Comment: Re:Huge splash? (Score 1) 61
Comment: Re:Inflated sense of self-importance (Score 2) 419
Comment: Re:Doesn't make sense (Score 1) 514
I really don't think you can mistake a Galaxy for an iPhone when it has "Samsung" written on it right on the front. Anyone who can't tell the difference between the two, isn't in the market for either of them.
Comment: Re:Check which modules get rejected (Score 2, Insightful) 175
- Novell: Compiz, XGL (unmaintaned X server with OpenGL)
- Red Hat: PulseAudio, Clutter, DeviceKit, Cheese, gnome-user-share
Notice something about the scopes of each of those projects?
Same thing with Compiz, a compositing window manager developed by David Reeveman of Novell, also rejected despite it being an almost complete drop in replacement for Metacity which is ancient RedHat technology.
Metacity ancient? What do you make of the whole X server then? Should we replace it too? Don't get me wrong. I don't dismiss Compiz as eye-candy because it's far more than that. It came way to early. It was unusable without proprietary drivers and unstable with. To this day Compiz has problems with stability on anything but maybe Intel boards. The necessary groundwork just isn't there yet.
Comment: Re:I shouldn't be surprised (Score 3, Funny) 489
Comment: Re:Lawyers are more expensive than SSL (Score 1) 272
Losing something and using the court system to get it back can be too expensive for individuals or home-based businesses. SSL is cheaper than a lawyer.
Most data is useless and once it's "out" you won't get it back anyway. I'm talking about using self-signed certificates for data that isn't really worth encrypting in the first place but can act as a tripping alarm or honey pot. Granted you're in deep, if you have to resort to this kind of tactic but it's there if you need it.
Comment: Re:Self-signed certs are vulnerable to MITM (Score 1) 272
Comment: Re:Self-signed certs are vulnerable to MITM (Score 1) 272
With effort, and sometimes a trivial amount, one can invade on another's privacy. But we've all made a social agreement to respect privacy; all it takes is a humble token, like a window curtain, to remind us of this. The curtain is just cloth, but it does an excellent job of affording us privacy, because it asserts our intent. That way, if we're able to detect it, we can be certain in knowing that our privacy is violated -- otherwise, any access we didn't think to deny (but would regret later) might accidentally intrude upon us -- and with no ill will from the innocent onlooker! How foolish of us, that we didn't draw the curtain when we had the chance!