Back in the day, I worked with Microware's OS-9. The compiled binaries first had to pass inspection before being loaded into memory. If the header information was wrong or if the length or various checksums did not match up, it was rejected as corrupt. I know there are ways to go here and there and everywhere when it comes to getting around security and integrity measures, but it's good to have them in general and it's good when they are verifiable. How nice would it be to have all binaries that are loaded into memory validated in this way. Such binaries tracking systems could be used to verify and validate the presence of executable modules in a system, for example, in some sort of registry system that locks away signatures of executables on a read-only network server somewhere where the OS would refuse to load stuff into memory if, after checking the size and sums of the files, if they don't match the registry query. Once again, I know, not perfect, but better than what DOS/Windows does. This sort of white-list system could only exist if the kernel were designed to inspect and respect the correct binary module format.
Linux IS mainstream even if it's not on many desktops. White-listing executable code and other memory loaded binaries would not be a horrible preventative measure.
A 2 month wait? Big deal.
You already "waited" more than that long just to have it available in cinemas.
Unless something is remarkable, the 2 month wait doesn't concern anybody.
2 months... I remember waiting 3 YEARS for a movie.
2 months is absent minded procrastination.
Mebbe Valenti was right. Home recording devices are the "Boston Strangler".
The detail that Valenti forgot to mention is that the MPAA is an S&M Hooker.
The studios will gladly prostitute themselves even if getting beaten nearly
to death is part of the bargain. They're just that greedy.
Programmers used to batch environments may find it hard to live without giant listings; we would find it hard to use them. -- D.M. Ritchie