Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Great, open source (Score 1) 293

by magellanic (#33068624) Attached to: Could Open Source Render Facebook the Next AOL?

Your post nothing but thinly-veiled FUD. I can't even tell what point you are trying to make, as your arguments aren't at all analogous to a social network.

An OSS Facebook will have hundreds of competing distros,

There are very few serious distributions that compete for the same niche market.

several dozen kernel forks,

Most distributions commit kernel fixes back to upstream or backport them to older versions.

Countless different versions of the standards that developers will argue over for years

s/argue/collaborate/

horrid UI's

Compared to what?

It's pretty well known that you should never let programmers design user interfaces.

and no documentation

I've used a lot of free software so far, and it's extremely rare that there is no documentation. Just because it's not in your preferred format, doesn't mean it's non-existent.

New users wishing to convert over from commercial Facebook will be told "Well, first you have to decide if you want to go with a RTH, KJG, RTY, or TTTY desktop interface; then you need to pick a client from this list which you can download from this obscure irc channel; then you need to config it to your router and find the drivers for your system; and you might also need to download and install Java, Greasemonkey, and a compiler to create binaries for your particular OS" and presented with a long list of bug fixes in lieu of a user manual.

Despite your example being exaggerated, I've never had to do anything so ridiculous using any free operating system. I'm willing to accept that a minority of applications have less than perfect installation procedures, but fortunately, there is rarely a shortage of alternatives in the free software world -- you can often find something better.

And before you mod me troll, know that this is exactly what Linux (and plenty of other OSS) looks like to a non-geek user.

What does a non-geek need to know about kernel versions, distributions etc. to use Ubuntu for their non-geek activities (i.e. web browsing, writing documents and listening to music)? All these activities are possible with the default installs.

Comment: Re:Fine with me... (Score 1) 775

by magellanic (#32822932) Attached to: Microsoft Out of Favor With Young, Hip Developers

My first iPhone app was released to the app store from a US$350 MSI Wind netbook that I hackintoshed. Not my top recommendation for a dev machine, but it got the job done as Xcode seems to go easy on resources. You're not going to be running VS2010 on a netbook.

You may also note that you'll need a computer to run Visual Studio. I'm not sure what point you're driving at here.

How inconsistent. You complain about Microsoft's prices, then use pirate and/or EULA-violating Apple software and claim that option is cheaper.

Legally, you only need to pay Microsoft the tiny Windows OEM license fee to have full access to the entire .NET SDK and Express Editions. To develop an iPhone application you need to invest a lot more on the hardware and OS X (which all goes to Apple).

Then again, this is Slashdot, where Microsoft bashing takes precedence over facts.

Comment: Re:Fine with me... (Score 1) 775

by magellanic (#32819480) Attached to: Microsoft Out of Favor With Young, Hip Developers

at least Ballmer doesn't tell me I can't compile my code without forking him $100/yr

Of course, staying up to date with Visual Studio is going to cost you significantly more than that (unless you use the same version for 8 years).

Not if you take advantage of the free Express Editions which are mentioned on a nearly daily basis here on Slashdot, of course.

Comment: Re:Fine with me... (Score 1) 775

by magellanic (#32819402) Attached to: Microsoft Out of Favor With Young, Hip Developers

No, he tells you you can't compile your code without forking him [sic] $550 in the first year and requiring an additional $500 for upgrades every 2 or 3 years. That's way cheaper!

This comes up on every Slashdot article even vaguely related to Microsoft, Express Editions are free, dumbass.

You need an Apple computer for the iPhone SDK. How much is the cheapest new Apple computer?

Comment: Re:The Insecurity of OpenBSD (Score 2, Insightful) 143

by magellanic (#32275804) Attached to: OpenBSD 4.7 Released

The mailserver is just an example. There is plenty of insecure software running as root.

FTFY

MAC cannot prevent the exploit as such, but it can make the attacker completely limitless. You can take away execute permission, write permission (allowing just append), no file creation, absolutely nothing except the very minimal that the program actually needs.

This sounds a lot like what securelevel(7) already does.

There is absolutely no reason to have a user with absolute power when we have the technology to segregate power and duties, there by significantly reducing the attack surface.

There is absolutely no reason to put up walls so the sysadmin can't do anything, rather than fix the bugs that let an attacker gain root in the first place.

Comment: Re:Got my CD in the mail a few days ago (Score 2, Insightful) 143

by magellanic (#32272820) Attached to: OpenBSD 4.7 Released

OpenBSD doesn't want to take over the world, see the project goals. This doesn't stop their work becoming used on a large scale, but this happens because of the software's features and technical superiority.

On the other hand, many Linux advocates seem to be obsessed with the idea of world domination. I've seen these people choose Ubuntu for reinstall/upgrade jobs when their friends and family would genuinely be more comfortable, and better off, with Windows or OS X.

Decide for yourself which is the more noble goal.

Comment: Re:The Insecurity of OpenBSD (Score 2, Insightful) 143

by magellanic (#32272456) Attached to: OpenBSD 4.7 Released

The fact that the OS code is audited is nice, but can't protect against other insecure software. If you run postfix which isn't audited, and it has a hole and the attacker gets root, then there is nothing to stop them.

Maybe I'm wrong, but if the mail server isn't crap it should give up root privileges as soon as possible. So, to get root you need to do two things.

1) Exploit a bug in the mail server
2) Exploit a bug in the operating system to gain root privileges

If MAC is part of the operating system, and can therefore contain operating system bugs, how does it mitigate step 2? How does it mitigate it any more than an operating system without MAC?

An example from a commenter on the blog is that he needed to prevent root from reading users files. OpenBSD is almost the only OS left that can't meet this requirement.

Are you serious? The root user has ultimate power by definition. That's been the case with *NIX for decades.

Thus mathematics may be defined as the subject in which we never know what we are talking about, nor whether what we are saying is true. -- Bertrand Russell

Working...