From the "What he said" department...In an article posted 5/25/07, "Cross-platform open source threat: Is open source really more secure?" in TechRepublic, John McCormick wrote:

Sophos has disclosed the existence of a proof-of-concept worm (StarOfficeBadbunny) that attacks through a vulnerability in OpenOffice and other programs using StarBasic macros. According to Sophos, this is a multi-platform threat affecting Windows, Mac OS, and Linux. It is written in several scripting languages, including Perl.

While this particular threat is minor, it does illustrate a growing problem. I am all in favor of open source code, but I have never bought into the idea that it was less vulnerable to attack.

Just to start out on the right foot with open source fans, I like OpenOffice, and I often recommend it to small business clients and individuals who need Microsoft Office-like applications but don’t like Microsoft prices. I also like and use Firefox and Linux, and I recommend both as well as other open source software.

Sometimes the more security-savvy of my friends and customers say to me, “Oh, you recommend OpenOffice (Linux, etc.) because you think it is safer!” In a practical, everyday sense, yes — if you run Linux, you are less likely to be hacked.

But I feel the need to explain that I have no idea whether it is inherently safer. I’m not convinced that Firefox or Linux is actually safer than Microsoft products in any absolute meaning of the term.

We seldom hear of big threats to open source platforms, but that isn’t the same thing as saying they are inherently more secure. They may merely be attacked less often. Pointing out that they are “not being targeted as much as Microsoft” doesn’t PROVE they are less vulnerable. They may be less vulnerable, but that only PROVES that they are “not being targeted as much as Microsoft.”

Open source is certainly cheaper if you don’t need much support – although even that is highly debatable if you need to support a lot of users on open source operating systems or applications, especially if you (or they) are trying to do anything even slightly out of the ordinary. (Don’t forget training costs: How many of your new workers learned Linux and OpenOffice in school? Most of the ones I see have been trained — if badly – on Microsoft.)

Open source vs. Microsoft security is an OLD argument, but two recent developments have brought a different focus to the question. First is this multi-platform malware I just described. Second is the fact that Dell just announced it would begin selling Linux-loaded computers at Wal-Mart.

An exacerbating circumstance is that home users MAY wake up to the incredible cost of converting to Vista (and the tiny advantage) and begin actively seeking an alternative. Put the Dell name and reputation behind inexpensive Linux-based PCs in a discount setting, and they are going to sell. Add the cost of Vista (including the need for much more powerful hardware), and Wal-Mart Linux Dells may sell A LOT!

Heck, I expect to buy at least one myself. And based on that, I may recommend them to clients, but that doesn’t mean there is no potential downside. Currently, I would much rather try to secure a Linux environment mainly running mainstream open source applications, but that may change if Linux becomes more popular outside the controlled business setting.

For example, if Wal-Mart starts selling a lot of Linux boxes to home users who are then open to exploitation as zombies, we can expect a lot more directed attacks. As the target grows larger, it will become more tempting to take an occasional shot at it. And that’s when we will begin to see whether open source really is inherently less vulnerable in the real world where Microsoft operates.

Although a lot of businesses and advanced users already have Linux and use non-Microsoft browsers and office applications, I still consider this to be a hothouse environment. That is, it is running (and running very well) in a restricted and relatively safe world.

If you are supporting a Linux office, I BET your network is sitting behind a well-maintained firewall! When Linux is on millions of home user machines connected to cable boxes, it will be out in the jungle where Microsoft users get slashed every day.

So should those of us who actually use and especially support Linux, Firefox, and open source applications really be pleased to see a flood of novice users? Pride aside, is it a good idea from a business standpoint? Am I being selfish to want Linux and great open source applications to remain the favorites of relatively few users and most of them (us) highly security-conscious?

It is far from certain that non-Microsoft platforms and applications will eventually become popular and vulnerable targets for malware producers. I am fairly certain that, unless a lot of them get into the hands of home users and clueless business users, there won’t be much incentive for the bad guys to begin to explore potential vulnerabilities.

Today I’d much prefer to be in charge of securing a Linux-based office than a Microsoft office – just as I prefer strolling around in a nice, safe neighborhood where lots of people aren’t prowling the alleys out to mug me. (It’s always so annoying having to explain all the muggers’ injuries to any cops who don’t know me. GRIN.)

Keeping a good thing to yourself can be considered selfish, but in business sometimes it’s just a matter of common sense. So, while some will cheer to see Dell and Wal-Mart selling Linux boxes to the masses, I won’t be among them. I already know how to load Linux on a bare box — something that, even today, few home users are able to do for themselves.

 

 

 

 

The three body problem is an old problem in physics - the physics which deal with dynamic systems.  I'm learning lately, how much this concept can be applied to so many dynamic systems we see around us in our everyday life.

 

Basically, the Three Body Problem is an attempt to describe the chaos which ensues when a third body is injected into a pre-existing two body system.  You see, inherently when two bodies are bound together, they trace out a known predictive path (such as a mathematically predictable ellipsis when talking about celestial bodies). 

 

However, when a third body is introduced to the system, chaos ensues.  In fact, so much so that mathematically, there can be no predictive solution calculated for a three body system.  This is seen in the study of celestial motion.  When the three body condition exists, there exist no formulas to describe the motion or predict the positions or the velocities of the three bodies as they react upon one another.

 

OK, so this is all boring, right?  : )  LOLOL, Noooooo!  It's actually fascinating!!!  Especially when you consider, say, the cost of a transaction in society.  In the closed system of a buyer and seller, there is an exchange, and the cost of the transaction is relatively low.  But the introduction of a third party into that transaction (say, the government trying to control or restrict trade) then chaos is injected into the system and the cost of the transaction rises inevitably.

 

Neato, Huh?    =:o      

I think so....   ; )

 

For more information, check out:

 

 

 

 

If you haven't seen this list yet, you should.  Warning:  don't read it with any liquid in your mouth.  I'm still wiping tea offa my monitor.  Bash is a home for quotes which take place over the internet which ordinary people submit.

 

One of my favorites: 

<WiLdSeXyPrInCeSs> i luv guyz where would they be wifout us gals???
<XeNoX> Still in the Garden Of Eden you gullible bitch.

If it's true that a medical student at MIT has found a power source that generates 1000 times more heat than conventional fuel, then it *may dispute Quantum Theory*.   That's frickin HUGE. 

 

This theory of power generation is supposed to be impossible given what we know today of Quantum Mechanics.

 

 

From the article:

<quote>

What has much of the physics world up in arms is Dr Mills's claim that he has produced a new form of hydrogen, the simplest of all the atoms, with just a single proton circled by one electron. In his "hydrino", the electron sits a little closer to the proton than normal, and the formation of the new atoms from traditional hydrogen releases huge amounts of energy.

This is scientific heresy. According to quantum mechanics, electrons can only exist in an atom in strictly defined orbits, and the shortest distance allowed between the proton and electron in hydrogen is fixed. The two particles are simply not allowed to get any closer.

</quote>

 

Remember the debacle over cold fusion?  LOL  This could either be scientists looking for infamy (in which case, they WILL get what they wish for), or a profound reset to our understanding of the very very small...

 

This one will be very FUN to watch.

Whelp, I finally did it.  I joined a clan.  And not just any clan.  They're the Anti-Clan Clan.  It's almost recursive like GNU (Gnu's Not Unix).  They're really fun.  They're seriously good players, and yet I can vascillate between serious and silly and they won't toss me out.  I'm easily the suckiest player, but they abide me.  At least I don't play the harmonica (or my banjo) during a firefight.