Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re: Thanks, *hats (Score 1) 74

I think the point is despite *trying* to design it 'secure it in the first place', there were failures. It's easy to criticize in hindsight, and claim that if they had just secured it *right* in the first place, this wouldn't be a problem, but it is disingenuous to say they didn't even try.

This is the crux of the problem for security. Even if you *try* to do it right, there is every likelihood that you will mess up. Even if you pull in a 'trusted security company' to audit your design, they'll frequently do an inadequate job because they lack expertise in what you are doing to credibly know if it is secure. They'll look for things that vaguely resemble other generic things and sometimes yell loudly about some non-issue that makes no sense in context, and at the same time completely miss glaring security issues.

Comment Re: Thanks, *hats (Score 1) 74

You cannot *prove* security. Security is not a set of absolute laws, it is a subjective call. There are of course some *limited* facets that are more concrete (buffer overruns are never good, for example), but security is a big thing that encompasses a lot and in fact two different approaches can both rationally call each other insecure and themselves secure, depending on perspective.

Comment stop going techno-nerd on it.. they failed (Score 1) 230

Unless support wasn't part of the deal that was signed, then it clearly is Microsoft's fault. And the NFL's. They are the ones who agreed to the deal.
And these three words: User Acceptance Testing

I have a feeling this was technical people saying "it should work" and sales people saying "it's flawless" and the NFL saying "this will be great" and people getting bonuses and high-fiving each other.... and NOBODY actually trying it out in a real setting ahead of time.

Serves them right.

Comment Re: Were the users randomized? (Score 1) 504

You forgot installing weird things like asset management software and anti-virus, on top of being based on an enterprise distro with poor desktop support to start with, and *then* holding back updates on top of that.

Funny thing was, the anti-virus software at the time *only* supported detection of signatures of Windows viruses. They supported linux with the use case of a Samba file server to protect Windows clients, but they put it on all the linux desktops and sucked down tons of resources and brought things to a crawl.

It was the moment that I got a 'blessed' configuration of Linux to run on my laptop that I finally had some sympathy for Microsoft and how their platform is treated by vendors and IT departments and how much of MS 'badness' is due to preloads and IT department loads being very stupid. Of course Microsoft hasn't done any favors with poor QA on updates causing that mindset in the first place, but the avoidance is worse than taking the updates.

Comment Re:We Were Attacked! (Score 2) 74

The problem is this philosophy tends to create targets of great value by putting so much infrastructure into so few places.

It's been a curious development in the internet. In the 90s, there was a trend from walled gardens and centralized resources to more federated approaches. In the last decade, the trend has reversed.

We have increasingly powerful endpoint devices, even as their form factors have shrunk. This *should* have led to the reduction of the importance of 'datacenters', but now they are more important than ever *and* so much function has been consolidated into 3 or so companies, and a handful of physical locations.

Now it's not as bad if everyone at least had their infrastructure to bank on a couple of providers as you do (so long as they all don't bank on the *same* two, but generally there's only a couple of companies people go to.for services)..

In a decentralized case, a random entity is doubtlessly unlikely to withstand such an attack, but also they are far less likely to be the target of such an attack (being a bonus effect of taking down a target versus *being* the target).

Comment Two factors in effect... (Score 1, Insightful) 504

One, the Linux and Mac users are probably ones explicitly asking for it, meaning they care enough to request it specifically. Compared against the general population, the subset is going to be more experienced enthusiasts.

Two, one of the biggest enemies of Windows usability is corporate preloads. Botched updates, sometimes 5 or six anti-virus applications and multiple firewall and update managers installed haphazardly.

All that said, I'd still take Linux in a heartbeat, but still Windows to some extent suffers the downsides of its own success.

Comment I object to some of your comments.... (Score 1) 265

* its software is free as in beer (this is what made me try out linux)

For almost all practical purposes so is Windows and you can get all the good Linux software on Windows and Mac too.

NO, it is not. Mac OS is not either. Free as in beer means free as in beer - no cost. You cannot LEGALLY get Windows for free. Which leads to the OTHER free, which is free as in freedom - which clearly the other two are not either. You can get all the good Linux software on Windows and Mac? Hold that thought.

* its software is free as in software (this is what made me stay on linux for so long)

Like it or not, users in the vast majority don't care about that and it won't draw them to Linux. As far as the software is concerned that same free software like Blender, Gimp and LibreOffice are available on Windows and Mac too. No exclusivity to Linux.

Again... hold that thought.

* it has working package management. updating software is no nightmare. Windows has to force its customers to update it, because its a nightmare.

yep! But remember Windows has Chocolatey and Mac has Homebrew, this covers many of the free software options and for proprietary software you most often need to go through their updaters whether you're on Windows, Mac or Linux anyway.

It's great that it does what you need but you have to remember that above anything else a computer is a tool to run the programs a user needs and while Windows and Mac run pretty much anything Linux does the same cannot be said the other way around and most standard applications in industry support Windows & Mac but not Linux. It might be more secure and/or more stable and free of charge and open source but none of those things matter if it doesn't run the applications I need.

So it's a chicken and egg problem, if you want people to use it they need their applications to support it and to do that you need users. So what you need to offer is some disruptive innovation, some great feature that draws people to Linux, something so good that they would be willing to temporarily forgo the lack of applications and work through the kludge of dual-booting or VMs until their programs supported Linux as a first class citizen. But for the entire life of the hundreds of Linux desktop distributions none has ever offered the user such a feature(s).

Now you can pretend this isn't true, mod it down and fantasize about how desktop Linux is simple held back by a big conspiracy perpetrated by Microsoft and Apple but the fact is it has succeeded incredibly in pretty much all other markets including those in which Microsoft and Apple participate - and it dominates! Server? Dominates! Embedded? Dominates! Mobile? Dominates! Desktop? Utter failure!

So you say Linux dominates in server, embedded, and mobile. So remember what the question was - why do you use linux? The three word answer could very well be "Server, Embedded, Mobile".

And if you don't like the linux desktop because you like or use something that isn't supported on it, that is ok too. I don't think that is an utter failure, however. That is more up to the applications than the OS. There is nothing the OS is doing to prevent them from creating a version for linux. Which brings me all the way back to where I said to hold that thought. Do you know WHY apps that are on linux are also on Windows and Mac? Because of the openness, the other freedom mentioned above. It's not ABOUT exclusivity. It's not about cornering market share, or keeping secrets, or patents, or obscurity, or profits, or lock-out, or lock-in, or backroom deals, or crushing the competition.

I use it, and have used it exclusively outside of my job, since 1998. No dual boot, no VM. It does everything I want. I can't say it hasn't been frustrating at times, but I have never ONCE considered going to windows or mac. It meshes well with my brain and how I think. The desktop is great, and I find it much better than any Windows version (even 7)! But I think that the only thing that it is really missing is in the corporate space. That is where I use windows. There's no conspiracy theory there, they became the standard for that by any means necessary. (see those things above that linux is not about) And that's OK. It's fine to me that Windows has the corporate market, it doesn't really bother me. To me, that's work. It's using a few programs, to accomplish a few goals. Obviously linux is capable in that arena, but to be honest, too many people/companies have invested in the Microsoft way to choose another. I understand, it's a big leap to even consider moving away from Windows. That is really the only argument that I see when talking about why linux hasn't conquered the desktop. People use Windows at work, they use it at home. (not to mention when you buy a computer, it has windows on it) But I digress.

My three words as to why I use Linux: Because It's Linux.

Comment Re:Only Logical (and irresponsible) (Score 1) 403

I think it is interesting to see and note. It's data. More data gives you more things to compare. We aren't exactly comparing like for like here. The US is huge. Yet it is compared to European countries, some of which are tiny. Look, we're different. So that we work more is just a data point, and judgement shouldn't be passed down on that data alone. The type of work is relevant as well.

Moreover, how do other places like Japan or China or Australia compare? We likely won't have comparable data, so it makes coming to conclusions more tricky.

I get that this is a simple generalized comparison. Jumping to conclusions based on it is quite irresponsible, IMO.

Comment Agree ... Happy Birthday to my ex (Score 1) 127

I agree. Although for me the downfall wasn't going 'pretty', it was in instability. For almost a year I struggled with a bug where something would cause dbus to inexplicably eat 100% of the CPU and the only way to get out of it was to reboot. I could just restart KDE, but then it would come back. I had my machine on 24/7, and about once a week I would wake up to the cpu having been pegged all night. Sometimes it would happen while I was using it. It was maddening. I posted and searched, and nobody had an answer. I was running Kubuntu at the time, so I tried other things. I fell in love with the simplicity of XFCE and haven't looked back.

OK, I did look back once, but for me the magic was gone.
It was like I went to a bar to meet an ex-girlfriend. I could recall past memories, but it was uncomfortable. She never really supported me, we always had to do things her way. I realized we had just grown apart. I was happy for her, but I too was happier now.

And she wore WAY too much makeup.

Comment Yep...Everyone in our house has one...and more (Score 1) 310

All 3 of my kids (ages 7-11) have a computer. They were all hand-me-downs from friends/family who decided to upgrade. One is an i5, one is a decent dual-core, and the other is I think an i3 laptop. My wife has an i3 laptop. They all run Win7, and run just fine for homework, Minecraft, HumbleBundle games, etc. I have an older intel quad-core that I built probably 6 years ago that runs Mint18XFCE. I have a couple of other older systems that I have been trying to sell for really cheap that nobody wants.

Unless you have specific applications or needs (like gaming), you don't need to upgrade. I run XFCE, which I run because I like it not due to needing 'minimal resources'. There are times I would like some more horsepower (like when ripping/converting DVDs to mp4 for our media server) but for the most part it just runs great. I never get over 1/2 memory use, I have plenty of storage. I even run mine as a media server, it's on 24/7.

I don't see tablets or phones (or even laptops) taking the place of my home computer any time soon.
It's funny because at work I have a new i7 vPro laptop running Win10, and with all the corporate junk on it for scanning and stuff, it runs about as fast as any other work computer I have had. Still with freezes, crashes, etc. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Slashdot Top Deals

New crypt. See /usr/news/crypt.