evanmorris.com

Linux: A European threat to our computers

Like most things that are worth owning, Computers are an American invention. Look at any modern computer and you will see that the whole thing is the product of American brilliance.

For example, this rugged IBM laptop I am using was designed and built by an American company. It runs software built by Microsoft, one of America's most productive organizations. My computer does everything I could possibly want: I can do my work, submit my taxes and even search the Bible.

Like all the greatest American engineering, it's an example of innovation that makes a growing group of European and Chinese hackers jealous. They hate our lead in computing technology and will stop at nothing until they have control of all of our computers.

I'm talking about a project called 'Linux', something you may not have encountered, but might do some day.

It's a computer program that was initially developed in Finland as a means of circumventing valuable copyrights and patents owned by an American company called SCO Group.

Unlike Windows, which is a mature commercial product which is normally included with every new computer, Linux is given away. Now it may not sound like much of a problem, after all there is very little profit in merely giving a product away.

This would be certainly true were in not for the Linux project's seductive Marxist ideology and the effect that it has on 'Blue-State' liberals. Indeed, Linux is so pervasive amongst the blue states and many liberal universities that a leading computer expert Steve Balmer (from Microsoft) described Linux as cancer.

The American software industry is worth more than $7 Billion; Introducing a foreign product like Linux which is often copied for free could threaten that entire industry. A generation of computer users might get use to accepting foreign software hand-outs rather than paying for a superior American products. If only the danger were just to our economy:

These days computers control everything from TV stations to battleships; Our crucial information and defense infrastructure is built on computer technology. If we allow this cancer into our networks, there is no knowing what the effect might be on our infrastructure, but that is just what liberals are trying to do.

Imagine if the State of the Union address were hacked because the TV station decided to save money by using Linux? Imagine if a stealth-bomber crashed because it's software was written by anonymous Chinese or European hackers. It would make as much sense as inviting the French to come over and take over the White-House.

And guess what software Osama Bin Laden uses on his laptop?

more at link

Posted by evan at 3:01 PM | Permalink

The Borowitz Report .com

Elsewhere, when asked how it felt to publish her first novel and then be charged with plagiarism, author Kaavya Viswanathan said, “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times.”

Posted by evan at 9:56 AM | Permalink

Fuzzy isn't really angry, just a bit intense.

Posted by evan at 12:34 AM | Permalink

About Hedgehogs

Hedgehogs are not porcupines or vice versa.

And that's the One Big Thing they know.

Posted by evan at 5:33 PM | Permalink

MS Expands Anti-Piracy Program, Reissues Patch - (washingtonpost.com)

Microsoft today began expanding its anti-piracy program by quietly pushing out a software update that in many cases automatically scans Windows computers and reports on whether they are powered by unlicensed software.

Posted by evan at 11:51 AM | Permalink

Save the Internet

Congress is pushing a law that would abandon Network Neutrality, the Internet’s First Amendment. Network neutrality prevents companies like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast from deciding which Web sites work best for you — based on what site pays them the most. Your local library shouldn’t have to outbid Barnes & Noble for the right to have its Web site open quickly on your computer.

Net Neutrality allows everyone to compete on a level playing field and is the reason that the Internet is a force for economic innovation, civic participation and free speech. If the public doesn’t speak up now, Congress will cave to a multi-million dollar lobbying campaign by telephone and cable companies that want to decide what you do, where you go, and what you watch online.

This isn’t just speculation — we’ve already seen what happens elsewhere when the Internet’s gatekeepers get too much control. Last year, Canada’s version of AT&T — Telus— blocked their Internet customers from visiting a Web site sympathetic to workers with whom Telus was negotiating. And Shaw, a major Canadian cable company, charges an extra $10 a month to subscribers who dare to use a competing Internet telephone service.

This is very serious, and it will be irreversible. Read the whole page and lean on your legislators NOW.

Posted by evan at 12:30 AM | Permalink

Hey kids, it's Kiki the Cat! Yay Kiki!

Kiki is the mother-in-law cat around here, long-lost mother of Gus, Phoebe and Harry. Kiki materialized in the garage about six months after we took the kittens in, and once we brought her into the house (when the temperature dropped below zero), they instantly recognized her.

In this shot, Kiki is sitting on the arm of the sofa in the living room. Kiki spends all day every day sitting in that spot.

Kiki was quite thin when she joined us, but she now resembles a furry football.

She looks worried in this picture. Kiki is always worried that we're getting ready to toss her back outside.

Kiki likes to be petted in moderation, but try to pick her up and you'll be unwrapping Band-Aids for the next 20 minutes.

Posted by evan at 12:34 AM | Permalink

... Modern operating systems like Linux and Mac OS X operate under a security model where even administrative users don't get full access to certain features unless they provide an in-place logon before performing any task that might harm the system. This type of security model protects users from themselves, and it is something that Microsoft should have added to Windows years and years ago. Here's the good news. In Windows Vista, Microsoft is indeed moving to this kind of security model. The feature is called User Account Protection (UAP) and, as you might expect, it prevents even administrative users from performing potentially dangerous tasks without first providing security credentials, thus ensuring that the user understands what they're doing before making a critical mistake. It sounds like a good system. But this is Microsoft, we're talking about here. They completely botched UAP. The bad news, then, is that UAP is a sad, sad joke. It's the most annoying feature that Microsoft has ever added to any software product, and yes, that includes that ridiculous Clippy character from older Office versions. The problem with UAP is that it throws up an unbelievable number of warning dialogs for even the simplest of tasks. That these dialogs pop up repeatedly for the same action would be comical if it weren't so amazingly frustrating. It would be hilarious if it weren't going to affect hundreds of millions of people in a few short months. It is, in fact, almost criminal in its insidiousness. Let's look a typical example. One of the first things I do whenever I install a new Windows version is download and install Mozilla Firefox. If we forget, for a moment, the number of warning dialogs we get during the download and install process (including a brazen security warning from Windows Firewall for which Microsoft should be chastised), let's just examine one crucial, often overlooked issue. Once Firefox is installed, there are two icons on my Desktop I'd like to remove: The Setup application itself and a shortcut to Firefox. So I select both icons and drag them to the Recycle Bin. Simple, right? Wrong. Here's what you have to go through to actually delete those files in Windows Vista. First, you get a File Access Denied dialog (Figure) explaining that you don't, in fact, have permission to delete a ... shortcut?? To an application you just installed??? Seriously? OK, fine. You can click a Continue button to "complete this operation." But that doesn't complete anything. It just clears the desktop for the next dialog, which is a Windows Security window (Figure). Here, you need to give your permission to continue something opaquely called a "File Operation." Click Allow, and you're done. Hey, that's not too bad, right? Just two dialogs to read, understand, and then respond correctly to. What's the big deal? What if you're doing something a bit more complicated? Well, lucky you, the dialogs stack right up, one after the other, in a seemingly never-ending display of stupidity. Indeed, sometimes you'll find yourself unable to do certain things for no good reason, and you click Allow buttons until you're blue in the face. It will never stop bothering you, unless you agree to stop your silliness and leave that file on the desktop where it belongs. Mark my words, this will happen to you. And you will hate it. ...

Posted by evan at 11:14 PM | Permalink

Macworld: News: Apple could double market share on Microsoft defections

Consumers are so distrustful of Microsoft that Apple could double its market share due to defections from the Windows operating system, a report by market analysis firm Forrester Research says.

[snip]

The low scores for Microsoft could mean good news for Apple as consumers showed their distrust of the Redmond-based software-giant.

“Microsoft faces big consumer defection risk: One measure of consumers’ dissatisfaction with Microsoft is seen in the 5.4 million households that gave it a brand trust of 1 (distrust a lot) or 2 (distrust a bit),” the report said. “Compared with all Microsoft users, these at-risk users have higher income, are much more likely to be male and are bigger online spenders. These households know they run Microsoft software but would be just as happy to leave it behind — if they could. Apple could double its PC share by winning Microsoft’s at-risk customers.”

The demographic of Microsoft’s at-risk customers fits well with Apple’s user base, which Forrester describes as “affluent, optimistic about technology and brand aware.”

The study was also done before Apple gave users of its Intel-based Macs the ability to run Windows natively on their computers using a dual-boot configuration.

Forrester had a couple of findings in the report that may be worrisome. One finding is that Apple’s brand recognition fails to encompass the iPod.

“The Apple brand adoption data looks wrong — after all, the company has sold 42 million iPods, far more than the 5.2 million households that claim to use the Apple brand regularly — until you realize that ‘Apple Computer’ is not the same brand as ‘iPod,’ the Forrester report said.

Forrester says that Apple should link the iPod more strongly to the Apple brand in future advertising. This would also link potential customers to the higher margin computer products. ...

It's really rather amazing that Apple hasn't done an "If you like this [iPod], you'll love this [mac mini]" ad campaign.

Posted by evan at 3:51 PM | Permalink

Windows or Mac? Apple Says Both - New York Times

SAN FRANCISCO, April 5 — After long imploring computer users to "think different" and defining the Macintosh as a lone bulwark against the Windows onslaught, Apple Computer has decided to open the gate, at least a bit.

Two decades after the first Mac arrived, Apple said Wednesday that it would offer users of its latest models a simple way to run the Microsoft Windows operating system as well as its own.

That means a single Apple computer will run programs written for either the Mac or Windows, though it will have to shut down one system to start the other.

As someone said, in one move Apple has gone from "It Just Works" to "What the hell is wrong with this thing?"

My guess is that very few consumers will be drawn in by this, although it will be a boon for folks forced to use Windows apps for work, etc.

Both of my computers now dual-boot Linux and Windows, and every time I boot into XP (which is about once a week) I realize how much I hate Windows. It's really not rational, because I long ago figured out how to make XP as solid as it can be, but it's just an ugly, stupid system. It's also appreciably slower than Linux. Even my mouse works better in Linux, and it was designed for XP. Go figure.

Ninety percent of home computer users would be better off, and much happier, using OS X.

Posted by evan at 12:35 AM | Permalink

Microsoft Says Recovery from Malware Becoming Impossible

Posted by evan at 6:57 PM | Permalink