs just as well on an old p200 (with a liberal amount of RAM) as did Windows 2000. But if you have the hardware, why not take advantage and have a nicer looking display (if you don't like the Luna style, check out ThemeXP [themexp.org]). Same goes for OS X. The goal was not to make the new OS slow on older G3s to drive G4 purchases. Instead, it was that the new hardware gives more processing power that can be used on trivial things like all the fancy alpha blending and scaling in OS X. The X.1 patch sped things up, not slowing them down to force people into buying dual 833 G4s (or whatever).
A business decision that consists of, "Let's make things slower so that people will upgrade their hardware," is a bad idea. Something more along the lines of, "Today's hardware is more powerful than that of two years ago, so let's use it. People will probably need to upgrade, but c'est la vie," is much more acceptable. Same end result (more or less), but the means are different.
Re:Gopher probably is poorly implemented.. (Score:2)
After all, if decision decisions are grey (you can never proove one method of solving something is implicitly better than the other, as you can justify different expectations and requirements for a chunk of code
I see exactly what you're saying, and I dont think it happens at all these days, but I could see it happening in the future as computers and applications begin to reach their featureset limits.
Thanks for the dicussion tho, you provided good examples of why I might have a little tinfoil around the ears.
Re:Gopher probably is poorly implemented.. (Score:2)
Wow! What a polite person. I wonder what you're doing on Slashdot? :) (to butcher an IRC quote from years ago ...) Anyway, interesting discussion, and I agree that in the future what you've suggested may happen. I'm not saying don't be vigilant, just don't get too caught up in the cloak&dagger stuff to the point where you confuse conspiracy with reality.
Re:Gopher probably is poorly implemented.. (Score:1)
Why not just use Mozilla instead, and they you don't need 3rd party software to kill extra windows??
In my honest opinion, if the browser doesn't let you turn off parts of javascript that you don't like, it wasn't written with the user in mind.
[Offtopic] NoPopIE (Score:1)
Because I like Internet Explorer? Because it was a learning experience to develop a browser helper object? Because everybody keeps saying that Mozilla can do this and IE can't, while that's obviously not true? Because I wanted to? If I use Mozilla, then you're right, I don't need 3rd party software to kill extra windows. Instead, I just need 3rd party software to browse the web. All right, so I'm a lemming because I prefer IE, or because I don't know that mozilla is "better", or because I'm too stupid or lazy to download a 3rd party browser instead of using the built-in browser. Too bad, I don't care.
Re:Gopher probably is poorly implemented.. (Score:1)
"Popular" here is relative. Of the "customers" that use IE, I'd guess that much less than 1% even know what gopher is, much less know that IE supports it and actually use the functionality. So in the broader scheme of things, is it really that important to keep functionality that only some couple thousand people would ever use vs. the security concerns for everybody? I'd choose the latter, just as Microsoft did. Prove there's a viable market that demands a gopher client, and I'm sure MS will happily provide that market with such a client. However, I don't think such a market exists in a large enough form to be anything but marginal.
Re:Gopher probably is poorly implemented.. (Score:2)
So why, then, could you install IE5 without first installing IE4? Try it.
bad password (Score:3, Funny)
thats not a very smart choice of password, using your name.
at least it wasn't 'god' or 'sex'
Re:bad password (Score:2, Funny)
Re:bad password (Score:2)
Is that possible????
Backwards? (Score:2, Funny)
are you sure that's the name spelled backwards? spelling it 'djupedal' looks more backwards to me
Re:Backwards? (Score:1)
Re:Backwards? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Backwards? (Score:4, Interesting)
Americans......
"djupedal" means "deep valley" in Norwegian, and is a reasonably common surname.
American cultural imperialism is already imperiling the Norwegian heritage with given names like "Roger" and "Angela", but the surnames are still holding on against the flood.
Where is Ivar Aasen when you need him.....?
Re:Backwards? (Score:2)
and on a lighter note...
i'm an american, but i do my part to preserve things norwegian. i buy jarlsberg cheese and apoptygma berzerk cds. actually i just buy those things because i like them.
Gopher support shouldn't be in IE (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Gopher support shouldn't be in IE (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Gopher support shouldn't be in IE (Score:2)
um, oops
Re:Gopher support shouldn't be in IE (Score:1)
Re:Gopher support shouldn't be in IE (Score:1)
I can't stand using that excuse for a web browser that is IE since 0.9.9 release or so.
Re:Gopher support shouldn't be in IE (Score:2)
There are warnings all over gopherspace not to use IE for gopher. IE has always sucked at gopher. No graphic web browser currently does gopher+, at all. And yes, this does mean I use gopher.
Re:Gopher support shouldn't be in IE (Score:5, Funny)
"Welcome to Internet Explorer. With this you can easily go everywhere on the Internet. Except for sites which have protocols that we have problems with implementing(*). Have a nice day.
(*) This is everything except FTP and HTTP. Even if there are problems with the implementation of FTP and/or HTTP, we will not remove them(**).
(**) This will happen after we've implemented the MS-PPTP(***) into our IIS servers and have replaced TCP/IP with the MS-PITY(****).
(***) Microsoft Private Propriatary[sp] Transfer Protocol is a trademark of
(****) Microsft Protocol for Internet TechnologY is a trademark of
Correction (Re:Gopher support shouldn't be in IE) (Score:2)
No, you've got that wrong: it's MS-PITA, the Microsft Protocol for Internet Telecommunications Access.
Re:Gopher support shouldn't be in IE (Score:3, Insightful)
Naturally, this is an invitation to software bloat, although if the browser is modularised it needn't be so bad. But arguably the user interface benefits are so compelling as to compensate for the conceptual ugliness.
By removing Gopher, Microsoft are moving away from the concept of a web browser and towards the concept of a proprietary content viewer.
Bad passwords and old software... (Score:5, Insightful)
The institute now keeps copies of all its passwords locked in a safe. Of course, if all its passwords are as bad as the lost password, then what's the point?
--Jim
Re:Bad passwords and old software... (Score:3, Funny)
And where do they keep the code or key to the safe?
Re:Bad passwords and old software... (Score:2)
If it's the main safe, there would presumably be several trusted individuals with the key or combination. That's quite different compared to the password used on a project done by a single person.
But it doesn't really matter. Cracking a safe is relatively easy compared to attempting to recover the password from a proprietary application.
Re:Bad passwords and old software... (Score:2)
Not an issue, a good locksmith (who knows safes, which isn't all good locksmiths) can get into any safe in less than a day, but the effort will leave physical evidence.
Re:Bad passwords and old software... (Score:2)
I wonder... (Score:1)
Re:I wonder... (Score:2, Funny)
Wait no forget that. Let's not tell anyone I said that eh?
Well, this password crack worked well... (Score:1)
Re:Well, this password crack worked well... (Score:4, Insightful)
If this person had used a strong password and strong crypto, all of their work could be lost! The password recovery mechanism has to be difficult enough to deter an attacker (e.g. require physical presence of company CIO, etc), but easy enough to do in an emergency. This could be necessary for untimely deaths, disgruntled employees leaving without turning over the access devices to their accounts, etc.
Re:Well, this password crack worked well... (Score:1)
I heard recently about a software package (no reference, sorry) for managing company resources based on a security model of aggregate permissions. Suppose the administrator for a system dies (as in this Norway case), two non-administrator employees might together be given permission to access the database as admin.
The software is based on a point system where a person at a particular organizational level would possess N points to contribute toward a group effort requiring security clearance.
Guess that's not too good if you're an abusive employer though... "Mutiny on the LAN!" ;)
Re:Well, this password crack worked well... (Score:2, Interesting)
Then share number s of the password, part i is r_1[i]+s*r_2[i]+s^2*r_3[i]+...+s^(m-2)*r_m-1[i]+s
I hope that isn't patented, it's just a back-of-the-envelope calculation with VanderMonde matrices. All you have to do then is have everyone encrypt their share(s) with a different password, and integrate the key-rejoining routine with the password-entry system so that the employees don't get to see it after reconstructing it, and you're done. The cool thing about the system is that m-1 of the shares give no information about the password, assuming the random number generator you used is good enough.
Re:Well, this password crack worked well... (Score:1)
If you follow good computing practices this problem would never happen.
1. Every application or system should have an administrative userid with the ability to change all passwords.
2. This userid should be guarded like fort knox.
3. The password for this userid should be changed on a regular basis.
4. At least two people should be involved in the password change, and preferably each one should only know half of the password.
5. Each time the password is changed it should be recorded in twice. One record should be stored locally in a secure place such as a safe. The other copy should be stored in an easily accessible secure offsite storage facility.
6. A third party should be responsible for verifying the process has been completed and report to management any deviation from the procedures.
7. Management approval should be required for retrieval of the password and the password should be immediately changed after usage.
This may sound a little extreme, but it is very easy to implement. If these or similar procedures are followed you will never lose the password and you won't have to resort to using week passwords.
Re:Well, this password crack worked well... (Score:2)
Sighting today in Redmond, WA, US... (Score:5, Funny)
You're wrong.Bill Gates is nothing like a valkyrie (Score:5, Funny)
It had to be Balmer.
Re:You're wrong.Bill Gates is nothing like a valky (Score:2)
but that being said, i'd still say that bill gates does not resemble a beautiful woman by any stretch of the imagination. Ballmer doesn't either, but maybe you remember that he did demonstrate his musical talent [kuro5hin.org] by dancing. possibly not what wagner had in mind.
Inspirational password! (Score:2, Funny)
Actually reading the article... (Score:2)
Quite interesting... (Score:1)
Hrm, so this means that Internet Explorer will be gone from the OS completely in a few months? Cool!
To clarify why parts are "impossible" to remove (Score:5, Insightful)
Removing HTML rendering AND HTTP support (which is what removing IE equals) would screw many many users and thousands of 3rd party software vendors who rely on this support from the OS, in in fact render the system unusable as too many components rely on this support, 3rd party and otherwise.
When MS says Windows is not modular, they are using a legal, not technical, argument. This is based on past cases where, for example, Ford was banned from buidling pick-up trucks with covers (ie snugtop) because it was an optional module.
uh, no (Score:2)
Removing HTML rendering AND HTTP support (which is what removing IE equals) would screw many many users and thousands of 3rd party software vendors who rely on this support from the OS, in in fact render the system unusable as too many components rely on this support, 3rd party and otherwise
Nope, try again. M$ could care less about other software, as you can tell by their conatantly changing print methods. The reason M$ claims that IE can't be removed is because they put it in EXACTLY the way they were forbiden to by the federal government: spagetti coded into the OS itself through innumerable DLLs with multiple undocumented and unrelated interfaces. This kind of code mixing, like passing disk access through the GUI, is one of the reasons M$ is so unstable. IE is always on because it recieves many unecessary function calls. What you get when you try to remove IE is a box that won't boot. I doubt even Bill Gates knows what you get when you leave it in, besides poorer.
Re:To clarify why parts are "impossible" to remove (Score:2, Insightful)
When MS says Windows is not modular, they are using a legal, not technical, argument. This is based on past cases where, for example, Ford was banned from buidling pick-up trucks with covers (ie snugtop) because it was an optional module.
Well then, by thunder Microsoft should be banned from producing an OS with a browser included, because it's an optional module!
Microsoft should be banned from including a Microsoft-branded browser, and if they want to keep IE they'll have to spin it off to a child company. This would be legal under that precedent (though the interaction would have to be watched) - it's the same as Ford including another company's cover with their trucks, which is perfectly legal. The court case only bans Ford from including a Ford-made cover.
Instead they could take Apple's standpoint on the issue: HTML rendering services and APIs are provided, some kind of simplistic HTTP is provided, but a browser (i.e., complete application using those tools) is not part of the OS. Until recently, Internet Explorer and Netscape were both included with the OS (though IE was the default, grr...). This changed with OS X because until very recently there was no OS X-native version of Netscape. With the next version of OS X, due out in late summer, Apple probably will once again include both.
Protocol manager (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Protocol manager (Score:1)
Wow, they were really thinking ahead when they named their protocol!
Re:Protocol manager (Score:1, Interesting)
== firewall Re:Protocol manager (Score:2)
Re:Protocol manager (Score:2)
OS/2 had the ability to manage multiple applications per object, a feature I miss.
Gopher IE Exploit (Score:2)
Gopher is not part of Windows (Score:2, Funny)
MS (non) Gopher (Score:2, Funny)
Newscaster:
A man got on to an eastbound bus and killed three people. He then took a transfer, got onto a westbound bus and killed two more people.
As a result, bus authorities say they will eliminate the transfer system.
I think (Score:1)
fool. (Score:5, Funny)
What an idiot. I, an 31337 hax0r, am much smarter. My password, "78sne4ml;w" is composed of random characters, which nobody would ever guess. Lam3r.
Re:fool. (Score:1)
Dear jcsehak,
I apologize for disturbing you, but you seem to have omitted your slashdot password in the parent post. This could also just be a typo in the password you gave.
Would you please reply with the correct password?
japanese zaurus (Score:1)
Red Hat Red Ink (Score:1)
If worse turns to worst, Red Hat could always become a bond fund for fixed-income retirees.
Funny, but then stacked up against the MS 40bn catastrophe fund even as bond funds MS still rules. The analysis was sound, and, sadly resonantes with the big questions Red Hat has yet to answer. IBM's brilliant play of the Linux market was worthy of note. Bill Gates stole the OS market from IBM when MS dumped OS/2, maybe IBM is looking to steal that market back. Mmmmmm a real fight between the Big Dawgs would be a spectacle to behold.
Back what? (Score:3, Funny)
They hire CS majors, eh? (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm prety sure that was established as bad form, oh, about 20 years before MS's birth.
They never cease to amaze me with thier forward thinking 'inovation' though... Apparently spagetti code must be 'the wave of the future'. I guess I must not be hip enough, my boss better hirry up and fire me!
Gopher (Score:2)
I kinda miss it... sniff. Poor lil guy.
Re:Gopher (Score:1)
If I wanted to find something, then I always used _archie_ (because there were no search engines as such).
FP.
Gopherectomy... (Score:1)
Gopherectomy... (Score:1)
gopher://in.the.garden (Score:2)
Gotta love the fish (Score:4, Funny)
Please resend the message in English without the online translation. I'm very sure I will understand you better that way." 'Nuff said.
You always figure it out right after posting! (Score:2, Funny)
So it took them what, maybe an hour to figure this out? but the plea has been circulating for several days...
It's been true since I can remember: the larger the audience from which you beg a clue, the sooner you'll find it yourself, and the dumber you'll look because of it!
How much ya wanna bet the folks who panicked wish they had just asked one or two buddies to help them out? :-D
News.com sucks lemons (Score:2, Interesting)
Marc Maiffret, 21-year-old security prodigy and chief hacking officer for eEye Digital Security, doesn't fault old code for security problems. He said that programmers who don't review the code before using it are at fault. Old code may have more security holes in it, but those holes should be caught, he said
Okay, so they're interviewing a 21-year old who thinks he knows more about Microsoft's code than Microsoft itself. Yes it's true, in a perfect world we would all have infinite time to review legacy code and peek into shared libraries, but the matter of the fact is that fundamental reason we reuse code is to save time and effort. If we all spent our time rereading and retesting code whenever we glue it into something else, we'd be better off starting from scratch every time.
This kid is a fast-talking idiot, nothing more.
ECLIPSE (Score:1)
Re:hey (Score:1, Troll)
Re:Anagram Fun Competition! (Score:2, Funny)
How about "Drat, I sold those!"?
Re:Anagram Fun Competition! (Score:1)
Re:Anagram Fun Competition! (Score:1)
A shortest dildo...
... at sordid hotels.
Or shitted loads.
Sods loathe dirt.
FP.
Re:Why? (Score:2)
Re:Why? (Score:1)
Homogeny can do nothing but help... (Score:2, Interesting)
In all seriousness though, I do like to see a reduction in duplication of effort. However, diversity is a fundamental construct of open source philosophy. So as with anything else, United Linux has its positive and negative aspects.