Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Saying 'No' to an Executable Internet

CmdrTaco posted more than 8 years ago | from the something-to-read dept.

Security 306

Dylan Knight Rogers writes "Applications are constantly being ported for usage on the Internet - either for a viable escape from expensive software, or because it's often helpful to have an app that you can access from anywhere. Operating systems that run from the Web will be a different story."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Wow! A post to your own blog! (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14699694)

What a submission! This is Sunday morning on Slashdot at its finest.

Ah, yes (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14699696)

That would require a
chmod a-x internet

Re:Ah, yes (5, Funny)

Idolatre (197068) | more than 8 years ago | (#14699800)

mount /dev/eth0 -t internetfs -o noexec
would be safer

It won't necessarily ruin security. (-1, Offtopic)

CyricZ (887944) | more than 8 years ago | (#14699697)

Such a system won't necessarily be insecure. But its level of security will depend heavily on how it is designed and implemented.

It's no different that what we have today. Systems that aren't very well designed and poorly implemented, such as Microsoft Windows 98, are horribly insecure. On the other hand, systems with a solid design and an effective development and testing process will turn out to be very secure (ala OpenBSD).

Re:It won't necessarily ruin security. (-1, Flamebait)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 8 years ago | (#14699737)

Yet another factually void message, filled with Pro-BSD, anti Microsoft garbage. How did you get Excellent karma again?

Re:It won't necessarily ruin security. (0, Troll)

CyricZ (887944) | more than 8 years ago | (#14699760)

Are you truthfully denying that OpenBSD is more secure that Microsoft Windows? I would seriously hope not.

It's important to take a look at their two development models. OpenBSD puts a massive focus on security. It's paramount to them. Their coding practices are one of the main benefits, which helps to ensure that insecure code often isn't written, and that it does't enter their source tree if it is written. Not only that, but their audits help to ensure the high quality of their code. It also helps that they audit external software that is widely used, such as Apache. Overall, proper design and a good implementation process lead to secure software.

Anyone designing a networkable operating system needs to adopt a similar development process, else risk the creation of an insecure operating system.

Re:It won't necessarily ruin security. (1, Flamebait)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 8 years ago | (#14699786)

Okay, let's analyze your post.

Such a system won't necessarily be insecure. But its level of security will depend heavily on how it is designed and implemented.

Wow. Security depends on the skill and proces by which it is implemented. I just crapped my pants at the insight.

It's no different that what we have today. Systems that aren't very well designed and poorly implemented, such as Microsoft Windows 98, are horribly insecure.

Okay, we reitterated... if it isn't designed well, it won't work well. I'm still impressed.

On the other hand, systems with a solid design and an effective development and testing process will turn out to be very secure (ala OpenBSD).

Okay... we have now established that if it IS designed well, it WILL work well.

Damn. I am humbled.

I watch crap like this get modded to +5 over and over. I am actually laughing right now at the fact that you are alreaddy modded up to +4.

However, all being said and done, I admire the way you get the sheep to follow... you should go into politics or religion.

Re:It won't necessarily ruin security. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14699817)

And what exactly do you contribute to the conversation other than constantly complaining? Honestly, if you don't like this website leave and don't come back, nobody is forcing you to come here. This site would be a much better place if people like you would simply stop coming here.

Re:It won't necessarily ruin security. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14699903)

This site would be a much better place if people like you would simply stop coming here.

That won't happen any time soon. Ever since the addition of the Games section, a lot of Microsoft users have flooded this site. Most gamers don't give a damn about freedom or about the threats that M$ poses to computing. And why should they? Their entertainment depends on a vibrant Windows and Xbox platform.

In reality, the Microsoft users' mod points are the real problem at this site. Windows-critical posts are generally modded troll or flamebait, while Windows-friendly posts are almost always modded up. (You can spot them when they say "Why are you Slashdotters always picking on Windows!!11! *sniff*") Zonk doesn't help matters much with his numerous Xbox-pimping articles and generally corporate-friendly bias. So I guess we can just grin and bear the endless Microsoft fanboy posts, because they're pretty much here to stay.

I'm glad you're aware. (1, Funny)

CyricZ (887944) | more than 8 years ago | (#14699863)

I'm glad you're already aware of what I pointed out. You likely read one of my other posts in which I've pointed out such facts, and thus were already in the know.

Good for you! I'm happy that you might have a clue as to how to write solid, secure software. Indeed, it is true that we can all use OpenBSD as a development model to emulate. Doing so will help us write secure, quality code. And if we run it on OpenBSD, all the better!

Now if only Microsoft were to wake up to the benefits offered by a development process such as that used by OpenBSD. They are getting far better, we have to admit, but there's still a long way to go before they rival OpenBSD's level of security.

Re:I'm glad you're aware. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14699917)

Different people have different priorities.

OpenBSD prioritises security. As a result, they have a secure OS.

Microsoft prioritises compatibility. As a result, they have an OS that actually runs the applications people want to use, and is therefore useful in the real world for tasks other than the simple web servers and firewalls that are about all you can use OpenBSD for.

The perfect system for a real-world organisation is a Windows network with an OpenBSD firewall protecting it from the internet.

Re:I'm glad you're aware. (1)

CyricZ (887944) | more than 8 years ago | (#14699952)

I would tend to agree. But we see administrators and network designers who do not understand such a basic concept, and have Windows systems directly facing the Internet. Of course, they're the ones who end up running into trouble. For an example of that you can read the story below this one, which is about a hospital's network going down because of spyware.

Nevertheless, there is no reason why Microsoft can't draw from the OpenBSD development model. It shouldn't conflict with their desire to remain compatible with existing applications, while vastly increasing the stability and security of their platform. There have been claims that Microsoft has been parkating in serious code audits, so they might be on the right track. It's still a matter of making sure that new code doesn't contain serious flaws. That may be the weak point in their development system.

Far from perfect (1)

Maxmin (921568) | more than 8 years ago | (#14699965)

Probably perfect for the world you live in. But there are many worlds - designers with their fancy OSX workstations, software developers running Linux and Windows, secretaries using Office, etc.

Windows is definitely not appropriate for all real-world organizations, it just happens to be ubiquitous. But so us *nix, in the web world.

And for the record, if the only thing you can make out of an OpenBSD installation is a firewall, then you deserve to be stuck on Windows. OpenBSD also makes a swell webserver and mailserver, and runs many, many sites.

Re:I'm glad you're aware. (1)

Vellmont (569020) | more than 8 years ago | (#14699958)


I'm glad you're already aware of what I pointed out. You likely read one of my other posts in which I've pointed out such facts, and thus were already in the know.


Uhh.. I think he was trying to say that your entire post was blatantly obvious to anyone that has more than 3 brain cells. You entire post can be summed up with the statement "If we do things right, we won't have problems!" Uhh. duh. The comments about going into politics or religion are spot on. You don't need to be smart, or right to suceed in either field. You just need people to blindly follow you.

Re:It won't necessarily ruin security. (1)

Gothmolly (148874) | more than 8 years ago | (#14699894)

Don't forget the fact that he "signed" his post with his username... in case you couldn't tell from the title of the post who had written it.

Re:It won't necessarily ruin security. (2, Interesting)

guet (525509) | more than 8 years ago | (#14699948)

Congratulations - your content-free post, peppered with ersatz macho bluster and spelling errors, has been rated even higher. Does this prove your theory that crap gets rated highly?

The original point the poster made warrants discussion - he actually attempted to address the question, unlike yourself; you seem to be obsessed with the Slashdot moderation system, frankly, who cares if his post gets rated high or not?

The design of such a system is important, and the people who brought you net send [microsoft.com] possibly aren't the ones you want to trust in creating a global network. Good design is important, and admitting that is the first step towards producing secure networks. Yes of course this is common sense if you've thought about the subject, but unfortunately most people haven't. Shame the original article is such a one-sided rant with very little factual information, because it could be an interesting discussion.

PS
I don't think anyone advocating BSD can be accused of getting 'sheep' to follow them - most of the people reading this page are using Windows to do so.

Re:It won't necessarily ruin security. (1)

Darkman, Walkin Dude (707389) | more than 8 years ago | (#14699993)

frankly, who cares if his post gets rated high or not?

Four words; signal to noise ratio. Lets cut down on the superfluous karma whoring, please, so the more interesting stuff (that makes slashdot what it is) has a chance.

Re:It won't necessarily ruin security. (1)

NoMoreNicksLeft (516230) | more than 8 years ago | (#14699790)

Sure, other OSs, linux and BSD and what not, are a little less secure. But there's "a little less secure" and then there's "made by Microsoft".

Re:It won't necessarily ruin security. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14699775)

filled with Pro-BSD, anti Microsoft garbage

that's exactly how.

Re:It won't necessarily ruin security. (1)

tacocat (527354) | more than 8 years ago | (#14699954)

Darn it.... For a second you had me thinking you actually had a point.

The problem isn't the OS, even under the best applications.

It ultimately is going to come down to a matter of giving the user the trust to run an application that they download from the internet. And the level of trust that the software accessing the internet will be able to actually identify or moderate the downloading of software for the user.

Today you have dumb people downloading bad programs all the time in forms of bots. None of them will run on my Linux machines because they aren't coded to do so. Similarly, none of my users have any kind of access sufficient that they could cause the machine to be rooted, barring any local security holes themselves. Under this construct, even with an application that is executable on Linux, the execution of that code should or could be considered secure.

Given that is the case today, I think it would suffice if the internet accessing software (ie: mozilla) would guarantee that anything written to the disk is written with a umask (default 022) to prevent anything being downloaded from being arbitrarily downloaded with executable permissions. This isn't a gaurantee but it makes the downloaded applications such that the user must consciously execute the application.

I will never consider the internet secure if there is the possibility that an arbitrary user can unwittingly download and execute application code. That's stupid.

Re:It won't necessarily ruin security. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14699895)

you also can do a lot less with OpenBSD than Windows from a "things to run" perspective. Don't talk about there being thousands of open-source compilable/packages etc. unless they match up to the polish of something like, say, Photoshop.

errrr.... (4, Interesting)

scenestar (828656) | more than 8 years ago | (#14699705)

Wasn't UNIX designed to run off a main frame with network terminals connected to it?

Re:errrr.... (1)

CyricZ (887944) | more than 8 years ago | (#14699727)

UNIX was first implemented seriously on the PDP-11/20, which is best classed as a minicomputer. And while the system did indeed use terminals of a sort, they were dumb terminals. It's really not any different than how the keyboard, mouse and monitor are connected to your PC now.

What's being proposed in this article is a different scheme, or so I would gather. It's not so much about applications executing on a separate machine, rather than the operating system software being obtained on the fly. Of course, such ideas are hardly new, and people have been booting over networks for decades now.

Re:errrr.... (5, Informative)

Zeinfeld (263942) | more than 8 years ago | (#14699834)

UNIX was first implemented seriously on the PDP-11/20, which is best classed as a minicomputer. And while the system did indeed use terminals of a sort, they were dumb terminals. It's really not any different than how the keyboard, mouse and monitor are connected to your PC now.

It would have been quite a trick to design an operating system based on the principles of the network protocols later developed on it.

That said, the dumb terminal to mainframe concept was a big part of the UNIX legacy. UNIX was designed from the start as a multi-user environment for the individual user. The kernel supported multiple users but the tasks it was designed for were single user tasks, mostly programming. UNIX was a reaction against mainframe computing of its day.

The author is completely wrong when he says that Windows did not have any security until 2000. Windows NT was designed from the outset to obtain Orange book B2 certification. It would take a huge amount of work to get Linux to meet that criteria. It is generally considered to be 'B2 equivalent' but thats like saying that being ABD is the same thing as having a Phd, the only people who say that are ABD grad students.

Likewise the author is completely wrong about Microsoft being likely to take the O/S in that direction. Unix and VMS led the minicomputer revolution. Gates led the microcomputer revolution which was even more against the central processing store model of computing. If you look at all the early microcomputers you will find that they all ran Microsoft Basic. When IBM went to Microsoft while it was building the PC it was the BASIC they wanted. They only demanded a bootstrap loader when Kildal refused to deal with them for CPM.

The company that tried to make the network the operating system was Netscape. They failed for several reasons, the most important of which was you can't hire 5000 world class engineers in a year and even if you could that you would not end up with a world class team. MarcA's policy of never hiring anyone he thought might be smarter than him didn't help either.

The company that seems to be making the attempt now is Google. They might make it, at this point it is unclear.

Re:errrr.... (0)

NixLuver (693391) | more than 8 years ago | (#14700036)

I think that we're talking apples and oranges here, and our current 'security issue' on the internet outlines what I mean. Windows is the whipping boy of choice, and has demonstrated over and over that it's not secure. As nearly as I can tell, the "B2" rating you speak of doesn't validate security *at all*; it validates 'processes' and a 'model' designated by the military to be 'necessary for base security'. Again, after snooping the web for half an hour or so, it seems that B2 (and most of the other orange book/TPSPEC designations) are about security *from the local user*, and do not address security from external exploit. While that internal security is a necessary part of a secure system, I admit, I would submit that the current issues faced by windows in the wild prove that without intelligent attention to detail, 'B2' is completely irrelevant to *most* users...

http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/libs/security/Oran ge-Linux/refs/Orange/OrangeApp-3.html [kernel.org]

In other words, it seems that B2 guarantees that you cannot gain control of a computer you have legal right to access, but doesn't speak to the design considerations that would keep a blackhat from taking control externally via things like buffer overflows and the like. Regardless, I'm still looking, but I think that SELinux might meet B2 if someone paid for it to be analyzed.

Technically *nix started out single-user (2, Informative)

msobkow (48369) | more than 8 years ago | (#14699804)

The very first iteration of what eventually became Unix was a simple task switcher to allow a game to run at the same time as actual work. Technically it wasn't multi-user, because there was only a system console.

Forget it (4, Insightful)

BadDoggie (145310) | more than 8 years ago | (#14699709)

We gave up on the idea of centralised systems a long time ago with good reason. I remember coding COBOL on 3270s which had to connect to some computer center elsewhere. Can't connect? Can't work.

Local apps give us a lot of freedom. It might be nice to be able to also have such a centralised system available, but even with access on planes, there are always times and places you'll be cut off.

woof.

Forget it-LTSP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14699740)

"We gave up on the idea of centralised systems a long time ago with good reason."

Sez you [ltsp.org]

Re:Forget it (0)

gvc (167165) | more than 8 years ago | (#14699751)

And we should all have our own electric generators, wells, septic tanks, oil patches, gardens, dairies, and so on. And perhaps we should dine in our bomb shelters, eating whatever we can take out of a can and cook on sterno. Just in case.

You need to do better than that (2, Insightful)

BadDoggie (145310) | more than 8 years ago | (#14699819)

Electricity, sewage and oil only work efficiently in huge, centralised systems and aren't feasible in small scale. Likewise subsistance farming (there's not enough land for each person to farm enough for himself).

There are few apps which can't run locally. They might run faster on the massive centralised hardware but if you can't connect, you're fucked. Anyone who can't afford to be fucked by the loss of a connection to any centralised system (like, say, a hospital) has a localised back-up already in place. It's not efficient but it keeps things working.

And you're also ignoring the cost. You'll pay for usage, either flat rate per time period or per-minute. Microsoft's been talking about working Office into this sort of model for more than five years now. Clearly they believe it would earn them more money.

woof.

Re:You need to do better than that (1)

gvc (167165) | more than 8 years ago | (#14699893)

Anyone who can't afford to be fucked by the loss of a connection to any centralised system (like, say, a hospital) has a localised back-up already in place. It's not efficient but it keeps things working.
Exactly. Their primary source is the grid. For backup only, they have an inferior, expensive, hard-to-maintain alternative.

If I would be seriously fucked by loss of my computing, I wouldn't be using my laptop, or a home desktop, or any sort of consumer-grade solution. In terms of availability, I have done no serious study, but I think I've spent more time waiting for my personal computers to come up (or be updated, reconfigured, repaired, etc.) than for my internet connection. At least in the last five years. And that's not to mention actual and potential loss of data, or the administrative time spent trying to mitigate these. Then there's version control. Which one of these fifty Word documents on various machines and media is the current draft? Where are the notes from that meeting?

Re:You need to do better than that (1)

jacksonj04 (800021) | more than 8 years ago | (#14699982)

Companies such as Google try to centralise data, and people go off on one about privacy issues. There's just no winning.

The economies of scale (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14699843)

don't usually apply to software in the same way they apply to physical processes/things.

Re:The economies of scale (1)

gvc (167165) | more than 8 years ago | (#14699927)

The economies of scale don't usually apply to software in the same way they apply to physical processes/things.
That's exactly what Thomas Alva Edison said (in addition to frying small and large [about.com] mammals with the dread alternating current) in an effort to discredit George Westinghouse's electical grid.

Re:Forget it (1)

cyber-vandal (148830) | more than 8 years ago | (#14699785)

Yep that's why no-one uses X, Citrix or Windows Terminal Server.

Connectivity is everywhere (1)

Colin Smith (2679) | more than 8 years ago | (#14699953)

Wireless, GPRS, 3G etc are all pushing us back to the centralised model, it's cheaper, simpler and more efficient than fully distributed.

Mark my words... Google VNC servers... You saw it here first.

 

Affinity (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14699718)

Why say no? I really enjoy the freedom I have with my web based OS. I use Affinity - http://www.oceanworksuk.net/products/affinity_cust omer_relationship_management/ [oceanworksuk.net] It's a nice web based "os" of sorts. I have access to email, task list, calendar, IM, newsfeeds, contact list, and much more. They're currently integrating a nice VOIP client into it. Screen shots: http://www.oceanworksuk.net/news/show_story42.htm [oceanworksuk.net]

Anyone RTFA? (4, Insightful)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 8 years ago | (#14699719)

Sheesh. This was more a "Microsoft Suck0rs, Linux RULZ" article. Very little in the way of actual content and analysis. How did something like this make it on Slashdot? Ooops never mind [blogs.com]

Re:Anyone RTFA? (1)

rylin (688457) | more than 8 years ago | (#14699735)

Wait a second, you expected interesting or meaninful *content* from a blog?

Re:Anyone RTFA? (1)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 8 years ago | (#14699746)

Wait a second, you expected interesting or meaninful *content* from a blog?

Is that what we call Slashdot now?

Re:Anyone RTFA? (1)

rylin (688457) | more than 8 years ago | (#14699805)

Your point?

Re:Anyone RTFA? (1)

Vellmont (569020) | more than 8 years ago | (#14699872)


Wait a second, you expected interesting or meaninful *content* from a blog?

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. It depends on the blog. That's really irrelevent. I do expect something beyond the level of "m1kr0$0ft sUx0Rz t|-|3 b1G 0n3!!" from slashdot. Taco should know better than to post this utter drivel.

Re:Anyone RTFA? (1)

CaymanIslandCarpedie (868408) | more than 8 years ago | (#14699738)

Yeah, it doesn't even have really anything to do with the the summary (internet OS)! Does this count as a dupe since the "article" is just a poorly written summary of your average /. post on MS/Linux?

Parent took the words right out of my mouth. (1)

IAAP (937607) | more than 8 years ago | (#14699788)

I'm going to go back to work now ... and then watch a stupid movie. Especially, if this is going to be the quality of aritcles on /. today.

Say "No" to Executable Internet, but (2, Funny)

layer3switch (783864) | more than 8 years ago | (#14699724)

We all know "no" means "yes"... Yes... you.. dirty filth... yes... daddy like... daddy like...

Yawn, we've been doing this for 15+ years (4, Insightful)

DrSkwid (118965) | more than 8 years ago | (#14699742)

plan9 boots across the internet since forever, the networked file system is delightful, none of this NFS idiocy.

I was horrified when I went back to set up networking booting in Un*xville, yes, horrified. "These people are dumb, not the terminals" is about the most polite I could be about the state of "the network IS the computer".

The article (1)

CaptainFork (865941) | more than 8 years ago | (#14699745)

The article is poorly written and filled with unnecessary attacks on Microsoft.

Huh? (4, Informative)

Otter (3800) | more than 8 years ago | (#14699752)

This reads like the author took twelve completely unrelated +3 comments from Slashdot articles and stuck them together.

Basically, his point is that Lunix rulz and Microsoft is teh sux and such will continue to be the case with AJAX apps. That doesn't make sense even if you concede all the author's idiotic premises.

Re:Huh? (1)

Dylan Knight Rogers (931327) | more than 8 years ago | (#14699795)

It is an opinion piece. The concept itself can be viewed as idiotic by anyone, which doesn't really phase me too much. The fact that someone actually read the article before you and thought it was good enough to be included on Slashdot is good enough for me.

Re:Huh? (1)

someone1234 (830754) | more than 8 years ago | (#14699829)

You mean Taco?

Re:Huh? (1, Flamebait)

generic-man (33649) | more than 8 years ago | (#14699836)

Have you ever heard of proofreading? The word is faze [meriam-webster.com] , not "phase." You have about a hundred spelling and grammar errors like that in your opinion piece whose stream-of-consciousness style seems excessive even by blog standards. You make no cogent points and only parrot the "Microsoft is teh suck, Windows users are idiots, using Linux makes you smart" line that got old years ago. I pity your English teachers for having to read your longer works.

Thank you for the article. (0, Redundant)

CyricZ (887944) | more than 8 years ago | (#14699900)

I just wanted to thank you for writing that article. I know you have taken a lot of flack because of it, but I enjoyed it. It brought up serious issues that we need to consider these days.

The front page story before this one focuses on how a hospital suffered a network failure because of spyware. That just goes to show that we do need to take your points about security and the Internet very seriously.

But as that story shows, apparently those who are designing mission-critical networks aren't using software that promotes security. Why they're resorting to knowingly insecure software for such applications is questionable, especially when alternatives like Linux, OpenBSD, Solaris and Mac OS X are so prevalent (if not free).

It's all about the service model (2, Insightful)

AndroidCat (229562) | more than 8 years ago | (#14699767)

No need to keep selling updates to keep the cash stream going. Just sell a service via the Internet. And you don't even have to make money directly off the people using to service if you can sell their eyes for advertising or tracking data.

Which is fine is the service doesn't disappear or go evil.

This article is one big troll. (4, Insightful)

Vellmont (569020) | more than 8 years ago | (#14699777)

Strangely I thought I was going to read an article about operating systems that run from the web (whatever that means). So I happily click on the article and start reading, wondering what an internet executable operating system is. Ok, history of windows, vast over-simplifications.. read read read.. but yet still no content. Turns out, there really is no content.

Taco, you should be embarrassed for posting the article. There's nothing here but a bad rant about how Windows is a terrible OS, and microsoft sucks. You may agree or disagree with that statement, but rants against Windows aren't news.

The Point? (4, Interesting)

generic-man (33649) | more than 8 years ago | (#14699779)

I read through that article and it just sounds like one pretentious blogger's disdain for Microsoft. Let's run through all the things that got this fast-tracked to Slashdot:

  • Early mention of Steve Ballmer throwing a chair as a microcosm of Microsoft's supposed corporate culture
  • Rampant grammer* and spelling errors overshadowed by a blind sense of faith in the Linux community. Example: "The Linux community will publish every vulnerability, regardless of it's criticality, but the chances that a hacker will even choose to expliot those vulnerabilities is very low, (unnecessary comma) since most of them are of low criticality and it would be stupid to do so, anyways." So people don't attack Linux because "it would be stupid to do so." Thank you.
  • The actual "Executable Internet" isn't mentioned until the second-to-last paragraph: "The only reason a version of Windows that runs from the Internet would even exist would be because there is competition. Microsoft simply does not have enough fists to punch every opponent; resulting in a poorly designed operating platform and ignorant users who don't know the difference between WEP and WPA and those who are also accustomed to having Viagara advertisements greet them every time they boot their computers." Seems like this man is more upset that the hoi polloi use Linux than that Microsoft doesn't care about security.

This is pure Linux-user elitism, the sort of smug "Our Opponent Just Doesn't Get It; We Do; and We're Smarter Than You" attitude that loses political battles [commondreams.org] and makes the arguer only look like a pretentious fool in the eyes of the skeptic.

I dislike Microsoft as much as the next Slashdot user but this article is awful: it simply slams Microsoft as the Big Corporate Machine with quotes like "Microsoft does not publish all their security vulnerabilities because other executive stockholders, whom are also ignorant would become worried and eventually begin to question the platform's security." If I wanted to hear ramblings about the willfully ignorant I'd listen to a David Cross album [subpop.com] .

* Intentional typo used to point out how correcting grammar on Slashdot usually leads to a spelling error, or vice versa

Re:The Point? (1)

generic-man (33649) | more than 8 years ago | (#14699802)

How silly. "...this man is more upset that the hoi polloi use Windows..."

Bzzt! Wrong! I lose! Good day sir!

Re:The Point? (0, Troll)

Dylan Knight Rogers (931327) | more than 8 years ago | (#14699815)

Sure, that is my point exactly. The spelling errors are due in part that I type at 89 wpm. Excuse me, but I did not know that every person who reads Slashdot is an English instructor.

Re:The Point? (1)

generic-man (33649) | more than 8 years ago | (#14699853)

Please learn to proofread. I know that 89 wpm is a good score in Mario Teaches Typing but articles should be filled with well-formed, coherent sentences. Pick up a book some time and see what a touch-typist can produce when he actually reads what he's written.

Your grammar and spelling problems aside, your article was nothing more than the same "Linux is better because everyone who uses Windows is an idiot" elitism I've seen for years. It brings nothing new to the table. I'm sorry that you had to hear this from the boards at Slashdot since by all qualitative standards this article should have been rejected.

Re:The Point? (5, Funny)

BuR4N (512430) | more than 8 years ago | (#14699859)

"The spelling errors are due in part that I type at 89 wpm."

You should put that in your CV.

Re:The Point? (5, Insightful)

Tim Browse (9263) | more than 8 years ago | (#14699889)

I think this is the kind of attitude that people are annoyed by. Receiving criticism with "Yeah, I make mistakes, but that's because I'm so 1337z0rs that I type at 89wpm!" is not really going to cut it. Because if nothing else, if that's the case, then, hey, guess what, you can't type at 89wpm! To paraphrase Gerald Weinberg, I can type at 120wpm if I don't have to get the words right.

And they're not English instructors - some posters can just speak English and find mistakes glaring and detract from the message (see Marshall McLuhan). But go ahead with your arrogant responses. It just makes it easier for the rest of us to filter you out.

People will mostly accept honest mistakes. When the offender instead tries to make out that their mistakes aren't mistakes at all, for whatever reason, when clearly they are, this is what tries people's patience.

Re:The Point? (1)

cyber-vandal (148830) | more than 8 years ago | (#14699997)

I type at about 80wpm and I don't have a problem with either my grammar or my spelling. Of course I also take a couple of seconds to check what I type too because I'd rather my point was read than have it drowned by English language trolls. You might want to consider that ;)

Re:The Point? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14700011)

That's pretty damn good for a 15 year old [osnews.com] . Atta boy!

Re:The Point? (1)

Vellmont (569020) | more than 8 years ago | (#14700044)


The spelling errors are due in part that I type at 89 wpm.


Judging by the content you posted, maybe you should slow down a little and think about what you're typing. I find this comment of yours about "89 wpm" very insightfull into your general attitude toward writing. It's as if getting it out of your head is the most important thing, rather than actually trying to make a point. That's what editing, and reading what you've written are about. Have you read any of the top rated responses? Most people think your post was a fetid load of dingoes kidneys.

I don't even blame you for this article making it on slashdot, even though you submitted this horseshit. Taco is the one who posted it, and he's the one to blame for it appearing on slashdot.

article summary (5, Funny)

homer_s (799572) | more than 8 years ago | (#14699782)

Windows sucks
Linux rulez
and , oh.. .executable internet...something...something...

Cross-Platform? (1)

Sr. Pato (900333) | more than 8 years ago | (#14699783)

If implemented properly, over-all, I think things like this really add a lot to the functionality of PCs. Eventually, it wouldn't matter what Operating System you ran in terms of what applications you'd be restricted to run.

Security? Well, that's why I say "If implemented properly,"

Who forgot to change the battery? (2, Funny)

3seas (184403) | more than 8 years ago | (#14699814)

Damn'it my access to the internet OS comes up as Jan. 1 1980....

Accuracy of article. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14699824)

The article states that microsoft has ingnored gaming consoles, and portable music devices. Ever heard of the Xbox? Or playsforsure?

uh (1)

icepick72 (834363) | more than 8 years ago | (#14699832)

The article says: Other factors that Microsoft paid little to no attention to and still don't today would be gaming consoles, advertising, portable music devices, and computer security.

Um, Can anybody say "XBOX"?

What is Microsoft's advertising revenue? I see many M$ adverts all around, but have yet to remember seeing the competition advertising. I think I don't want more M$ advertising thank you very much. Funny how they're doing such a good job of it without paying attention whatsoever!

This blog article is screwed. I stopped reading at this point. Next Slashdot article please ...

Re:uh (-1, Troll)

Dylan Knight Rogers (931327) | more than 8 years ago | (#14699852)

Ignored until they feel the need to put their foot in the market. Did you fail to see that portion of the sentence? Are you simply on the bandwagon with what everybody else is saying about my post? Jeez...

Re:uh (1)

generic-man (33649) | more than 8 years ago | (#14699923)

Let's examine this sentence again.

Other factors that Microsoft paid little to no attention to and still don't today would be gaming consoles, advertising, portable music devices, and computer security.

I'll expand this to include both clauses separately.

Other factors that Microsoft paid little to no attention to would be gaming consoles, advertising, portable music devices, and computer security. Other factors that Microsoft still doesn't pay attention to today would be gaming consoles, advertising, portable music devices, and computer security.

It's that second sentence where the problem comes in. You see, Microsoft spends a ton of money on advertising and actually intends to make money off the Xbox 360 after taking a bath on the Xbox. Likewise they are still aggressively courting the iPod's music share by allowing more than one music store to work with Plays For Sure devices. Among the reasons why Vista was delayed: an active effort to include more security features into the operating system, some of which should be familiar to any Linux or Mac OS X user, at the expense of some of the glitzier features that were promised earlier. If that's not attention, what is?

I appreciate your skepticism about the Xbox 360's prospects, but that sentence just seems like a flippant remark that you use to ignore any positive effort Microsoft tries to make. It is but one of dozens of remarks made throughout the article with no citation, a blatant disregard for any facts with which you disagree, and a blind show of support for anybody but Microsoft. Have you considered a writing career with the Colbert Report [colbertnation.com] ?

Re:uh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14699925)

GP is right. I stopped reading once I got to that point too.

Are you simply on the bandwagon with what everybody else is saying about my post?

Well, maybe you should think about expressing your thoughts more clearly, if so many people got it wrong.

Is Everybody that runs Slashdot a Stoner? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14699838)

This article, as well as Slashdot in itself seems like it was created by Stoners. I am sure if I packed a bowl and went to Slashdot it would be awesome.

May I suggest instead ... (3, Funny)

icepick72 (834363) | more than 8 years ago | (#14699846)

Just say 'No' to This Article

Thanks.

Great. bring back the good old days (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 8 years ago | (#14699849)

Where users were controllable and things worked properly because WE managed things.

A user doesnt need any more then just a terminal. Anything else is waste of resources.

The concept isn't bad, but the application stinks (2, Insightful)

v1 (525388) | more than 8 years ago | (#14699861)

The idea of web based applications is actually very handy, and offers access to the program from a variety of locations, which is good.

Unfortunately, a huge majority of these applications are going active-x or other proprietary format, and are limiting users' access on a more fundamental level - they expand the coverage range but limit you by your access point. Our ticket system has just gone to an active-x system. Now I cannot access it from my laptop anymore. So instead of making things more flexible for me and being able to access the system from any of the 200 machines in the building that I used to be able to use, I now can access it from less than two dozen machines, only one of which I have convenient access to.

Wonderful, just wonderful.

.NET objective..... (1)

3seas (184403) | more than 8 years ago | (#14699862)

soooo, isn't teh whole point of .net that of internet based application development?

Re:.NET objective..... (1)

TheNetAvenger (624455) | more than 8 years ago | (#14700022)

soooo, isn't teh whole point of .net that of internet based application development?

Um, no. .NET is about managed code, langauge independance, messaging technologies inside a closed network or across the internet, and about 50 other things not related to Internet Applications.

However, this really has no relevance, as this article is crap...

Maybe I should write an article about monkey DNA, and devote ten pages to how Windows is perfect, Linux is the devil and then put in the last paragraph, "Monkeys have DNA." Then I could get an insightful article on Monkey DNA posted on Slashdot.

What has happened to this site? It used to stand for something, now it is becoming the Enquirer of the Internet world.

What next, "Two headed Linux user from Mars proclaims Windows obsolete?"

Worst Article EVER (4, Insightful)

pyite (140350) | more than 8 years ago | (#14699878)

This is the worst article ever linked to on Slashdot. I'd tell you read it and see for yourself, but I really don't want to put anyone else through that experience. Can I have my five minutes back?

Re:Worst Article EVER (1)

Dylan Knight Rogers (931327) | more than 8 years ago | (#14699890)

That is your opinion. I appreciate the feedback, as it is feedback nevertheless. I find your signature very ironic to your feedback, however. ([...]You can still be wrong." - Richard Feynman)

Re:Worst Article EVER (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14699947)

Can I have mine? That link is dead like most postings on Slashdot! FUCK you guys

Re:Worst Article EVER (1)

heinousjay (683506) | more than 8 years ago | (#14699996)

Dude, you pulled your article. I feel robbed. Care to reproduce it here in a comment so I can ridicule it properly?

Re:Worst Article EVER (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14699933)

I want my 5 minutes back too. What is this author, 15 years old and just discovered Linux or what? Embarassingly bad writing, both in terms of content (is there even any?) and presentation (hello grammar mistakes).

Re:Worst Article EVER (1)

BuR4N (512430) | more than 8 years ago | (#14699937)

If its any comfort, no one else risk to lose 5 minutes of their life, the page is down/gone...

suspicious Cache files too? (2, Interesting)

FudRucker (866063) | more than 8 years ago | (#14699905)

i have seen some shell scripts in my SeaMonkey's Cache directory, i am not sure what they did so i made a shell script to delete the cache files automatically...

it may be nothing but on the otherhand it may be an Evil shell script, next time i find one i will examine it closer...

Too early on Sunday morning (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14699918)

I thought the headline was "Say no to an Executive Internet". Immediately I had a vision of news sites where you didn't have to invest time reading the articles, but instead could proceed immediately to concise summaries, commentaries, links, and jokes.

Oh wait...

be happy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14699924)

even tho its a lil' hasterating. i like it.

let them invent their business. let them fetch new coward targets.

the net and the way you use it is still your thing...
so stop whimper - you'll still have fun

Bandwidth will stop this (1)

a_greer2005 (863926) | more than 8 years ago | (#14699931)

Bandwidth on the WAN side is too expencive for anything more than what we have now - for Christs sake, a T1 is nearly 500$/mo. The baby bells are screwing us, they promised us hundreds of times the bandwith of today at a fraction of the price if only we "pay it forward" in user fees in the 90s, we did, they didnt keep their end, so no...cant happen.

This article misses the point. (3, Insightful)

nesabishii (834123) | more than 8 years ago | (#14699932)

First let me point out a few odd statements in this article:

"factors that Microsoft paid little to no attention to and still don't today would be gaming consoles..."

The X-Box and the X-Box 360? Microsoft put billions of dollars into those gaming consoles.

"As experience tells us, 'easily used' operating systems such as Windows are notorious for poor security..."

What about Apple's Unix-based OS X? That's often considered easier to use than Windows for new computer users.

"resulting in a poorly designed operating platform and ignorant users who don't know the difference between WEP and WPA..."

It seems like he's arguing that the users of an operating system determine the quality of that operating system.

Really, I think this article misses the point. Internet-based OSes will not be feasible now or in the near future, I agree; however, that has more to do with bandwidth limitations, and the enormous variety of hardware out there, than security flaws in Windows (Live?). Security will always be a big issue--especially when distributed to a network of hundreds of millions of computers--but the hardware and infrastructure issues will derail the process much earlier and more severely, IMO.

404 - Page not found (2, Informative)

limegreen (516173) | more than 8 years ago | (#14699955)

Judging by all the negative comments, the flaming article has been pulled.

Re:404 - Page not found (1)

ettlz (639203) | more than 8 years ago | (#14699987)

Damn shame, too. If something's really that bad, it's got to be worth a look. The whole F blog's been taken down along with it.

That link has died. (1)

supasam (658359) | more than 8 years ago | (#14699978)

So it's at least a little hard to follow the story right now.

Executable Internet = AI (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14699979)

AI Algorithms [sourceforge.net] already exist to turn the Internet into a global thinking Artificial Intelligence.

It will resemble the Mainframe/Dumb Terminal world (1)

saridder (103936) | more than 8 years ago | (#14699984)

This type of model can be inherently secure as most of the processing, policies and intelligence for these types of applications will be in a central data center. The main difference between this new world and the old is the ability to access the compute resources from anywhere or virtually any device on any network. So if we use a lot of the lessons learned from the "olden days," we can create the best of both worlds.

Karma Whoring (1)

DoddyUK (884783) | more than 8 years ago | (#14699992)

Mirror [mirrordot.org] for TFA.

Well... (2, Funny)

Comatose51 (687974) | more than 8 years ago | (#14700001)

Saying 'No' to an Executable Internet

Not Found

The requested URL was not found on this server. Please visit the Blogger homepage or the Blogger Knowledge Base for further assistance.

Sure told them!

No. (0)

Stan Vassilev (939229) | more than 8 years ago | (#14700006)

No.

Article Summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14700014)

Hey you kids, get off of my lawn!

Re:The Point? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14700024)

The spelling errors are due in part that I type at 89 wpm.


Is that gross or net?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?