The third rule, And then you fight

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Gordon, Dec 4, 2003.

  1. Gordon

    Gordon Guest

    A very good article people, it shows, assuming no spin, that bill g is
    aware of the fight his wallet has on its hands and elsewhere


    http://www.alwayson-network.com/comments.php?id=1850_0_1_0_C

    The first Rule is They ignore you
    The second is They laugh at you
    The third is they fight you
    The fourth is You win.

    To date we are on course.

    --
    Fairy stories exist so children get used to real life
     
    Gordon, Dec 4, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Gordon

    Bit Twister Guest

    On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 18:45:38 +1300, Gordon wrote:
    > A very good article people, it shows, assuming no spin, that bill g is
    > aware of the fight his wallet has on its hands and elsewhere
    >
    >
    > http://www.alwayson-network.com/comments.php?id=1850_0_1_0_C


    I think that falls under lies and damn lies.

    I think I need to start buying stock in anti-virus compainies.
    I can see it now when buying a car; Please sign this wavier,
    Micro$not will not be responsible for whatever happens because of our software.
    It will give a new meaning to WarDriving.
    http://wired.com/news/autotech/0,2554,61412,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_6
     
    Bit Twister, Dec 4, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Gordon

    Mr Scebe Guest

    "Gordon" <> wrote in message
    news:p...

    > The first Rule is They ignore you

    Mmm, Linux lovers tried to ignore Microsoft a long time back. But then they
    realised that their favourite game wouldn't play, so they came back.

    > The second is They laugh at you

    I believe that Linux lovers have been doing this for some time, with mixed
    results. They are better when trying to talk seriously, though no more
    successful.

    > The third is they fight you

    Linux lovers would, but they're too busy fighting themselves.

    > The fourth is You win.

    Halelujah

    > To date we are on course.

    Certainly according to the "rules" above.

    --
    Mr Scebe
    "Personally i think you're a fucking idiot"
    ~Sean Connery in "The Rock"
     
    Mr Scebe, Dec 4, 2003
    #3
  4. Gordon

    JedMeister Guest

    Woohoo Gates rules.....Completely correct about linux...security by
    obscurity. ..


    "Gordon" <> wrote in message
    news:p...
    > A very good article people, it shows, assuming no spin, that bill g is
    > aware of the fight his wallet has on its hands and elsewhere
    >
    >
    > http://www.alwayson-network.com/comments.php?id=1850_0_1_0_C
    >
    > The first Rule is They ignore you
    > The second is They laugh at you
    > The third is they fight you
    > The fourth is You win.
    >
    > To date we are on course.
    >
    > --
    > Fairy stories exist so children get used to real life
    >
    >
     
    JedMeister, Dec 4, 2003
    #4
  5. Gordon

    steve Guest

    Gordon allegedly said:

    > A very good article people, it shows, assuming no spin, that bill g is
    > aware of the fight his wallet has on its hands and elsewhere
    >
    >
    > http://www.alwayson-network.com/comments.php?id=1850_0_1_0_C
    >
    > The first Rule is They ignore you
    > The second is They laugh at you
    > The third is they fight you
    > The fourth is You win.
    >
    > To date we are on course.



    Gandhi....

    --
    Best Regards,
    Steve Withers
    defenestrate: The act of throwing Windows out the window and replacing it on
    your PC with some other operating system.
     
    steve, Dec 4, 2003
    #5
  6. Gordon

    POOP Guest

    Bit Twister wrote:

    > On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 18:45:38 +1300, Gordon wrote:
    >> A very good article people, it shows, assuming no spin, that bill g is
    >> aware of the fight his wallet has on its hands and elsewhere
    >>
    >>
    >> http://www.alwayson-network.com/comments.php?id=1850_0_1_0_C

    >
    > I think that falls under lies and damn lies.
    >
    > I think I need to start buying stock in anti-virus compainies.
    > I can see it now when buying a car; Please sign this wavier,
    > Micro$not will not be responsible for whatever happens because of our
    > software. It will give a new meaning to WarDriving.
    > http://wired.com/news/autotech/0,2554,61412,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_6



    Holly shit, soon there will be nowhere to hide!


    --
    POOP
    Registered Linux user #314060
     
    POOP, Dec 4, 2003
    #6
  7. Gordon

    AD. Guest

    On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 20:44:02 +1300, Mr Scebe wrote:

    >> The first Rule is They ignore you

    > Mmm, Linux lovers tried to ignore Microsoft a long time back. But then
    > they realised that their favourite game wouldn't play, so they came
    > back.


    Umm, how could they have become Linux lovers in the time it took them to
    realise that?

    Cheers
    Anton
     
    AD., Dec 4, 2003
    #7
  8. Gordon

    Mac Guest

    In article <>, "AD."
    <> wrote:

    > On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 20:44:02 +1300, Mr Scebe wrote:
    >
    > >> The first Rule is They ignore you

    > > Mmm, Linux lovers tried to ignore Microsoft a long time back. But then
    > > they realised that their favourite game wouldn't play, so they came
    > > back.

    >
    > Umm, how could they have become Linux lovers in the time it took them to
    > realise that?
    >
    > Cheers
    > Anton


    Salient quote from a commentator:
    > While Microsoft can argue theoretical advantages, in terms of real world
    > experience, Windows has a consistently terrible record on the security
    > front. Even if you compensate for Windows' popularity, Windows is
    > disproprortionately insecure. For example, when looking at the statistics
    > for web servers, about 1/2 are Windows and 1/2 are Linux or UNIX, but
    > Windows-based systems are responsible for 3/4ths of the compromised web
    > sites. In the corporate market, Exchange and Notes have about the same
    > market share, but Exchange is a security sieve, while Notes is almost
    > untouched by viruses.
    >
    > What it comes down to is that Microsoft's engineering decisions have
    > reprecussions. And if they spend a decade ignoring security, and making
    > fundamental decisions that reduce security (ActiveX, DCOM,
    > inter-applicatiopn scripting, enabling all services by default, all with
    > no real security model), a little debugging isn't going to fundamentally
    > address the issue. Microsoft will only be able to ship a secure, stable OS
    > when they decide that security and stability are MORE IMPORTANT than the
    > things that have made them very, very rich. And I suspect that they may
    > not be able to make that decision.
    >
    > This isn't a proprietary vs. open source issue, either. MS has a much
    > worse security record than ANY other operating system vendor. Of course,
    > they also have tons of money, so perhaps security and stability ISN'T as
    > important to most people as flashy demo's.
     
    Mac, Dec 4, 2003
    #8
  9. Gordon

    Max Burke Guest

    > Mac scribbled:
    > Salient quote from a commentator:
    >> While Microsoft can argue theoretical advantages, in terms of real
    >> world experience, Windows has a consistently terrible record on the
    >> security front. Even if you compensate for Windows' popularity,
    >> Windows is disproprortionately insecure. For example, when looking
    >> at the statistics for web servers, about 1/2 are Windows and 1/2 are
    >> Linux or UNIX, but Windows-based systems are responsible for 3/4ths
    >> of the compromised web sites. In the corporate market, Exchange and
    >> Notes have about the same market share, but Exchange is a security
    >> sieve, while Notes is almost untouched by viruses.
    >>
    >> What it comes down to is that Microsoft's engineering decisions have
    >> reprecussions. And if they spend a decade ignoring security, and
    >> making fundamental decisions that reduce security (ActiveX, DCOM,
    >> inter-applicatiopn scripting, enabling all services by default, all
    >> with no real security model), a little debugging isn't going to
    >> fundamentally address the issue. Microsoft will only be able to ship
    >> a secure, stable OS when they decide that security and stability are
    >> MORE IMPORTANT than the things that have made them very, very rich.
    >> And I suspect that they may not be able to make that decision.
    >>
    >> This isn't a proprietary vs. open source issue, either. MS has a much
    >> worse security record than ANY other operating system vendor. Of
    >> course, they also have tons of money, so perhaps security and
    >> stability ISN'T as important to most people as flashy demo's.


    OTOH (and to provide a 'balanced' lets ALL bash a computer operating
    system....)

    A Critical Perspective: Eyes That Look Do Not Always See

    An article entitled The Myth of Open Source Security by John Viega, the
    original author of GNU Mailman, challenges the popular premise that Open
    Source and secure software go hand in hand. In the article, John Viega
    acknowledges the fact that with lots of people scrutinizing a program's
    source code, bugs and security problems are more likely to be found. He then
    raises the point that the availability of source code does not automatically
    guarantee that the code has been reviewed by competent parties for a variety
    of reasons. Secondly, people who are looking at the source code with the
    intent of modifying it are not necessarily in the state of mind to perform a
    comprehensive security audit of the code.

    One deterrent to the mass review of certain Open Source projects is a high
    level of complexity in the code, which can be compounded by a lack of
    documentation. In such a scenario, it is unlikely that the average user of
    the software will be able to perform a good review of the code. Another
    reason that prevents good review of Open Source code is that most of the
    people only look at the parts of the code that they want to modify which may
    only be a small section of the code. This behavior leads to various
    "hotspots" in the code that are intensely reviewed because they are the most
    open to modification while many other sections of the code that are less
    likely to be useful during modifications are barely looked at. Finally he
    dwelled on the fact that a majority of software developers are ignorant of
    security practices beyond rudimentary knowledge of good practices (e.g.
    avoid strcpy, gets, and strcat functions in C or using encryption is good).
    Unfortunately security issues are more complex than most developers are
    aware of leading those with the best intentions to miss subtle security bugs
    or unknowingly introduce them into a system after a modification. Finally,
    the fact that some security bugs are unobvious unless one is completely
    familiar with several parts of the source tree and even then certain bugs
    may only occur when a particular sequuence of operations occurs is a reason
    to be wary of the claims that source availability guarantees the security of
    an application.

    The article then goes on to use security flaws in GNU Mailman, the Open
    Source implementation of Kerberos and wu-ftpd as examples of how security
    bugs in Open Source software can be undiscovered for significant amounts of
    time even though the source code is available and supposedly has been peer
    reviewed by many eyeballs. The fact that Open Source software is beginning
    to be packaged as finished products more and more it is likely that the
    complacency of users of Open Source software will increase since people may
    begin to assume that the code has been peer reviewed by their vendor of
    choice and will thus fail to audit the code.

    http://www.developer.com/open/article.php/983621
    http://www.linuxsecurity.com/advisories/index.html
    http://lists.debian.org/debian-security-announce/debian-security-announce-2003/threads.html
    http://www.opennet.ru/base/linux/

    ....Because the truth is that open source doesn't cure cancer, doesn't lead
    to a global gift economy, and doesn't produce perfect software on the first,
    second, or even fifty-seventh try. Hell, I could put together a laundry list
    right now of glaring flaws and shortcomings in Linux that I blame squarely
    on open source development and developers. Jason Compton.
    http://www.linux-mag.com/online/compton_c01_01.html

    --
    mlvburke@#%&*.net.nz
    Replace the obvious with paradise to email me.
    See Found Images at:
    http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/~mlvburke/
     
    Max Burke, Dec 4, 2003
    #9
  10. Gordon

    oldNbald Guest

    Bit Twister scratched on a wall:

    > I think that falls under lies and damn lies.
    >
    > I think I need to start buying stock in anti-virus compainies.
    > I can see it now when buying a car; Please sign this wavier,
    > Micro$not will not be responsible for whatever happens because of our
    > software. It will give a new meaning to WarDriving.
    > http://wired.com/news/autotech/0,2554,61412,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_6



    Now this is a comforting consideration, "The software running their brakes
    will upgrade itself wirelessly."

    I'll not be buying any of these makes: "The Microsoft platform already is in
    23 different car models, including the BMW 7 series, Citroen, Daimler,
    Fiat, Volvo, Hyundai, Mitsubishi, Subaru and Toyota."
    --
    oNb
    Another happy Linux user - # 276084.
    Reject religion ! Embrace Jesus Christ.
    Linux help source | www.linuxquestions.org


    -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
    http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
    -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
     
    oldNbald, Dec 5, 2003
    #10
  11. Gordon wrote:

    > A very good article people, it shows, assuming no spin, that bill g is
    > aware of the fight his wallet has on its hands and elsewhere
    >
    >
    > http://www.alwayson-network.com/comments.php?id=1850_0_1_0_C
    >
    > The first Rule is They ignore you
    > The second is They laugh at you
    > The third is they fight you
    > The fourth is You win.
    >
    > To date we are on course.


    I like the part where BG says MS *bought* a company that had some security
    offerings... I like how they *bought* the company (and therefore the
    software they wrote) instead of writing their own. Of course, it's
    quicker and easier this way... but where is the uniformity? Hell, even
    between Powerpoint and Word you have differences in the way the menus and
    tools are laid out, and I'm talking about common utilities, beyond the
    fact that the two programs serve different purposes.

    I think they should write some of their OWN software for once instead of
    buying everyone else's.

    My $0.02
    --
    __ ____
    / _| | _ \ Unregistered Linux User #10,000,002
    | |__ | _ \
    \__/ |___/ Learning is the ONLY substitution for EDUCATION!
     
    Circuit Breaker, Dec 7, 2003
    #11
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Sergeant Major Carlton Guddlelock-Mublinghotch

    FIGHT - FIGHT!!!

    Sergeant Major Carlton Guddlelock-Mublinghotch, Mar 4, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    539
    Ionizer
    Mar 4, 2005
  2. Sergeant Major Carlton Guddlelock-Mublinghotch

    FIGHT - FIGHT!!!

    Sergeant Major Carlton Guddlelock-Mublinghotch, Mar 4, 2005, in forum: Computer Information
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    546
    Ionizer
    Mar 4, 2005
  3. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    416
  4. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    ... And Then They Fight You ...

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Sep 9, 2009, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    359
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    Sep 10, 2009
  5. richard

    Re: I'm third man in a fight

    richard, Nov 15, 2009, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    391
    iL_weReo
    Nov 15, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page