Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Double Irish (Score 4, Informative) 445

by smash (#48952001) Attached to: Obama Proposes One-Time Tax On $2 Trillion US Companies Hold Overseas
Australia also holds that view on personal income for Australian citizens on money earned abroad. I think the key with this proposal (vs. others which are just a pure money grab or in the Australian income tax case, double dipping) is the credit for taxes paid abroad. Presumably, if the company was already taxed at a higher rate, they would be refunded all the tax they paid to the USA. I think it's a good compromise - the company should have to pay taxes somewhere, and this will ensure that they do.

Comment: Re:not the point (Score 1) 374

by smash (#48929771) Attached to: Why Screen Lockers On X11 Cannot Be Secure

It has moved on in heaps of ways. Clients are far more powerful and capable of far more processing. 3d acceleration has become commodity. Compression, pixmap caching, etc. are now commonplace. Power consumption is a concern. Security is much more of a concern - bundling so much code into the X server, with the level of security access it has is a bad idea.

You just need to open your eyes and look at well... virtually any other GUI system from the last 10-15 years and see how most of them leave X11 for dead in terms of security, performance, etc.

The much vaunted "network transparency" of X11, the feature everyone whines that they will lose - is crap and done better by plenty of other software, from VNC to ICA to RDP...

Comment: Re:not the point (Score 1) 374

by smash (#48929247) Attached to: Why Screen Lockers On X11 Cannot Be Secure
The problem is that the core design of X11 was decided upon about 30 years ago and the computing landscape has moved on significantly. During the past 30 years, there have been thousands of hacks to add new functionality to existing code-paths which are no longer relevant to today's environment - but necessary to be "X11" compatible.

Comment: Re:Screen locker == physical access == ... (Score 1) 374

by smash (#48925319) Attached to: Why Screen Lockers On X11 Cannot Be Secure

Why is this considered acceptable? Get physical access to my iPhone (for example - Android is probably the same?), good luck getting in.

Sure, with a PC there's a few things that are a lot more difficult to secure (e.g., the boot process) but throwing hands up in the air and giving up because of physical access is a cop out.

Friction is a drag.

Working...