It used to be said that if what you are doing is not working, you should change. IDC seems to miss that point in a recent news article:
“The U.S. market will remain depressed until Windows 8 products hit the shelves in the fourth quarter of 2012. The industry is responding by reducing shipments of PCs and clearing Windows 7-based inventories to pave the way for a new generation of systems. But, as we move into the tail end of the third quarter, PC activity will continue to slow as demand drops. The third-quarter back to school season is also proving to be a challenging period, despite prices dropping to their lowest levels. We expect the year will end with shipments in the U.S. falling by 3.7%, marking the second consecutive year of contraction”
Vista was supposed to save the world. Then “7″ was supposed to save the world, remember? Why is “8″ supposed to do that when “7″ and Vista did not? Two years of declining shipments in USA for Wintel PCs? Take a hint!
IDC has no explanation except that it believes the US consumer is “waiting” for “8″. I see no evidence of that. People are buying small cheap computers without M$’s software. People are buying anything but M$’s software licences. I recommend OEMs and retailers begin shipping PCs with Debian GNU/Linux. That might generate some interest, especially if it’s on ARM.
For a chuckle, see IDC Lowers PC Outlook As Shipments Decline In Second Quarter Ahead Of Fall Product Updates – prUS23660312.
17383
12725
207
3
2
23816 
11825 
11676 
4609 
4223 
1641 
198 
14 
2 
0 
0 
0 
Windows 8 will be hailed with bribed reviews, pissed off OEM’s, pissed off developers, a 1:4 ratio of apps, features will be errors and anti-features will be innovations and all the while providing a superior gaming experience on Linux. BTW, in case you missed it Linux turned 21.
Do not get me wrong 8 *looks* good, but lets not forget a famous saying shall we? If you can’t make it good, at least make it look good.
Upcoming problems:
1. Upgrades Won’t Work Well
2. Poor Support For Old Hardware
3. Enterprises Will Be Slow To Adopt or Skip
4. XP and 7 Market Domination
5. Windows 8 Tablet Pricing
6. People Despise Change
7. Locked BIOS Disallow’s Repairs
8. Competition with OEM’s
9. Forcing a Unwanted Interface
10. Too Little Too Late
11. Losing Domination in PC’s
Conclusion:
Windows users waste all their money and computer budget on M$ bugs, malware, insecurity software, and repair services which mandate re-installing Windows.
Also to add into the discussion, Windows 8 has a new featured called Windows SmartScreen, which is turned on by default. Windows SmartScreen’s purpose is to “screen” every single application you try to install from the Internet in order to inform you whether it’s safe to proceed with installing it or not.
This is a very serious privacy problem, specifically because M$ is the central point of authority and data collection/retention here and therefore becomes vulnerable to being served judicial subpoenas or National Security Letters intended to monitor targeted users.
Here’s how SmartScreen works:
You download any application from the Internet. Say, the Tor Browser Bundle.
You open the installer. Windows SmartScreen gathers some identifying information about your application, and sends the data to M$.
If M$ replies saying that the application is not signed with a proper certificate, the user gets an error. Good luck with open-source software, you now need to seek M$ approval.
There are a few serious problems here. The big problem is that Windows 8 is configured to immediately tell M$ about every app you download and install. This is a very serious privacy problem, specifically because M$ is the central point of authority and data collection/retention here and therefore becomes vulnerable to being served judicial subpoenas or National Security Letters intended to monitor targeted users.
This situation is exacerbated when Windows 8 is deployed in countries experiencing political turmoil or repressive political situations.
Here is a write-up on Windows 8 from another blog, interesting take on the mess.
I’ve been enjoying my new Windows 7 installation, trying to figure out why M$ didn’t simply ship Windows 8 with the option to enable a “Windows 7″ mode for desktop users? It just doesn’t seem to make sense. Sure, give people the option to use the Metro touch-based interface on tablets, etc., if they want, but let keyboard, mouse and large display users continue using the desktop as they are accustomed to using it.
Why didn’t M$ do this?
I wonder…
There are tens of millions of Windows XP users out there. Put yourself in M$’s shoes for a moment and think about this: How do you harvest the maximum amount of money from that insanely large pool of people (and sooner, rather than later)?
Did M$ just stupidly try to fix something that wasn’t broken and wind up breaking it really badly in the process?
Is it that simple?
That is roughly how the conventional wisdom goes in trying to understand the Windows 8 debacle.
Or, is M$ going to make billions of dollars from masses of XP users who are so afraid of how crappy Windows 8 is that they will pay to get into the Windows 7 lifeboat before the Windows 8 ship sinks? XP users can pay in the form of buying standalone copies of Windows 7 or by buying new computers, with Windows 7 already installed.
I was one of those XP holdouts, and I handed over my money to get into the Windows 7 lifeboat. I’m not the only one. I’ve noticed dealers in New Zealand showing no stock of OEM and full retail copies of Windows 7 recently.
While I’m not sure that M$ premeditated this scheme, here’s how we’ll know if they did:
At some point after Windows 8 ships, and fur is flying over how bad it is for keyboard/mouse/large display users, and people have bought Windows 7 in droves to avoid Windows 8, M$ pushes out an update that, with a click or two, enables a “Windows 7″ mode for anyone who wants it on Windows 8. No convoluted workarounds. No apps to try to restore what people already had with Windows 7. The “Start” button comes back. Just like that, Windows 8 doesn’t suck anymore.
Now, if M$ had done that from the beginning with Windows 8, would they have gotten my money? Nope. Not anytime soon, anyway.
Like millions of other contented XP users, I would have continued using XP for a couple of more years, but because Windows 8 represents such a dark spot on the horizon, I jumped into Windows 7 now, while I could, partially out of fear of how bad Windows 8 is.
Just because it looks like this, doesn’t mean it is, but the fact is that they got my money two years earlier than I wanted to give it to them… is very interesting.
My guess is that, after a lot of XP users have been frightened into shelling out for Windows 7 over the next several months, look for M$ to send a “Windows 7″ mode down the pipe for Windows 8.
Mission accomplished.
I’d like to think that this whole debacle will convince more people to use Linux, and I’m sure it will, but only in trivial numbers. Apple might pick up a few more users. The vast majority of XP users, though, will probably just pay, like I paid, in order to keep using their applications in a manner that’s familiar to them—and sooner rather than later. While the peanut gallery rants and raves and blogs and YouTubes and Facebooks about M$’s apparent stupidity with regard to Windows 8, who’s going to make the most money as a result of this?
M$.
dougman wrote, “XP and 7 Market Domination”.
It appears some retailers and OEMs are already emptying the channels of “7″. Wintel will try to fly on “8″ alone. Vista is not yet officially dead yet you don’t see many PCs of that flavour on retail shelves… Walmart.com has 4 hits for Vista, none of them PCs. Wintel’s deluded explanation for the slowdown in sales is that folks are waiting for “8″. Boy, will they be surprised.
I think what is happening is that retailers are being told how wonderful “8″ is by M$’s salesmen and women that retailers are planning the demise of “7″ ASAP so the downturn will be gone. They are killing the cash-cow. Expect another year of sluggish sales of PCs not running */Linux.
Windows 8 will fail, too much negativity already focused on it. To me, Metro is a cross between DOS and Windows 3. It’s unattractive, clumsy, and forces useless icons in my face.
Some of the things that should be changed in 8, but wont be:
- Default to the desktop upon boot
- Allow tiles to be grouped
- Limit the number of tiles
- Enable Windows on ARM to join a domain
- Bring Back the Start Button, or an equivalent
I get asked about Windows 7 now and then, and especially with XP expiring in two-years. I basically ask people “Why do you feel that you need Windows?”
Some do not understand the question, others think that’s the only option that they have. A few will spout off, “I do not like Apple!” or that they need it for games. I respond with, “True, Windows is built for the popular games, but that’s soon changing and we use Linux to get work done, while not having to worry about malware”
Customer’s are always interested after I mention that and I let them log onto a demo Ubuntu or Linux Mint machine remotely and let them play with it to feel it out. After they see everything they become interested, and I offer them a machine on a trial basis to use, with no obligation. To date, I have never really received any complaints, however the ‘REAL’ complaints arrive when I mention the word ‘malware’.
Customer start rambling on about all the problems that they had, et cetera. I set back and listen, then ask “What problems have you had with Windows?” and out it comes.
- Reboots
- System crashes,
- Viruses, malware
- Backups not working, fixed with DriveXML and an external hard drive.
- Computer acting or being slow, fixed by not using IE and use Chrome and changing the DNS
- Vista upgrades wont finish or just stop
- DVD drives not being found
- AERO not running
- Aero Snap irritations
- iPhone won’t sync in Windows 7
- Windows 7 themes change your custom icons
- Taskbar problems
- Missing Explorer folders
- Missing applets
- Printer problems
- Hidden extensions, this is a great way to be attacked by a virus. Fix by going to Explorer and clicking Tools > Folder Options > View. Simply uncheck the box next to ”Hide extensions for known file types” to show file extensions and you are good to go.
- DVD audio issues
- Windows Live Moviemaker doesn’t work
- XP Mode doesn’t work
- Windows Media Center doesn’t autoplay
- Can’t disable hibernation, fixed by powercfg /hibernate off
- Poor video quality
- Missing software explorer
The problem is that M$ Windows has a lot of problems. So much so that it keeps me busy with work ad infinitum.
Today, I read this: Attackers have seized upon a previously unknown security hole in Oracle’s ubiquitous Java software to break into vulnerable systems. So far, the attacks exploiting this weakness have been targeted and not widespread, but it appears that the exploit code is now public and is being folded into more widely-available attack tools such as Metasploit and exploit kits like BlackHole.
Oracle has moved Java to a quarterly patch cycle, and its next update is not scheduled until late October. In the meantime, it’s a good idea to either unplug Java from your browser or uninstall it from your computer completely.
Makes one wonder.
I think what is happening …
As far removed from reality as you are, Mr. Pogson, it is surprising that you continue to prognosticate about the future. Windows 8 is the next release of Windows and will take essentially 100% of the Windows computer business within a very few weeks of its introduction. Any machines sold with Windows 7 will be simply close outs of old stock and everyone will be talking about Windows 8 and whether they love it or hate it.
No one will be talking about Linux other than the same old dweeb groups such as your own where the same discussions were held about XP and then Vista and then Windows 7. The results will be the same and will be repeated in a few years when Windows 9 is on the verge of release. That is the fate of such products that are marching to the tune of the product life cycle and management grid theories that apply to such products.
I get asked about Windows 7 now and then, and especially with XP expiring in two-years. I basically ask people “Why do you feel that you need Windows?”
I think a better question would be, “Why do you feel that you need dougman?”
This is like going to a lawyer and asking if you need a lawyer. Of course he/she is going to say you need one!
But since this is dougman we are talking about here, we are going to expect some extra sales pitches like:
- “What you need to deal with malware is Linux, not better administrative practices.”
- “You can get everything you will ever need for free!”
- “90 days are all you need to evaluate all the protential problems and long-term impact from your installations.”
- “Of course I know exactly what you are going to need or expect several years into the future!”
- “Trust me – as long as you come back to me every time you need a new printer, web cam or whatever, Linux will work just fine for you!”
- “I guarantee you all the problems you are facing are in fact one big conspiracy perpetrated by Steve Ballmer and not the result of your IT staff being either absolute slackers or abject morons.”
- “This performance issue is absolutely real and I have exactly zero piece of concrete data to show you how you can make it all go away with Linux!”
- “Did you know that Linux servers never have any exploitable vulnerabilities even though kiddies around the world always manage to somehow show their handy work all over the place?”
- “Did I also mention that Linux servers never crash or hang?”
One man, one live CD, and all the world’s ills gone in a flash… Or GNU Gnash.
dougman wrote, “Why do you feel that you need Windows?”
Good one! I have met all kinds of people who complain “their computer” fails to boot, or slows down but I never thought to ask that question. Many users of PCs seem to think that other OS is a natural part of the PC and it cannot be used without that other OS. I have met people who thought it was wrong to overwrite that other OS. I usually respond with a demonstration rather than a question. A decade ago, it was almost impossible to engage people in such dialogues. Now it is easy because they have seen hundreds of small cheap computers doing magic with no help from Wintel.
Brillo Linux systems in server rooms are normally clustered so if one does crash or hang its watchdog will sort it out.
NTP is just one of the common cross points where a good old watchdog hardware is not good enough to keep on top of it since most update at the same time resulting in all being effected at the same time. Other thing is the NTP exploit can only happen 1 per month with leap seconds.
By the way you can have a lot more fun with windows networks by inserting a bogus clock updates. If server and client in windows is out of time alignment users cannot login.
Brillo
“Did you know that Linux servers never have any exploitable vulnerabilities even though kiddies around the world always manage to somehow show their handy work all over the place?”
There is an answer. There is a lot of poorly managed Linux servers running with there Mandatory Access Control systems off and other mitigation off. So are open to be exploited. Linux is making more migration features not require Linux security module. Like most people don’t know you can selinux track from packet entering the server to where it enters httpd to where it enters the database. Servers set up like this resist a stack of different attacks but are not common.
3.6 linux coming out will add a do not follow links option for like the /tmp directory that does not require Mandatory Access Control so closing a stack of flaws that were prior closed by setting mandatory access control up and turning them on. Same with systemd and cgroups. /tmp under most Linux distributions is already mounted no execute so attackers had to link else where to execute. Attacking temp files under windows is still a valid way to gain privilege.
We are seeing Linux evolve to a point where Mandatory Access Controls on or off will not make as big of a security difference. Yes you can still swap a .exe in a shared temp directory on windows and have a different user run your program so get there account. All services on windows have a common temp directory. There is a Linux difference distributions running systemd each service can have there own tmp directory only for them.
Linux is not magic. Problem Exists Between Keyboard and Chair applies to Linux just as much as anything else. Note I don’t say Linux does not have exploitable vulnerabilities. Most reported vulnerabilities should not work against Linux servers if they are correctly managed.
Thing is with the new features less correct management of Linux is required for it to be resistant. /tmp has been the most common way to get privilege under a Linux or Unix system with its Mandatory Access Control off.
So if you are a company hit by one of the ones that should not work your IT department should be getting a please explain. Yes some cases are staff being incompetent and not understanding how to use Linux on the options out there.
Brillo
–“Trust me – as long as you come back to me every time you need a new printer, web cam or whatever, Linux will work just fine for you!”–
Windows upgrade windows throw away sections of your old hardware because it don’t work any more. Linux once it supported the hardware is supported for a very long time.
There are a lot of printers out there like HP Samsung Brother that just work perfectly fine with Linux. They also turn out to be the ones with long term stable drivers for Windows. Printers is about the quality of printers you buy. Good quality printers work with Linux and also are the ones you don’t threw in bin just because you upgraded Windows.
Brillo
–What you need to deal with malware is Linux, not better administrative practices.–
I have told you before that Windows is missing mitigation features. This makes it impossible todo better administrative practices to fully get on top of the problem.
I don’t say Linux is the only solution. Trusted BSD and Solaris are also solutions when you want to be free of malware headaches. Interesting enough these mandatory access controls are based on selinux and flask.
Even dealing with malware on Linux required administrator to take these frameworks serous-ally.
Brillo basically there are a lot of features Linux and other OS’s have implemented we should be demanding MS provides. Temp directory per Service, No executables in temp directory’s, Working Mandatory Access Controls. The list goes on and on and on. It would be nice to see some of this stuff land. If it did the number of viruses out there would reduce. A virus that cannot replicate dies. That is the other major thing viruses on Linux commonly do die out.
Brillo really as soon as you start talking Nuts and Bolts of the security frameworks in Windows vs Linux vs OS X vs Solaris… Windows always comes out as the one lacking the most.
Linux historically has always come out as one of the hardest to have everything set right because it has so many mitigation options. At least now turning off mandatory access control mitigation on Linux is coming to the point it not like walking around as naked as Windows. This is the problem Linux security is evolving to more and more resistant with less and less administrator actions required to have resistance. systemd using cgroups and seccomp filter controls what folders a service or user can access as well as what system calls to kernel they can use. This remains even if Linux Mandatory Access Control is disabled. So attackers surface area to get into a Linux system is still reducing.
Linux does not have perfect security yet. Linux is closer to perfect security than Windows. Linux has to work on the user-friendly/unfriendly side of it security. Mostly to make it impossible for lazy administrators to turn it off. So it only ever partly turned off so there is always some resistance.
Yes the default resistance we are seeing Linux grow.
“Windows always comes out as the one lacking the most.”
And in the end it doesn’t matter, because it has applications that people wish to use, so the risks are quantified and mitigated and we all go on from there.
And you know it, Hamster!
oldman
“And in the end it doesn’t matter, because it has applications that people wish to use, so the risks are quantified and mitigated and we all go on from there.”
Really stop lying to yourself. The risks are quantified yes with Windows. Lot are lived with under Windows as acceptable risk.
Acceptable risk is not mitigated oldman. Mitigated means the attack will fail because that attack vector is true blocked.
Virtual machine instances are not Mitigation just surface reduction.
Windows security is poor this is the truth. People are choosing to run the gauntlet at this stage to get access to applications.
Only a incompetent person does not know the difference between Mitigation and Acceptable risk. Really you should know better oldman.
You will find if you do your assessment properly you are either doing surface reduction or/and acceptable risk with windows. Not that much on mitigation.
Linux, Solaris and other Trusted you are doing proper mitigation of problems so shutting down attack vectors.
Oldman basically be truthful about what you are doing on Windows. Lying does not help security one bit. Its a virtual machine instance that is cleared forever user is not Mitigation.
Since the attack flaw is still that flaw could be used to bring a payload in that happens to be able to break out of the virtualisation. This is why virtualisation is not Mitigation. It is still attack surface reduction but its has not cured the problem.
There is no point lying about security Oldman.
My… This is going to be more boring to read than Battlefield Earth.
NTP is just one of the common cross points where a good old watchdog hardware is not good enough to keep on top of it since most update at the same time resulting in all being effected at the same time. Other thing is the NTP exploit can only happen 1 per month with leap seconds.
1) A leap second doesn’t happen on a regular basis as the earth’s rotation never slows down (if at all) in a predictable fashion.
2) A leap second notification can be falsified just as much as an NTP server can be faked or an NTP server pool can be poisoned. Also, there is only one leap second for 2012.
By the way you can have a lot more fun with windows networks by inserting a bogus clock updates.
Again, do I need to read some long-drawn recount of some fictitous exploits that no one can reproduce? If so, then save your breath because I am not going read any of it.
There is an answer. There is a lot of poorly managed Linux servers running with there Mandatory Access Control systems off and other mitigation off.
Shouting “mandatory access control” over and over does not make you a security expert. Your understanding of computer systems security., as rightly pointed out by the creator of AppArmor, is practically zilch. There is honestly nothing I need to add to this obvious delusion of yours, but if the belief that a rudimentary sandbox is sufficient to keep applications and services at bay helps you sleep better at night, then by all means stick to it.
I don’t say Linux is the only solution. Trusted BSD and Solaris are also solutions when you want to be free of malware headaches.
As an experienced Solaris user myself, I have seriously doubts about you knowing what “Trusted Solaris” really is.
Brillo basically there are a lot of features Linux and other OS’s have implemented we should be demanding MS provides.
Maybe, but I don’t really a person with a long history of playing the boy in “The Boy Who Cried Wolf” to have a useful answer to offer.
Linux historically has always come out as one of the hardest to have everything set right because it has so many mitigation options.
“Mitigation options” are useless if:
1) the underlying problems are left unfixed or
2) you cannot integrate them properly to the rest of the system.
SELinux is just one of the many things that look good on paper but fall apart as soon as they enter real-life scenarios, but don’t give up shouting about it from the rooftops just yet, my dear science fiction writer. People like myself still need to see the light, after all.
Brillo “1) A leap second doesn’t happen on a regular basis as the earth’s rotation never slows down (if at all) in a predictable fashion.”
Talking about earth rotation means you know nothing of NTP protocal and international time standards since earth rotation has nothing todo with when a leap second can be applied. NTP protocal go read the section on when leap seconds are allowed.
http://www.eecis.udel.edu/~mills/leap.html
The reality says very clearly we don’t correct for leap seconds mid month. So for a month you might be a second or two out and that is not important.
“2) A leap second notification can be falsified just as much as an NTP server can be faked or an NTP server pool can be poisoned. Also, there is only one leap second for 2012.”
Any leap second message that happens not at the end of a month NTP clients automatically reject. There is no exception. Because 60 seconds as a value is only allowed end of month any other time in the month the server you have requested time from is malfunctioning and will be disregarded by client.
So there is another 3 days until attack can be attempted again. Then after that a 30 day delay before it can be attempted again. Simple a leap second attack has very limited windows when it can be done. So there is a max limit of 12 attacks per year. You might say you could speed up a NTP server. This does not work against servers that check against more than one NTP server. So altering alignment of clock of a single NTP is not possible attack against correctly configured servers since any NTP server too far out will be declared in error. Since you have to alter all the clocks the servers is checking against. So the attack windows is highly restricted. NTP checking against multi source servers was include to prior issues with NTP servers and bad ram. Hey this server 20 years into the future kinds of problems. Yes that did happen when servers were using single NTP servers.
The max count of 12 per year for leap second attack against NTP mostly could be reduced to 2 since all history leap second corrections have happens either December/jan or jun/july. Some implementations will not accept leap seconds any other time. The default Linux NTP client can be set to reject leap-seconds. In fact setting Linux NTP client to reject leap-seconds is setting it the same as Windows does.
Windows pretends leap seconds never happened a leap second packet is rejected as invalid so you end up with the first second of the month lasting 2 seconds yes this in itself can cause some interesting problems. Hey windows just speed up massive nop it was a leap second and it reporting 2 seconds processing as 1 second. Worst is if windows is load balancing yes O F I have a lot load lets send it off to other servers can all happen at the same instance due to how Windows handles leap seconds so it thinks it got massive load when load is normal.
So yes leap seconds can cause Windows networks to have issues as well. Linux just has had a scale worse.
http://googleblog.blogspot.com.au/2011/09/time-technology-and-leaping-seconds.html
Google back in 2011 made a NTP server for Linux that does not suffer from the leap second issue. But google is careful to expand the time of second my minor amounts so the system does not respond with shock horror like Windows systems do.
Leap seconds are head aches for many OS’s causing interesting headaches.
Brillo
“SELinux is just one of the many things that look good on paper but fall apart as soon as they enter real-life scenarios.”
Reality SELinux has worked in real-life scenarios and stopped a lot of attacks dead.
Linux is still evolving its solutions to security.
Doing security properly has never been simple.
“1) the underlying problems are left unfixed”
Not exactly true. If its true mitigation the unfixed issue is unworkable for attack. This is like cured of cancer compared to prevention of cancer. One is less painful. Prevention is nicer fix the binary is nicer. If you cannot fix the binary attacking it other ways to stop the problem is the path you have to use.
Brillo
“2) you cannot integrate them properly to the rest of the system.”
Reality you can integrate them properly to the rest of system but the job is not simple. So a lot of administrators don’t do it. Basically you just stated the excuse for not doing security properly.
Brillo
“AppArmor, is practically zilch”
If you go back 6 months prior you find out that Apparmor developer was out to discredit me because I had blocked Apparmor from going main-line. So personally attack me attempt to discredit me avoid having to fix issue in Apparmor for why it could not go mainline. Some people statements are bias. He even says it latter to Linus. Who tells him bluntly that my creditability has nothing todo with it. A fault is a fault.
I do know security. Some of the designs I do are sometimes ahead of there time. I have had to wait for pig headed people to see the error of their ways.
I was pushing for cgroups to be used in a more dominate form. It has taken 10 years.
Brillo by the way cgroups/zones function and mandatory Access Control overlap. Windows lacks something like cgroups/zones as well.
Brillo
“if the belief that a rudimentary sandbox is sufficient to keep applications and services at bay helps you sleep better at night, then by all means stick to it.”
Really its surprising how many attacks are made not function by a sand-boxing. Like that apachectl one.
Since a sandbox around apachectl will not allow it to interact with users own directories or other tamper-able locations the that attack cannot function. Lots and lots and lots of attacks simple are killed dead if you can do per application sandboxing using like any of MAC, Cgroup, Jails or Zones. We are talking over 80 percent of all privilege exploits that are stop able. Most of these privilege exploits only happen because items on different privilege levels can interact with each other. Sandbox your privilege levels limiting interaction between privilege levels makes doing a privilege exploit massively harder. Not impossible since their has to be some overlap but the area of overlap of privilege is smaller so attackers have to work harder.
Windows lacks any formal way to do proper sand-boxing on services. Linux has croups and mandatory access control. For user accounts you again have two. Solaris you have zones and mandatory access control. BSD you have Jails and Mandatory access control.
The simple reality is if OS’s where securely configured most of the items listed on cve would not work as attack vectors.
As you say rudimentary sandbox that can be applied where required something so simple missing is one of the big causes why we have a virus plague on windows Brillo. We are not talking a complex piece missing. It just happens to be a key piece. Its like trying to build a stone arch with the a keystone missing. Since that key piece is missing Windows security keeps on failing just like you cannot assemble a stone arch if the keystone is missing.
Most security is simple and straight forwards ideas. Issue is don’t do them have large problems.
I am not going to say doing this will stop all attack vectors. Reduction of attack vectors would help a lot. Apache 1.3 is a interesting one that for a long time every attack vector failed once sandboxed. Normally you get like 3 to 6 months of sandbox being mitigation before something turns up that cannot be sandbox cured and you have to update.
Brillo cgroups in systemd when used correct also to neutralise quite a few exploits. Like systemd exclusive tmp directory option per service. Systemd means to declare a service local network only. Systemd means to isolate X11 network chat to local and to a assigned user.
Lot of this simple sandboxing reduces the number of attack vectors that are possible.
Windows simple lacks sandboxing either in the form of a fully functional mandatory access control system or a fully functional item like cgroup. So you cannot harden it.
Brillo when you know the issue is lack of sandboxing you come aware how simple it is to cure. Lets say for Windows 9 decides that all services are in there own sandbox with there own session so they cannot interact with other services or user data unless approved todo so. The number of ways to attack a windows system would drop.
“Only a incompetent person does not know the difference between Mitigation and Acceptable risk. Really you should know better oldman.”
And only a bloviatng jerk like you would assume that a) I dont know the difference, and b) that I care about your opinion.
I am quite aware of the difference between mitigation , The difference is that I don’t have the luxury the security “issues” with windows as being a deal killer for using windows. Any enterprise application inour shop goes through security review, at the end of which there is an assessment of issues that is presented to the vendor for remediation. In many cases the vendor does remediate. When they can’t or wont, the results are presented to management along with the risks and then management discusses the issues with the stakeholders.
I have participated in quite a few security reviews where an application is rejected because of some critical security flaw. But I have also been a party to security reviews where after being presented with the risks and suggested mitigations, the risk was accepted by management and the customer, then the application gets implemented.
That was the point of my aside – That in the end it is the application stake holder and management that makes the final decision. The abstract relative security of a given component, while being a factor is not the only factor. You repeated absolute pronouncements are ultimately baloney, because you will not just get to dump windows or any app because you have decided that its “fundamental security structure” is “fatally flawed”.
It doesnt work that way in the real world Hamster, so stop trying to make out like it does.
@ Clarence Moon
Wow! talking about prognostication or whatever you wish to call it,
but your statement …….
“Windows 8 is the next release of Windows and will take essentially 100% of the Windows computer business within a very few weeks of its introduction.”
Care to tell us what you base this prediction on. ?
“I do know security. Some of the designs I do are sometimes ahead of there time. I have had to wait for pig headed people to see the error of their ways.”
The problem is Hamster, that you are a nameless nym. All we can see of your credentials are the reams of text that you post.
As far as your designs are concerned, we have really nothing but your assertions that they exist. For all we know you are just some itinerant construction jobber attached to an IT facilities group with Walter Mitty like dreams.
As I have said many time Hamster, get over yourself.
If you go back 6 months prior you find out that Apparmor developer was out to discredit me because I had blocked Apparmor from going main-line.
And I am Lord Xenu.
Seriously, take your med, Peter Dolding.
The problem is Hamster, that you are a nameless nym. All we can see of your credentials are the reams of text that you post.
I think what’s really staggering is that somehow oiaohm manages to take this made-up credential thing to the next level and fabricate all kinds of nonexistent events, operating system mechanics and experiences all in a daring (yet foolish) attempt to impress his audience. It’s as if he had thoroughly convinced himself that his act was flawless and no one on earth could possibly see through his guise. You can’t possibly entertain yourself with an idea this stupid unless your mind has all of the sudden completely lost the ability to give a damn and starts spiraling into a morass of hubris and delirium.
As far as your designs are concerned, we have really nothing but your assertions that they exist.
Be careful of what you say lest our resident “expert” in mandatory access control starts bombarding you with 1000-word essays containing nothing more than web links of dubious relevance and paragraphs after paragraphs of total gibberish.
Maybe he sees that as some sort of attrition warfare – I don’t know, but you certainly don’t want to end up with a few screws loose like he is.
Be careful of what you say lest our resident “expert” in mandatory access control starts bombarding you with 1000-word essays containing nothing more than web links of dubious relevance and paragraphs after paragraphs of total gibberish.
That is exactly the reason I simply choose to ignore him. Or pick only a single flawed piece in his gibberish, if I feel in a particularly good mood.
“You can’t possibly entertain yourself with an idea this stupid”
I agree that what you write about him seems quite likely – but somhow I have this feeling that maybe he is actually enjoying this and finds it very entertaining. Either way, he’s the weirdest bird in this cage
oldman wrote, “I have participated in quite a few security reviews where an application is rejected because of some critical security flaw. But I have also been a party to security reviews where after being presented with the risks and suggested mitigations, the risk was accepted by management and the customer, then the application gets implemented.”
It’s good to see oldman come down from his high horse occasionally to admit non-FREE software is flawed and there’s little he can do about it. Imagine how different the decision tree would be for FLOSS.
oiaohm wrote, “Lets say for Windows 9 decides that all services are in there own sandbox with there own session so they cannot interact with other services or user data unless approved todo so. The number of ways to attack a windows system would drop.”
Amen. The complexity of that other OS is a killer of security and it has been getting worse for a long time. Much of the real work M$ has done on security recently is just rearranging deck chairs and applying a fresh coat of paint. The real issues are not superficial. OTOH, GNU/Linux had a decent beginning which is still usable even in the present environment of threats.
“Imagine how different the decision tree would be for FLOSS.”
OK, let’s imagine.
Closed-source developer: “Application has potential security problem. Workaround exists. Fixing the problem would cost $xyz.”
Company: “Too expensive, let’s go with the workaround.”
FLOSS developer paid by a company: “Application has potential security problem. Workaround exists. Fixing the problem would cost $xyz.”
Company: “Too expensive, let’s go with the workaround.”
FLOSS developer with no-one paying: “Application has potential security problem. Workaround exists. I could fix it, but I’d rather work on this cool new feature than waste my time on this boring stuff.”
You: “But I want it fixed!”
Developer: “Won’t fix – do it yourself!”
Yeah, with a little bit of imagination I can see the huge advantage of FLOSS
The complexity of that other OS is a killer of security and it has been getting worse for a long time.
You know, Pogson, in Windows, there is something called “application interoperability”.
This is a very interesting feature, which enables application to integrate with each other and extend each other using a well-documented API. Developers actively use this feature to reuse other’s people work, and add value to existing products, and ultimately offer better solutions.
This is something that simply does not exist in Linux.
Alas, application interoperability always leads to weakened security. Always. But, Pogson, in real world security is not the ultimate goal. The ultimate goal is increased productivity, and security can be improved with certain instruments which Windows does have, but you obviously do not know well enough to use.
“The complexity of that other OS”
Chuckle. Haven’t you realized that Mr O’s “solution” would result in something way more complex?
Some comedy gold…
Oiaohm sez:
“Talking about earth rotation means you know nothing of NTP protocal and international time standards since earth rotation has nothing todo with when a leap second can be applied.”
This statement so directly flies in the face of established definitions of UTC and UT1 you can’t possibly just make it up even if you try.
Phil “Bad Astronomer” Plait has a very excellent explanation of DUT1 if anyone is interested. The short story is that, yes, UT1 is strictly based on the earth’s rotation, and, yes, empirical data do show that the earth’s rotation has slowed down (overall) at an irregular rate (due to tidal forces and so forth) since 1st Jan, 1972 UTC. Hence, it’s only reasonable to expect that a leap second insertion comes only in short notice (which the network time protocol itself allows for, by the way).
I guess pretend Russian cosmonauts are just not that good at understanding all that stuff.
Oiaohm sez:
Any leap second message that happens not at the end of a month NTP clients automatically reject. There is no exception. Because 60 seconds as a value is only allowed end of month any other time in the month the server you have requested time from is malfunctioning and will be disregarded by client.
Again, I am impressed with the effort invested into fabricating this bit of nonsense.
Leap second notication in NTP is achieved with a 2-bit leap indicator (LI) in the data packet. The protocol itself, in all incarnations, does not stipulate the behavior upon receiving an LI value of 01b (insert a second) or 10b (delete a second). ntp.org, in fact, has this to say about leap-second handling in the reference implementation of ntpd:
We know Linux has the header to support kernel discipline, and we also know the reason for the leap second debacle was due to the kernel devs messing up their own code. All that “NTP clients automatically reject” is nothing more than pure bushwah that corresponds to not a single thing in reality.
There is arm-waving, and there is oiaohm’s one-man circus.
BTW: “If You Pound Your Head Against a Wall for Two Years and Nothing Happens, Why Continue?”
Coming from someone who has lovingly pounded his head against all available walls for almost ten years with very little happening in return, that’s truely ironic.
My comment is “awaiting moderation” again. Hmmm…
Robert Pogson wrote:
“Many users of PCs seem to think that other OS is a natural part of the PC and it cannot be used without that other OS.”
There was a guy on a ZiffDavis comment section years ago who thought that Linux ran on top of Windows like an application. He could not accept the fact that Linux did not run on top of Windows. He said, “Just wait until the next version of Windows, Microsoft will fix it so Linux can’t run.”. Even the hard-core Microsoft guys were trying to set him straight. He just couldn’t get it.
We thought he might have been putting us on but the way he came on with his ideas seemed genuine and sincere. “Some minds are like cement, all mixed up and firmly set”.
Phenom
“Alas, application interoperability always leads to weakened security. Always.”
In fact completely bogus statement. BSD, AIX and Solaris line proves this as bogus. Linux has the worst backwards compatibility with distributions. BSD, AIX and Solaris are in Windows level and better backward compatibility.
How does it not cause major security issue for BSD, AIX and Solaris but it causes problems with Windows. Backwards compatibility is done from inside there respective sand-boxing with AIX, Solaris and BSD. WPAR, Zones and Jails. So the weakness is limited to the old applications you are running and cannot spread simply to the rest of system.
Then BSD, AIX and Solaris have Mandatory access control you can place over the top of the old applications as well.
BSD in some ways makes Linux look friendly. BSD changes syscalls between versions so how can it have compatibility. All syscalls can be different between version. Simple a jail environment that allows emulation of even other platforms syscalls.
A framework to allow interception and possible redirection of syscalls to other syscalls only recently got added to Linux. Its one of the missing features from the other Unix/BSD OS’s Linux has lacked.
Phenom Linux is a lot of ways is late coming to the party with backwards binary compatibility. Distributions of Linux have not focused on it. Nothing about having backwards compatibility requires having completely suxing security.
What is the main advantage to the solution BSD, Solaris and AIX does. New programs cannot call old deprecated API’s/ABI’s without being placed in the correct containment. Yes not updating your application its in your face what applications are using old ABI/API’s.
The question is always how it done. Do application interoperability one way turn you system to swiss cheese do it a different way and the security risk is quite minor. Microsoft choose the Swiss cheese method. Other platforms have chosen methods that work. Linux is still really to choose a method and lock it in fully. Linux feature development is on the path of best possible security with backwards compatibility just its not there yet.
Phenom this is why people like you run into walls with arguments. Computer history we have tried lots and lots of things. Some work well, some don’t. History tells us what works. Most of current day security design is not reinvent wheel but look at history of other OS’s and results of what they did and decide if you should or should not implement that.
oldman number 12 you do admit the truth. What you are doing is not mitigation all the time. But acceptable risk. Parties that choose FOSS for security don’t take a vendors no as a solution.
Acceptable risk is different to mitigation. Once you start calling acceptable risk mitigation oldman you are on a slippery side to major error.
“And only a bloviatng jerk like you would assume that a) I dont know the difference, and b) that I care about your opinion.”
Really read your number 8 post. You come out making out that you are not doing acceptable risk. Basically how dare you think you could get away with a stunt claiming you mitigate everything. Really you should never have tried to get post 8 past oldman.
“Oldman basically be truthful about what you are doing on Windows.”
This what I was calling you out on. Yes in post 12 you proved you were lying. Reality here you should never ever think of getting such a basic lie as you did in post 8 past anyone Oldman because you should be balled out over it.
By the way my Nym is not nameless Oldman. Others can find my real name. I just don’t give you everything on a silver platter that is all.
Yes ch parties that use FOSS include military where no cannot be an option. So paying developers to fix is the solution. Reason with FOSS is simpler to fix the code than be remembering to apply the workaround on every install. Workarounds with FOSS are mostly used when a FOSS program is end of life.
“Really read your number 8 post. You come out making out that you are not doing acceptable risk”
Lets take a look at what I actually wrote
And in the end it doesn’t matter, because it has applications that people wish to use, so the risks are quantified and mitigated and we all go on from there.
And you know it, Hamster
Remember you had been going on at length on security. Remember also that the tenor of your bloviating spiels is a attempt to kill windows as a platform by pointing out its “fundamental” security weaknesses.
The above post was meant to cut to the chase and remind you that you are not the final authority on the security of any system in your charge, your management and their stakeholders are and that Whether you like it or not you will get to deal with implementing the system your management tells you to, period.
Anything else you ascribed in my post is purely a figment of your own IMHO warped and hateful mind.
Oh and BTW the babble that you directed in my direction does not constitute calling anyone out. It is nothing more or less than an expression of opinion…
NOTHING MORE!
And it means exactly zippo to me.
“By the way my Nym is not nameless Oldman. Others can find my real name. I just don’t give you everything on a silver platter that is all. ”
AN interesting way of putting it…. makes one wonder if you are hiding something sir, such as the fact that you arent as big a sh-t as you make yourself out to be, eh?
Mr. O you are in the end being bitten by one of the problems posting with a nyms, which is that in the end you can simply be dismissed out of hand, especially if as in your case, you go out of your way to make yourself seem the expert on everything and put down people in the most obnoxious manner possible.
At this point sir if you want to be taken seriously by those on the other side of the debate, you are going to have to handing it to us on that silver platter, just like Pog does when he relates his experiences teaching, and take your lumps accordingly.
Until then you remain nameless and will be treated as such. And your posts will be treated as the bloviating bushwah that they seem.
By the way my Nym is not nameless Oldman. Others can find my real name. I just don’t give you everything on a silver platter that is all.
Peter, I ain’t sure if you are aware of the problem, but with Google and all that, neither your handle nor your real name has thus far done anything favor towards your supposed credentials. For a start, there is no ambiguity in that you are not in charge (i.e. not a maintainer) of any part of the Linux Kernel. In fact, you are pretty much a no-name in any *nix circles saving the minor annoyances you have generated over the Internet. Unlike Crispin Cowan or any other prominent figure you have tried to discredit, you also have produced not a single thing – not even a conference paper – that can be in any way credited to you. All those exchanges you have with all those figures you supposedly associate with (e.g. Linus Torvalds) are simply nowhere to be found on the Internet (compare that to the stimulating convo you had with Cowan on LKML). You know why I repeatedly made references to L. Ron Hubbard? That’s because he tried pulling exactly the same stunt (and like you, without caring the slightest about internal consistency) and got caught for it. Like dear Mr. Hubbard, you are a fraud, and the next time you try to wave around your phoney credentials, just do yourself a favor and remember nosy individuals like myself.
Or maybe you can start a religion out of your non-existent, yet prestigeous security “expert” position? I don’t know.
“Like dear Mr. Hubbard, you are a fraud, and the next time you try to wave around your phoney credentials, just do yourself a favor and remember nosy individuals like myself.”
My deal Mr. B, I think that you are far too harsh on the Hamster.
I am sure that he fixes fences very well…
Brillo and maybe there is a reason why you find nothing else. You have all noted that my written english is poor.
–you also have produced not a single thing – not even a conference paper – that can be in any way credited to you–
This is why I am hard lock down. Everything you are looking for requires written english that I cannot produce alone in quality. Guess what its not published under my name because publisher thinks my normal english quality would discourage sales. Yes I have done white papers yes I have a pen name that is me after editor. This is not unique.
Very few predominate people in the Linux world do I have issues with. Crispin Cowan is one of the rare accept-ions. Crispin Cowan discredited himself with repeated rejections to be included mainline with his own LSM module. There is one LSM maintainer who did have a crack at me over what I was suggesting no where near as negative as Crispin Cowan was also that LSM maintainer never had lasting rejection problems.
Some maintainers of Linux are less trusted than others. You just happened to pick on of the less trusted ones.
By the way there is one maintainer in that chat that is worth listening to. Casey Schaufler. Why he got Apparmor mainline once he took over lead of Apparmor from Crispin Cowan by addressing the problems that Linus and others had stated to Crispin Cowan repeatedly. Crispin Cowan is pig head enough to disregard the project lead of the Linux kernel.
Basically if you had pulled Casey Schaufler on me I would not have disputed same with many other Linux Maintainers. There are less than 6 linux maintainers that have discredited themselves Brillo. You successfully selected a person by one.
http://marc.info/?l=apparmor-dev&m=119532738313640&w=2
Notice he directly disagrees with sections of Crispin Cowan’s statements. Read Casey Schaufler carefully.
Notice a lot of Crispin Cowans arguments are void.
Casey Schaufler
“Sounds like a conflict in requirements.”
This gets the problem exactly right. Cgroups and LSM directly conflict with each other in requirements of what each needs todo. Kernel developers are now building cgroup features into core kernel even in ways that cgroups can never be fully disabled. Like the process table and user table.
Brillo read the last message when it written by someone who failed to mainline apparmor who is stuck in there ways is worthless reading. Because most of his reasons against doing it were bogus.
Casey Schaufler is a fair sort who was successful getting Apparmor mainline is worth reading. Also notice some of Casey Schauflers other comments like developers are not even happy that LSM exists.
When it comes down to if a idea is good or bad. Its people who get stuff in past peer review is who you listen to at the time I thought Crispin Cowans was worth listening to. That LSM turned out to be still disputed reality Crispin Cowans never got a single thing he was lead maintainer for into Linux kernel without decent from other developers. Casey Schauflers has in fact got many things into the Linux kernel without decent from other developers.
So understanding who is commenting is key to understanding if my idea was off the wall.
The problem was LSM is Crispin Cowans own baby. Suggesting anything that might cause it to cease to exist he was going to stomp on.
Casey Schaufler is still a very fiery person.
My job running systems means I am not a maintainer of any FOSS project.
Brillo basically googling does not always work. Particularly when you just read the last post. Notice I did not post any more because I worked out what the problem was. Crispin Cowans there was no way in hell he would be open to discussion to move forwards due to personal bias.
Casey Schaufler you can get around his person bias and he state real reason why your ideas cannot work. Crispin Cowans serous-ally has killed a lot of ideas with bogus arguments.
Just to make things more tricky not everything is done from my personal email or name. If its for business its done from a business account.
The reality is I am not alone being almost impossible to identify fully.
Oldman
“AN interesting way of putting it…. makes one wonder if you are hiding something sir, such as the fact that you arent as big a sh-t as you make yourself out to be, eh?”
The interesting point is I am not really hiding anything. This makes it more interesting how little Google can find out. Yes a few minor things and you basically go invisible to google.
oldman you always say I don’t have final say.
“your management and their stakeholders are and that Whether you like it or not you will get to deal with implementing the system your management tells you to, period.”
This is true for some things. In some sections of my life I am owner and manager so I do have the complete final say. But there is no requirement to lie about what you are doing. Asking for Acceptable risk.
oldman
–And in the end it doesn’t matter, because it has applications that people wish to use, so the risks are quantified and mitigated and we all go on from there.–
You complain about my english. From what you just said your english is crap as well.
“quantified and mitigated” As a phrase basically says you have fixed all flaws. This by your comment 29 this was not what you were meaning. This is because you have poor english.
“quantified and mitigated where able and then we all go on from there.”
Missing the where able or how ever you want to word it Oldman gives people a false impression about what you are doing. So due to your words they can believe all security flaws are fixed. You know that is not correct I know that is not correct.
For your years of experience you should know better than to make these simple english errors. I know my english is not great. I work on it. You need to spend some time on yours Oldman its only minor things but its giving false appearance. Problem is these false appearances can lead to bad security outcomes.
“For your years of experience you should know better than to make these simple english errors. I know my english is not great. I work on it. You need to spend some time on yours Oldman its only minor things but its giving false appearance. ”
I dont give a crap what you do, jerk.
People who have reading comprehension problems are in no position to give grammar lesson. If you cant understand english, it is your problem not mine.
Please keep your speculations about my english to yourself. I will not be so civil the next time you presume to lecture me Mr. Lisdexic.
“But there is no requirement to lie about what you are doing. Asking for Acceptable risk.”
I have no interest in lying to a arrogant bozo like you, especially one who admits to having trouble understandingv english.
Brillo and maybe there is a reason why you find nothing else. You have all noted that my written english is poor.
No, no, no, no…
Make up your mind here, oiaohm. Is your incomprehensible writing style due to:
a) that you have poor understanding of the language,
b) that you are dyslexic,
c) that you just want to show off your supposed ability to write in “old English”, or
d) that you have invented your own language and are sticking to it?
Thus far you have already claimed all of the above. Tell me, then, which one is the real deal.
Guess what its not published under my name because publisher thinks my normal english quality would discourage sales.
Sales? What on the planet Earth are you talking about? Do you even know what a “conference paper” is?
Note: It’s not what you think it is.
Yes I have done white papers yes I have a pen name that is me after editor.
We are talking about conference papers, not “white papers”. Have you ever been to school? (Actually, given that you can barely write a single coherent sentence, my bet is on “no”.)
If dishonesty were a form of debts, you would be declared bankrupt by now.
Very few predominate people in the Linux world do I have issues with.
Let me get this straight: you are wasting your own time just as much as you are wasting mine. There is not a thing even close to convicing in your act. All that techo-babble you have made up on the spot is downright insulting intellectually to every single person who has been properly educated on the subject matters (and by “educated” I mean “spent a few years at college attending classes, doing assignments, studying for exams and getting that parchment well earned, not sitting in front of a computer all day hoarding random links from Google Search). Let’s face it – when Phil Plait, a renowned astronomer with an impressive resume in his field, says leap seconds have everything to do with earth’s rotation and you, a nobody who declares himself to be an expert of some randomly selected field every different week, says the opposite, it’s next to impossible for anyone to believe that you are on the right side of the matter. Do you see what I am getting at here? You are not an “expert”. In fact, you are not even an “amateur”. You are just a person who suffers from delusions of grandeur, has spent too much time in front of a computer and is in need of urgent psychological help.
I am not a doctor, not do I play one on TV. So, do me a favor, whenever people discuss a topic, don’t reply it. Instead, pretend you don’t see any of it and just move on. People are not necessarily skilled at dealing with your mental issues, and your presence only infuriates the educated and confuses the uninitiated. Nobody needs your fantasy interpretations of any intellectual matters or your phoney experiences in events that never took place. I don’t care if you are oiaohm or Peter Dolding or Elvis Presley – you are irrelevant as far as an intellectual discussion is concerned, so be modest and just stay out of it.
Brillo “that you have poor understanding of the language,” That is party false.
I have studied english in great detail. But due to dyslexia my language processing is not exactly stable. b and d mostly apply. Sections c also come into my language.
I do not do conference presentations so I don’t produce conference papers a lot of people don’t. I cannot safely. Verbal dyslexia. People who are use to it are not harmed by it. People who are not use to it pass out. They overload there own brain. They have understood exactly what I said the problem is the sounds don’t match the conflict in mind causes the pass out. Yes is freaky just like a human can read a sentence with all the letters in the words in the wrong order a human can almost understand safely a sentence with all the phonic sounds in the wrong order. If people are use to it they have no problem with it. Yes the saying sound out the word does not work for me since the phonics might be coming out my own month in the wrong order.
I have mentioned that I was a off the scale dyslexia. So you are looking for Conference papers that I am dyslexia the level I am you will never find that. I will have someone else to the presentation I would have told them and guide them making the slides and the paper so my name is not on them. The only thing you will find of mime in papers is white papers and those are under my pen name.
Conference paper and me you will never find them Brillo. This is the simple point of not understanding dyslexia or particularly that I was at the very worst end of the scale. I have reduced it a lot.
The reality here when it comes to the global time system.
Brillo
“Phil Plait, a renowned astronomer with an impressive resume in his field, says leap seconds have everything to do with earth’s rotation”
This is point distraction nothing you need to know processing of leap seconds.
When it come to performing an attack on a system. Its not what causes a leap second that happen is important. Its when the time protocol will accept leap seconds. This what the physical world does and what the computer world does is not 100 percent in alignment. Phil Plait is an expert in detecting when a leap second is required. He does not set when that leap second is applied to the NTP servers and other global time servers. There is another set of rules that control when leap seconds can be applied.
Brillo the simple fact here when we are talking computer security and breaches what an astronomer says means nothing because its simple not apply to the problem.
Phil Plait is an expert in his field but he is not expert in computer security and he does not set the rules how global time servers work and what he is talking about does not apply to the global time servers other than if they should schedule a leap second.
Brillo a sign of someone truly trying to Google defend is you. You have pulled in a expert from the wrong field that states why we have todo leap seconds not how leap seconds are done. You need an expert from operation side time systems for how leap seconds are done. You need the correct expert to get the correct answer.
I pulled in a document from a body describing how leap seconds are done. At midnight at a end of month you have 60 seconds for the last min before going to the new day instead of normal 59 seconds. That is how the global time systems process leap seconds. So it goes 58, 59, 60, 00 Instead of the normal 58, 59, 00. Time processing only accepts that at particular times. Receiving 23:59:60 time value is invalid all bar end of month. So the leap second attack is perfectly limited. Yes it a trick question how many seconds in a minute. The correct answer is 60 seconds normally and 61 if that minute contained a leap second. There is also the reverse to the leap second. Where at midnight you jump from 58 to 00. This was included for many reasons.
How leap seconds is done restricts how often attack by them can be performed.
Brillo
–Have you ever been to school? (Actually, given that you can barely write a single coherent sentence, my bet is on “no”.)–
I have been to school this is how come I am pulling oldman up on a grammar error.
Dyslexia is a major pain in but. Comprehension is not effected. In fact with dyslexia your Comprehension rate is higher than the average.
The way I was treated dyslexia due to my age is not redone. The solution was ok teach this person every rule of english. This will cure the problem. The result is know sections of english from different areas that you should not find in 1 person.
So this makes my writing style horrid. Problem is I know the context rules perfectly. Most of the population don’t obey the context rules perfectly.
What oldman did was a breach of the english grammar context rules.
Brillo so I basically have to avoid using what I learnt at school. You think what I am writing in unreadable. I don’t so grammar marks because that prevents me from doing reverse order english that is permitted english context.
So yes my english is intentionally being broken by me. For the simple reason is if I let myself write english to the level I am taught the olds of any of you understanding me will be almost zero. Because the sentence structure will be way too complex. 100 percent valid english.
Basically I am the wrong age Brillo. Younger people with Dyslexia are taught only simple english. People older than me with Dyslexia were basically let rot. People from my time frame were taught complex english that makes our written english basically incompatible with most of the population unless we intentionally break it.
So I know my english is poor. Because I have to write poor so you stand a chance of understanding it. Suxes right.
oldman
“People who have reading comprehension problems are in no position to give grammar lesson. If you cant understand english, it is your problem not mine.”
Sorry that is a catch. I have writing problems not comprehension problems. You have some minor writing problems yourself oldman you need to deal with.
This shows that oldman has zero understanding of dyslexia. Dyslexia does not effect comprehension.
Due to my over training to attempt to correct dyslexia I am more picky of someone does not get their sentences correct oldman.
Yes double nightmare my writing appears crap yet I see your errors really simply.
Word swap I suffer from still is annoying. This is why I know context so well to give me a chance of spotting when I have swapped their for there and so on.
The problem with dyslexia is the insanely high comprehension rate. That allows my brain to correct a stack of english errors on the fly using the context data in the sentences. People with dyslexia are more context sensitive because that is one of the tricks that dyslexia in the brain use to correct written/typed errors and hide it from the person with dyslexia
Basically Oldman if I can see your errors its a core english error. Otherwise my brain will have corrected it out of existence. Really ldman spend some time leaning about dyslexia.
Really you are a language bigot Oldman. You have presume because my writing looks crap that I am unskilled. The problem is most people here will not cope if I write at the true level I can.
No hamster I dont assume that youare unskilled, but i am a firm believer in the notion
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter
The simple reality is that given the set of apparent facts about yourself that we know, the case can far more easily be made that you are a semi skilled handyman working with some facilities management consultancy than rather than the it genious of the outback.
Remember all we really have are your grandiose assertions of broad super competence, aspects of which just happen to pop up when the debate isnt going your way…
Remember you were the one who remarked that your boss was trying to figure out how to get you certified for performing electrical work.
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter
Remember that phrase sir the next time that you decide to concoct your next wall of text.
oldman reality here you cannot except you are defective. I do accept that I have defects you don’t oldman.
Oldman time and time again you make basic defect errors.
Oldman the reality is I have told you what I am. A pretender would not have mentioned about doing electrical. My job is maintenance and creating new items. This is the thing is doing what I do takes a broad skill set.
Exactly who cleans up the messes when network security fails. Facilities management that is who Oldman. So I am the front line grunt that has to clean up if people screw up their assessments. I also due to experience get to take part to make sure assessments are performed correctly.
So when you are writing stuff context incorrect of course a person like me would take your hide off. Result is the next person along will read what you wrote believe you did something different to what you did so creating a mess I have to clean up.
I work more front line that you do. I have very little tolerance for people claiming to be skilled and not knowing what they should know. As skilled I should not be find flaws in you Oldman.
Basically if you are skilled as you claim Oldman about time you learn to write context safe.
Unreadable is safer than context incorrect since it does not result in a person missing checking stuff.
oldman reality here you have a superiority complex. About time you get over it.
I have studied english in great detail. But due to dyslexia my language processing is not exactly stable. b and d mostly apply. Sections c also come into my language.
You still don’t get the idea, don’t you?
It’s either “old English”, or it’s your invented language. Unless you have the ability to travel back in time to invent “old English”, then it simply cannot logically be both. In other words, your above claim is bona fide horse crap.
I do not do conference presentations so I don’t produce conference papers a lot of people don’t.
I am glad that your Google machine is finally back online and you can look up on what people mean by “conference papers”. Have your supposed “dyslexia” overloaded your brain yet? Mine certainly would have been had you insisted on talking about “white papers” instead.
I will have someone else to the presentation I would have told them and guide them making the slides and the paper so my name is not on them.
I am sorry, but it appears that you still haven’t got this thing we call “academia” quite worked out yet. Maybe RP can give you a hand if he’s available?
So yes my english is intentionally being broken by me. For the simple reason is if I let myself write english to the level I am taught the olds of any of you understanding me will be almost zero. Because the sentence structure will be way too complex. 100 percent valid english.
Don’t be so quick to judge. Humor me, by all means.
Brillo so I basically have to avoid using what I learnt at school.
It doesn’t manner. As I said, I am not a doctor, and I have no interest in your supposed “dyslexia” or whatever interpretations thereof. At the end of the day, in order to succeed in your higher education, you still have to go to classes, do your assignments, sit at exams, etc., and that means a lot of writing. No one is going to grade some work written in “old” English, “complex” English, chopped-up English, Martian English, or any incomprehensible form of English. That’s not how disability concessions work. Knowing how to express yourself properly in writing is an integral part of formal education – no exceptions, no excuses. You have an atrocious understanding of how things work within the academia, and you certainly wouldn’t have the ability to survive even your first year at college. This
“Emperor’s New Clothes”“my English is very complex” gimmick is getting really old and your insistene to keep using it is just ensuring that no one is going to believe in anything you say.I pulled in a document from a body describing how leap seconds are done.
You did not. I know exactly what documents define that particular process and have already cited other references to explain it in a concise manner. Thus far you have done nothing more than copying and pasting web links of little relevance here to support whatever fantasy mechanics you have conjured up on the spot. That’s not what I consider “honesty”.
Brillo here is the shocking fact this next statement of yours is completely false.
–At the end of the day, in order to succeed in your higher education, you still have to go to classes, do your assignments, sit at exams, etc., and that means a lot of writing–
No it does not equal lots of writing at all. My exams have verbal no writing required. Written assignments with editor yes a human editor to make my english readable to general. You don’t fail because what you submit here is unreadable. Instead what is unreadable is marked and the document returned for revision. This process does not work in online forums. You see me raw without editor.
About time you check out the education system when it comes to high level dyslexia. We are not required to write submit to pass/fail. We get to do exams the same as a person is physically disabled who cannot write. We have three states. Write submit pass/fail/rejected. Rejected does not count as a submission attempt. Unreadable sections in rejected are marked. Any area not marked we are not allowed to change on a rejected. My worst took 32 submits. Normally you only have 3 tries and that for me only counted as 1 try.
Brillo
–Knowing how to express yourself properly in writing is an integral part of formal education–
So that is why you are getting it so wrong. You think people have to be able to write to pass exams to get qualification. You are a bigot. Verbal exams exist for a reason.
Brillo
–I am glad that your Google machine is finally back online and you can look up on what people mean by “conference papers”.–
Really you need todo that I was being kind using your define.
Conference Papers have 3 major defines used Globally. You did not define a context so I guessed the wrong one being used your end.
Define one is the speakers own papers for the conference.
Define two is the speakers own for the conference papers and white papers the speaker refers to.
Define three or Australian tax office define of conference papers is every bit of documentation you could possible need to cover the topics talked about at the conference without a requirement for the stuff to be directly mentioned at the conference. So the speaker talks that this does not apply to rentals and everything explaining why it does not apply to rentals is inserted into conference papers.
I knew you were not using define 3 because as far as I can tell you are not Australian and the Australian Tax Office is the only thing I know that uses define 3(I hope there is nothing else using define 3 it is insane). So I guessed define 2 should have guessed define 1. So if you were asking define 2 answering about white papers was valid. Since they are some of my papers that do turn up as conference papers under define 2. So if you you were going threw the conference white papers you would not be seeing my name.
The simple reality here conference papers does not have a universal meaning Brillo.
Brillo
“Humor me, by all means.”
Really don’t need to already by mistake done a few minor-ally more complex you were unable to read them so full complexly I can do no point.
Context is important Brillo.
“oldman reality here you have a superiority complex. About time you get over it.”
You could not have described your self better. You even provided the answer that I would have given.
A model of efficiency.
No it does not equal lots of writing at all. My exams have verbal no writing required.
That would probably be the case if you were talking your driver’s license. For a degree? Not a chance on earth.
Written assignments with editor yes a human editor to make my english readable to general.
You just won’t stop digging yourself into a deeper hole, will ya?
1) It’s little things like this that gives you away. A fundamental aspect of higher education is that you need to show your ability to express the knowledge you have received and to convey your ideas in a formal way. A “human editor” simply defeats the purpose of that assessment and you wouldn’t be able to get your degree by doing what you claim to have done.
2) This is a classic example of “turtles all the way down”. If an normal person was not able to comprehend your “complex” English, what would this “human editor” be? And if this “human editor” was another supposed “dyslexic” of your type, then wouldn’t that mean he/she would also need another “human editor” to translate his/her work? You see the problem here?
We are not required to write submit to pass/fail. We get to do exams the same as a person is physically disabled who cannot write.
You still haven’t figured out this whole thing about studying with disabilities yet, have you? By taking something as fundamental as your ability to express yourself formally away from the course, the educational institute will have to grant you the same qualifications that they grant everyone else based on assessment criteria that applies to only you but not anyone else. The only way for this to happen is if you go and get your “qualifications” from a diploma mill, though I hope this is not what your are trying to imply here.
Conference Papers have 3 major defines used Globally. You did not define a context so I guessed the wrong one being used your end.
Everyone who has undergone higher education knows what a “conference paper” is and how it works. What’s more, anyone who has actually studied for a degree knows the fundamental ethics in the academia and can tell right away why your “define” [sic] 1/2/3 are a load of cowpats.
I’ll leave you to figure out as to why that’s the case.
This is of course, not to mention such irrelevant nonsense as “Australian tax office”. It’s just obvious self-parody.
Really don’t need to already by mistake done a few minor-ally more complex you were unable to read them so full complexly I can do no point.
However I look at the emporer, I just can’t see that he’s wearing any clothes. All those flappy bits are just hanging out there and it’s not a pretty sight.
I think I need to go and gouge out my eye ball with a rusty spoon now.
talking -> talking about
Brillo, writing of the 19th century, wrote, “No it does not equal lots of writing at all. My exams have verbal no writing required.
That would probably be the case if you were talking your driver’s license. For a degree? Not a chance on earth.”
On Earth, universities have accommodated handicapped individuals for many years.
“2.3.4 Based on information provided by an accredited health professional, expertise of DS staff, and standards for accommodations for similar disability types, DS will coordinate the implementation of appropriate and reasonable accommodations for students with disabilities.”
That’s from University of Manitoba’s policies.
“3. An institution organized and incorporated for the purpose of imparting instruction, examining students, and otherwise promoting education in the higher branches of literature, science, art, etc., empowered to confer degrees in the several arts and faculties, as in theology, law, medicine, music, etc. A university may exist without having any college connected with it, or it may consist of but one college, or it may comprise an assemblage of colleges established in any place, with professors for instructing students in the sciences and other branches of learning. In modern usage, a university is expected to have both an undergraduate division, granting bachelor’s degrees, and a graduate division, granting master’s or doctoral degrees, but there are some exceptions. In addition, a modern university typically also supports research by its faculty
[1913 Webster]“
See? Nothing in there about excluding students with disabilities.
Some old fool hastily wrote, “On Earth, universities have accommodated handicapped individuals for many years.”
You betcha. What else did you think made me write the following?
Seriously, RP, are you really trying to defend, of all people, oiaohm?
Brillo wrote, “No one is going to grade some work written in “old” English, “complex” English, chopped-up English, Martian English, or any incomprehensible form of English. That’s not how disability concessions work.”
Yes, they do. UofM provides whatever the handicapped student requires. One local university has a handicapped lecturer. They provide him a translator. They do that because the best and brightest minds often do not interface to the standard interfaces of a university. All kinds of handicaps are accepted. The key issue is whether or not a health professional gives a diagnosis. Many health-related conditions can result in scrambled speech/reading/writing without significant impairment of the intellect or ability to add/share human knowledge. Some of the most brilliant and able educators/students have been handicapped in some way. I have met several in my careers. Perhaps Brillo should get out more.
Helen Keller was deaf and blind. Can you imagine how she spoke?
Problems with writing are recognized as handicaps and have little or nothing to do with ability to function in academia or the workplace given appropriate accommodation. As a teacher I have often encountered normally intelligent people who could neither read nor write worth a damn. We taught them whichever way worked.
“Developmental reading disorder (DRD), or dyslexia, occurs when there is a problem in areas of the brain that help interpret language. It is not caused by vision problems. The disorder is a specific information processing problem that does not interfere with one’s ability to think or to understand complex ideas. Most people with DRD have normal intelligence, and many have above-average intelligence.”
see National Institutes of Health
“oldman reality here you cannot except you are defective. I do accept that I have defects you don’t oldman.”
Oh I know you are defective hamster. that is why I give your babbling about my skills zero credence.
In fact you can take your opinion and shove it up your a$$.
“Oldman time and time again you make basic defect errors.”
Nope. You apparently think I do because in the end I am not going to waste my time defending myself in detail to a fundamentally ignorant bozo like you.
You have no credentials that I have to respect.
You are in no position to demand any respect.
You are nobody.
If you wish to continue to make such direct comments skills, my answer will be simply: whatever
And then I will attempt to answer the “substance” (such as it is) of your comments.
Hey Brillo, you might want to be a little less obvious in your effort to neutralize oiaohm. He writes the way he does, period. He told you where his expertise is, end of story. This is the way it’s been since his first post on this blog. Kicking it around like a dead horse isn’t proving anything, except making you look bad.
If you want me to join in the fray I’ll be glad to. Just reply with a terse retort.
Helen Keller was deaf and blind.
Here, let me help you read your own reference, my blind fellow:
I am sorry, but it seems that you are simply unable to absorb the information you encounter. Does that count as a disability? Probably, but again, I am not a doctor, nor do I play one on TV.
Anyway, moving on…
Can you imagine how she spoke?
I am begining to sense that oiaohm is not the only one with trouble understanding the concept of a conference paper.
Problems with writing are recognized as handicaps and have little or nothing to do with ability to function in academia or the workplace given appropriate accommodation.
“Appropriate accomodation”, as you say. Does having a “human editor” – thus deviating from the standards of assessment – count as “appropriate”? I shall judge your further respone as your overall understanding of academic practices.
Note also that I have avoided certain keywords to prevent the effective use of an Internet search engine. Have fun!
Brillo, being a troll wrote, “Note also that I have avoided certain keywords to prevent the effective use of an Internet search engine. Have fun!”
You’re not welcome here, Brillo. Go find others to annoy.
“You’re not welcome here, Brillo. Go find others to annoy.”
Coward.
Coward.
As a card-carrying diabled, I do found his response quite hilarious. The level of hubris and over-confidence RP shows is almost definitely through-the-roof. After all, in regards to studying with disabilites, I have been there, done that, bought the t-shirt, and although I don’t claim I know all the rules, I am at least aware of the general principles there and know what the faculty would or would not do to accommodate my predicament. RP, on the other hand, seems to be just too eager to shoot from the hip armed with nothing more than scraps of information from the Internet. What he seems to not notice is that, as the list of recognised long-term illnesses grows, more and more people will enter their university lives as disbled individuals, and that means even if I am not around, there are still plenty of people out there who can and will point out his pathetic (mis)understanding of the subject matter. Aren’t ostrich policies fun?
” am at least aware of the general principles there and know what the faculty would or would not do to accommodate my predicament.”
It is also interesting to note that most disabled people strive not to use their particular disability as an excuse. The Hamster, on the other hand, seems quite ready and willing to use it as a shield.
Hamster, on the other hand, seems quite ready and willing to use it as a shield.
Seeing that he has obviously no trouble making up phony credentials (e.g. Linux kernel maintainer, embedded systems engineer, antenna array operator/astronomer, computer systems security specialist) and preposterous life stories, his attitude towards disabilities is simply no surprise to me.
I must admit that his
“Emperor’s New Clothes”“my English is very complex” gimmick is quite amusing, though.oldman wrote, ““You’re not welcome here, Brillo. Go find others to annoy.”
Coward.”
I am not a coward. I am tired of fishing his crap out of the spam bin. I banned him long ago under a different name. Thanks to a tweak of WP by my PHP programming son, I now have better feedback on the spam and can deal with trolls reinventing themselves. You are pushing the limit on my patience too, but at least you have not reinvented yourself and occasionally have something useful to say. Same goes for others… When was the last comment by Brillo actually useful? There’s a reason I was not willingly an elementary teacher. Twits lacking social skills are not who I want to deal with on this blog. Clearly Brillo is not a mainstream PC-user but a zealot, something he decries. What’s he doing here but harassing people? I don’t want to facilitate that.
“You are pushing the limit on my patience too, but at least you have not reinvented yourself and occasionally have something useful to say.”
As far as reinventing myself is concerned, The oldman I am and the oldman I will remain wherever I post. If /when you choose to ban me I will not return.
As far as trying your patience is concerned, you may wish to consider that from time to time you post the phrase
Its all Good…
Yet you are perfectly willing to insult your posters to their face by calling them sheeple, slaves and completely disregarding their posts even when they give you valid reasons for the choices that they make, because they dont rubber stamp your beliefs.
Frankly Robert Pogson, I have probably forgotten more about IT than you seem to know now. I am tired of the lack of respect that I get from you just because I insist on using what works and I object to your mischaracterizations of what I know works.
If you wish to ban me, then do so – its your blog.
But otherwise be prepared to have your patience tried as long as you post what I see as errors that need answering.
“Clearly Brillo is not a mainstream PC-user but a zealot, something he decries. What’s he doing here but harassing people? I don’t want to facilitate that.”
So Brillo Who is probably a real sysadmin from the sound of it gets the boot because he is pointing up the holes in yours and others arguements, but the craven Mr. K whose content most of the time is outright character assassination and harassment and provocatio is allowed to continue to post because us is pro Linux.
You’re right Pog, you are not a coward.
You are a hypocrite.
oldman wrote some nasty comments and then, “So Brillo Who is probably a real sysadmin from the sound of it gets the boot because he is pointing up the holes in yours and others arguements”
This blog is not about system administration. I care just about a single individual not getting the best from his IT as some global corporation. What system admins do has little relationship to what individuals do when they encounter spam/malware/software-defects.
I have not seen anything from Brillo that amounts to knowledge. Comment after comment after comment was nothing but personal attack. Of course, I lost it and treated him in kind but his actions are clearly those of a troll, not a teacher/sharing person.
oldman, I know you know better than to write some of the negative comments you make about FLOSS, throwing the baby out with the bathwater, as you do.
kozmcrae has lately been pretty negative but it’s easy to be provoked by trolls. I hope one less troll will improve his contribution. If not, I might ban him too but more likely TM would go first.
This blog has a lot of visitors from all over the world and I have communicated with several who do not understand why there’s so much mud-slinging here. People are interested in IT and solving problems. Personal attacks do nothing for them.
“Comment after comment after comment was nothing but personal attack. ”
If Brillo is disabled (and I see no reason to disbelieve him) he’s likely be annoyed by someone who hides behind a (possibly feigned) disability. His posts to oiaohm are simply pointing out the constant lies. And oiaohm is frankly a pathological liar. Would you trust anyone who claims they can jam wi-fi signals at will?
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/browse_thread/thread/48be9676e8c67ffd
“Result is I am a natural born jammer to 2.4 Ghz and 800 Mhz and as well as freqs due to DNA. That is made more powerful when tense ie stress/angry counts. So yes I can control to a limited amount it at will. Yes its tempting to exploit and watch a few people pull their hair out.”
BTW, Oldman’s comment about how disabled people don’t hide behind their disabilities is absolutely true. See the sporting event going on in London at the moment.
Are you in anyway surprised by the third comment from Brillo? His reply was tame and reasonable by comparison to what you posted, and he could have replied in kind. And you lose your temper because he applies the same editorial to your posts that you do to others who have the effrontery to disagree with you? The shoe pinches on the other foot, doesn’t it?
“kozmcrae has lately been pretty negative but it’s easy to be provoked by trolls.”
Koz is rarely “provoked” by other posts, the first thing from him in any thread is usually insults, name-calling, “Cult of Microsoft” and “1995″.
Calls a poster a “Horse’s ass”
http://mrpogson.com/2012/08/11/samsung-announces-killer-arm-cortex-a15-cpu/#comment-93370
Pretty much admits trolling – “I’m baiting”
http://mrpogson.com/2012/08/08/libreoffice-goes-to-town/#comment-93248
Trolling and insults – “took the bait” “you’re an idiot” “laughing at you”
http://mrpogson.com/2012/08/02/oops-gamers-have-another-reason-to-switch-to-gnulinux/#comment-92906
Note how he does not respond to any of the points I made.
Likens a poster to the rectum (I won’t use the actual word for fear I’ll be banned.)
http://mrpogson.com/2012/08/21/the-quality-of-debian-gnulinux/#comment-94317
And again;
http://mrpogson.com/2012/08/23/catastrophic-failure-of-phoney-7/#comment-94510
And again;
http://mrpogson.com/2012/05/28/innovation-freedom-eben-moglen/#comment-89747
It’s getting boring now;
http://mrpogson.com/2012/06/10/why-gnulinux-rocks/#comment-90419
Google says there are 80+ references to “Cult of Microsoft” from him over the last year or so.
And yet you don’t even ask him to tone it down.
Ted wrote, “oiaohm is frankly a pathological liar. Would you trust anyone who claims they can jam wi-fi signals at will?”
Yes, I would. It is well known that wifi is a fragile environment. The easiest way to DOS it is to send/receive lots of traffic. There are many other means of attack. Any radio communication can be jammed. That’s been a popular activity since WWII at least. In my own neighbourhood a neighbour set up an identical wireless router to ours and took the same defaults… That caused havoc. Now all the neighbours use better configurations. I was at one school where service was lousy several times a day. It turned out the school buses out front managed to jam the signal between buildings.
“Yes, I would. It is well known that wifi is a fragile environment. ”
That Wi-Fi can be disrupted, jammed or otherwise interfered with is not in dispute. It’s a radio, when all is said and done. Jamming is not new.
The issue here is that Oiaohm claims to be able to jam Wi-Fi because of his genetics. He also claims to be able to influence and exacerbate this “jamming” effect by his mental state.
You believe this? You would trust someone who makes such outlandish claims, and accept any other claim at face value? A person who has been shown to be a liar again and again?
But of course you do, because he supports Linux.
“It is well known that wifi is a fragile environment.”
Granted. But Mr O claims that he can jam Wifi signals at will with his body, and that’s really hogwash:
“Result is I am a natural born jammer to 2.4 Ghz and 800 Mhz and as well as freqs due to DNA. That is made more powerful when tense ie stress/angry counts. So yes I can control to a limited amount it at will. Yes its tempting to exploit and watch a few people pull their hair out.”
(Emphasis mine)
Robert Pogson wrote:
“kozmcrae has lately been pretty negative but it’s easy to be provoked by trolls.”
All true. As for the personal attacks I have made on the Cult of Microsoft, I make no distinction between attacks on FLOSS and personal attack on individuals. When I see someone attacking FLOSS, I respond in kind. And, as far as being banned, I have already crossed that line more than a few times in my own opinion. I have also seen others cross that line. Some of them are still around.
Is the blog better off or not because of it? I don’t know but sometimes I’d really like to find out.
Is calling the people who come here to defend Microsoft “The Cult of Microsoft” an insult? No more than calling those who defend GNU/Linux zealots or associating it with religion. You come here and regurgitate the company line, evangelize, post talking points, revise history, promote uncertainty about FLOSS, and repeat common lies (1%) and you expect to be treated with respect?
No, I will not treat you with respect no matter how much experience you have, no matter what your station is. You piss on FLOSS, I’ll piss on you. FLOSS has done more good for this World than Microsoft has and will continue to do so. Taking a stand against FLOSS automatically marks you as one of the bad guys. That’s your fault, not ours.
None of this is news, right?
“None of this is news, right?”
Not really. Then again you have proven yourself again and again to be a little craven nothing who hides behind a nym. Keep it up Mr. K.
FOSS can use a few more losers like you!
And remember … Tripwire
“When I see someone attacking FLOSS, I respond in kind.”
You rarely “respond in kind” – “Cult of Microsoft” or insults are usually the first thing from you, regardless of what was posted.
“Is calling the people who come here to defend Microsoft “The Cult of Microsoft” an insult? ”
You regard FLOSS being likened to a religion as insulting, and you ask this?
“You come here and regurgitate the company line, evangelize, post talking points, revise history, promote uncertainty about FLOSS, and repeat common lies (1%) and you expect to be treated with respect?”
You and some like you come here and regurgitate the FSF company line, evangelize, post talking points, revise history, and repeat common lies (BSODs, monopoly) and you expect to not be called out on the lies and hypocrisy?
“No, I will not treat you with respect no matter how much experience you have, no matter what your station is.”
Then why do you think we should give you or your cause any respect whatsoever?
“FLOSS has done more good for this World than Microsoft has and will continue to do so.”
Highly debatable, just not with you. I’d argue FOSS is where it is because of Microsoft. “A computer in every home” was one of Microsoft’s stated goals. If FOSS darlings IBM had got their way, we’d still be stuck on timesharing mainframes.
“Taking a stand against FLOSS automatically marks you as one of the bad guys.”
Making an absolute statement like that marks you as one of the idiots.
@ldman wrote:
“Then again you have proven yourself again and again to be a little craven nothing who hides behind a nym.”
Hides behind a nym? Yeah, only cowards do that!
Tripwire? Spamming Robert’s blog again @ldman.
Ted wrote:
“Highly debatable, just not with you.”
Microsoft produces and sells and office suite. They spent a boat load of money over the years creating and marketing that body of work. They have already seen a return on that outlay no doubt but it needs to be maintained and new features added presumably to continue selling new versions.
So it should surprise no one when former customers of Microsoft write their own office suite and freely give it to anyone who wants it, that it should upset Microsoft. More precisely, the employees from Microsoft who work on its office suite. The same goes for any proprietary application that has an open source counterpart. That would include most applications in the market today.
That right there should explain a lot of animosity regarding open source. Anyone whose income is dependent on proprietary software would view open source software as a dangerous competitor. Anyone who is a consumer of software would view open source as a Godsend. The consumers outnumber the proprietary vendors by a huge margin. The consumers win. Open source wins. You lose Ted. It has nothing to do with me, my personality or my methods of engagement. It has to do with what the World wants, and it doesn’t want Microsoft anymore.
kozmcrae wrote, “It has to do with what the World wants, and it doesn’t want Microsoft anymore.”
I doubt that has ever been true since M$ started bundling its OS with PCs. Many consumers assumed that stuff was part of the PC, as M$ wished. Now that people see there are personal computers running */Linux all over the world, that ignorance cannot stand and people know they have a choice. Given side-by-side choices, a good proportion choose GNU/Linux on price/performance something most consumers could not do until recently. In my neighbourhood, the notebook x86 PC is the last holdover of monopoly. In 2012 lots of notebookish PCs with GNU/Linux are on the market so choice for all consumers is imminent.
I’ll ask again…
“The issue here is that Oiaohm claims to be able to jam Wi-Fi because of his genetics. He also claims to be able to influence and exacerbate this “jamming” effect by his mental state.”
You believe this? You would trust someone who makes such outlandish claims, and accept any other claim from him at face value? A person who has been shown to be a liar again and again?