| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Microsoft takes Apple approach to security | |
|
||
| Time: 10:24 EST/15:24 GMT | News Source: E-Mail | Posted By: Brian Kvalheim | ||
|
Microsoft has finally finished the long-awaited upgrade for Windows XP, which should be available to PC users in August. The second major update since XP was released in October 2001 focuses on fixing the security holes that have plagued it in recent months. Microsoft has followed Apple's lead in turning all the security features on by default, rather then leaving the OS wide-open to attacks. As well as making virus-writers' and hackers' work that much more difficult, the update could also spell the end for the pop-up ad. Internet Explorer 6 will be set to block pop-ups by default, trailing all the other major browsers that have long had built-in pop-up blocking. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 164 Last | Next |
The time now is
5:31:35 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 2332 (66.228.91.12) at 8/9/2004 12:44:42 PM |
|
Apple's lead?
Give me a break. OpenBSD has done this for a decade. |
| #2 By 135 (68.112.141.72) at 8/9/2004 6:43:03 PM |
|
Wait a minute.
Microsoft is taking Apple's lead? you mean they're going to start ignoring security? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooo!!!!!!!! |
| #3 By 21203 (4.5.32.137) at 8/10/2004 5:23:14 AM |
|
Actually you're all wrong.
Microsoft's firewall implementation (not the filtering mechanism, because that isn't necessarily a firewall by the strictest definition, though it could be considered one) is one-way: it only looks for unsolicited traffic from the internet. The key "flaw" (if you consider it as such) is that it doesn't do anything to prevent trojans from sending data outbound once installed. The prompts that you may or may not see from XP's firewall (at least in SP2) say very clearly that the program in use may receive unsolicited (key word) traffic from the internet. Like an FTP server, or UDP streams in WMP. So in that sense, sure -- 3rd party programs can totally trump Windows Firewall and make it look completely inferior. What it does, it does well. It's kinda hard not to, really. Now here's the catch: If you take Windows Firewall, Antivirus, and automatic updates and lump that all together, you have an impressive security mandate. Especially if you throw on SP2. How could that possibly be better than using ZoneAlarm or some other 3rd party firewall? Simple ... Microsoft trusts your machine to have functional good applications; it does not want to waste cycles testing and validating traffic on every program. Instead, it's opting to assume that the antivirus products can identify the program being run. It really makes a lot of sense. Throw in SP2 and some seriously reduced surface area to attack, add in automatic updates, and you really have a system that bugs you less, is secure more, and just works. While I always liked the "good" firewalls out there, it really annoyed me how much "training" was required to do what I wanted to do. Microsoft's firewall solution is the smallest memory footprint out there, and does the least (functionally), but does it in the best possible way: Don't allow any unsolicited traffic unless specifically allowed. I always thought it was backward to have a firewall product monitor the programs that were sending data. But I'm sure others have differing opinions on that... time will tell. |
| #4 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 8/10/2004 12:16:08 PM |
|
ipfirewall is just a packet filter.
WFW uses a sub-set of the new ISA - where it is both state-ful and supports applications filters - unique to ISA. It's also designed to work with ISA - not against it as was the case prior to SP2 and SP2 for ISA 2000 and before ISA 2004. http://www.isaserver.org It means also that XP SP2 systems can have host level protection as well as NW edge and perimeter defenses and easily trust hosts on the internal subnet(s) as designated by the user or admins. Connectoids are also supported - allowing ISA and third parties to check the state of WFW using XML and GPO's. This provides for a much deeper and richer ability to sustain a consistent level of end-user policy and state compliance. The same is true of mail clients, and VPN clients - same richness - for example within the Sender Policy Framework [SPF]. |
| #5 By 21203 (4.5.32.137) at 8/10/2004 5:02:05 PM |
|
You're going to have to be specific about "all that". It does antivirus? It does stateful filtering? It has application level filters? It's designed to work with ISA?
Where's the link for IPFilter for windows? I'd like to compare it with the other memory footprints and performance I did with the other firewall products out there. I have yet to see something provide the same level of function as windows firewall for the memory and CPU footprint. This post was edited by mram on Tuesday, August 10, 2004 at 17:03. |
| #6 By 21203 (4.5.32.137) at 8/10/2004 10:19:56 PM |
| TCO? OMG what's that?! What the heck ... people just don't look at the shelf price anymore?!?! |
| #7 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 8/10/2004 10:44:03 PM |
|
Ok - that's it....
Perhaps off subject, but...ISA 2000/2004 runs beautifully in front of MAC OS 8.6, 92.2., OS X 10.x.x and all Unices/Linuces. It is an ICSA Group IV Approved Firewall and uses a CARP Compliant Cache to manage its resource pools amongst member servers [ISA 2000 in AD Integrated Mode - Enterprise Edition and later 2004 Enterprise Edition]. Hal, it is a great solution for all OS'es of all types - I know, I've used it for years, deploy it for as many clients as will listen and I regard it as the absolute best firewall ever produced. There are three modes, SecureNAT Clients, Web Proxy Clients and Firewall Clients - wise admins use all three at once [on Windows Systems]. Only the Firewall Client, which features applications level filters is exclusive to Windows. In SecureNAT and Web Proxy Client Configurations, it works as other firewall appliances do - only better. Now, it would take several years to go over all that one can do with ISA, but I just wanted to point out that ISA is for all OS'es and all client types - when you say it is not the MAC, or BSD, or Linux solution,, that is simply not true. Please see, http://www.isaserver.org - from what we see and have evaluated [and we use many different products at different layers], the best solution is ISA 2000/2004 with all three clients and the WFW in Windows XP SP2. Heck, even the dern Dynamic DNS Servers are locked down and securely published. Thanks |
| #8 By 8556 (12.217.111.74) at 8/11/2004 1:00:34 AM |
| baarod: I thought OSX evolved from NeXT's Openstep Unix OS in the late 90's. Was Openstep a "ripoff" of BSD? |
| #9 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 8/11/2004 8:59:50 AM |
|
The development of OSX is one of the most interesting there is and really can't be looked at without noting the Unix timeline, http://www.levenez.com/unix/history.html#11
We support a lot of OSX Centric companies - using native W2K3 Domains and Server products - including ISA. It is based upon the Darwin kernel and makes use of Mach 3.0 to provide for a micro-kernel like architecture - overcoming the traditional limitations of monolithic kernel designs. We've developed, or rather, overcome a lot of challenges in supporting web applications for both OSX Safari and IE variants - allowing advertisers to submit ads through controlled spaces to web davs that feed production systems for those producing various magazines. We sustain this effort each day - securing many end-clients in the process. In each case, we do not use IPFilter, but instead rely upon a mix of commercial products - SW and HW. Now, opposite the most die-hard MAC and certainly OSX advocates, who had an almost irrational dislike of Microsoft products, we have been able to use science, and reason to show how the two side could work together to produce some amazing material - the ads and magazines our clients produce. I have to share however, that it has been those of us on the W2K3 and XP side that have written the code and built the heterogeneous SW and networks that have made it possible - owing to MS's ability to support a mix of clients with Windows Services for Unix [an OSS award winner]. Using W2K3 RRAS to support both XP and OSX VPN Clients, and much more. In all cases we have seen, the open mindedness and solutions have actually been on the MS side, and using MS tools, servers and SW to strengthen the abilities of OSX and allow its users to work the way they choose. I'd get into the case study that is behind this from both MS and APC - leading to awards for the companies involved, but ClosedStandards would probably snipe at it from his Mother's basement. The best part is that "it is" possible for OSS and MS to work together - just don't count on OSS to be in any way "open" about it and do count on MS SW to carry most of the water. Anyone interested in specifics, write me at the email at my profile - I don't hide it like many do. |
| #10 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 8/11/2004 7:22:17 PM |
|
I'm speaking to mind-set.
I very real ways - those we observed, the people that were open were the guys on the MS side of the house - e.g., those of us that actually make such environments work. Just as I have tried many times over the past few weeks to use real examples that people can visit on the web, to demonstrate various models, technical points and other information - something tangible. What we encounter from OSS advocates is a close-mindedness that is not consistent with the term OSS. I find this ironic. BTW, when one asks MS for code - even source code, they provide it. That has been our experience. MS has provided my company with a great deal and were are puny. I suspect that they provide more significant companies with much more. I have found, particularly amongst Java Devs, and MAC users, is a confusing lack of open monded thinking - despite simultaneous claims of being so open. While it has taken time, we have managed to win these people [form among our clients] over and show them how we have busted our backsides to allow them to work in whatever they want and still participate fully. Now I can only speak about that which I see, but I cannot "not" sahre what we do see. The issues are very simple - all of us must adhere to reality. Regardless of platform choice, we must ensure that it works for our clients. I assess that OSS must also focus on that, and not on MS, or companies like mine. OSS must drive its own car, and simply compete based upon the products and services it provides. If those fail in the marketplace, then so be it. If they succeed to whatever degree, then then must continue to improve or lose marketshare. So long as OSS' only argument is "Boo on MS" then it will never succeed. |
| #11 By 21203 (4.5.32.137) at 8/11/2004 11:40:47 PM |
|
Examples are just that: examples. It's neither open nor closed minded, it is the written example of a process that has already been executed to completion.
If anyone believes that when someone cites an example they are closed minded, then they are the ones empathizing the closed-mindedness into the equasion, as parkker says. I can tell you how Logitech sold 1 million mice last year at $25/mouse. That doesn't mean anything, now, does it. The moment I say Microsoft sold 2 million mice last year at $22/mouse, your opinion may shift ... because of the use of the word "Microsoft". Who cares? The example would be a fact, it isn't up for dispute or opinion. (though my numbers were not factual, just illustrating the issue) Closed source people cite examples because they can. OSS cannot cite examples because there are no "hard" dollar figures. It's easy to do equasions on "hard" dollar figures because they are easily negotiable. OSS works off of less "hard" or initial costs and far more "soft" figures: personnel, timeliness, training, productivity gain/loss, etc. Now lets take MS and OSS out of the picture. Lets say you just had a baby, and you need to get a baby monitor for your nursery. Would you: a) buy a $20 monitor that has a warantee, dedicated support and maintenance agreement, ties into your webcam with instructions, and offers 2way walkie talkie or b) get a free baby monitor with no warantee, no dedicated support. You can get it to do everything that "a" does but you must learn to program in C++ and Java in order to do it, and you have no help but what you can google from the internet. That's a good example that is like a business. People don't dork around with things they take seriously, like progeny or business. I'd choose A in a heartbeat simply for the vendor buy-in. I'd pay for something that if it ever broke down (god forbid, and something happened) I would have someone liable. Because that's the nature of business -- liability, service level, etc is huge. That's why people prefer "hard" dollars. I'd rather like to be comforted that I can spend $20 now and not have to worry about anything. I'd rather buy a new car at a higher price and a warantee than a used car at a cheaper price with no warantee. Same philosophy all around life. The price is for reassurance. But OSS prices are like used cars. I can go around easily and say the prices of new cars sold across the country for every vendor. But how can I evaluate used car prices as a TCO? I'd have to survey every USER (not just the vendor) and come up with a mean cost over 5 years or so. Since the average new car has $0 actual costs for any maintenance defect, a used car has no such luxury (at least, in my example). So why don't used car dealers ever sell cars with a TCO? Same reason OSS tries to sell based upon costs. Because it's the only compelling facade it has. And thats all it is -- a facade. Once you dig into it it's like the baby monitor -- you have to invest more into the equasion in either man-hours or actual development time, or down time in order to get the product working to a level that a closed source product can do. And when you consider the price of the product vs the amount of time it would take to equal that value of the product, it's laughable. I'd really really like to see a TCO evaluation of a company that implemented a full OSS solution product. And Hal, I really wish you'd stop using "google" as an OSS solution that worked. I'm sorry, but the last time I checked, google source code was not available on the internet, and you can't tell me how much it cost google to develop the currently used code, nor can you say where the code is derived from (you can't even say it's OSS really). Facts and references. For once I'd prefer links (but remain simple and pertinant). |
| #12 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 8/12/2004 12:05:02 AM |
|
Hal, so far I have used four examples in four separate business types.
While limited, they cannot be viewed as one example. What will you do after I have used 524 - each very unique and across nearly every vertical you can imagine? Slowly the case for Dynamic Systems Integration and MS's own Dynamic Systems Initiative [DSI] will reveal themselves. What I have been trying to illustrate is as assessment that if OSS is to become not just viable, but universally viable, it must evolve and compete by delivering similarly well integrated solutions that are as flexible and offer as much value. I have asked for defintion, and I assess shown where MS has provided defintion. It is not that there is one defintion that works alone, but the fact that some defintion has been provided. This is what is meant by a roadmap - where are we going and how are we going to get there and what is going to be there when we arrive. These are basic questions. For us, we let client requirements define what we are to do, and where it is to go. We use Microsoft software, tools and servers as the means by which we create and sustain a solution. Those solutions are transportable and require that we continually earn that business - as such competition is always present as are client choices, which insulate them. It is no more complex than that. Now just because MS is more evolved, and does listen to its clients - many of whom are ISV's, Integrators, Hardware OEM's and Professional Developers, is no reason for such vehemence as encountered in the OSS community. Even more simply, OSS must "Do Stuff" and not just talk about what it can do, or what its potential is. I want and my customers want to see examples and case studies; they want references and assurances; they want warranties and guarantees and that want someone to hold to account for all of it. Until OSS does that and does it consistenly, it will not only not be able to compete, it will not even be in the same league. This post was edited by lketchum on Thursday, August 12, 2004 at 00:07. |
| #13 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 8/12/2004 12:28:34 AM |
|
In my opinion, Google is about the worst OSS example there is, or could be.
Google runs its own highly proprietary GWS/2.1 web servers - though I do not know for certain, I'd bet a thick nickle that GWS was based not upon Apache as some might hope, but upon Medusa - Medusa is a framework for writing asynchronous socket-based servers. It was originally written by Sam Rushing and is used as the basis for build custom high-capacity servers dedicated for very specific purposes. Andrew Kuchling now husbands what is left of Medusa, which is still part of a very active community. Now, with gobs of resources devoted to a single task and opposite a very specific purpose, it appears that Google has chosen wisely, but it certainly does not qualify as OSS - for if it did, I'd bet a thicker nickle that Google's competitors would have leveraged the GPLA, forcing that code into the OSS community. I'd bet yet more that Google's general counsel regards their GWS as Google's IP. Clearly, this is an example of a very closed commercial system - so what if it was compiled to run on a Unices like OS - we all must embrace that an OS Kernel does not a plarform make, and a platform is what OSS must evolve. In this context, Google is a dreadfully closed example of OSS. |
| #14 By 12071 (165.228.129.12) at 8/12/2004 4:34:27 AM |
|
#25 "What we encounter from OSS advocates is a close-mindedness..."
"I have found, particularly amongst Java Devs, and MAC users, is a confusing lack of open monded thinking..." So not only is it the OSS advocates but also Mac users and Java developers that are all close minded? What about python developers? perl? c? ada? It's amazing how the only open-minded users that you have found all happen to be Microsoft lovers! #32 "does not qualify as OSS...leveraged the GPLA..." Oh and you equate OSS to mean GPL? What happened to that open mindedness?!?! There's a huge suprise! Here please read this http://www.opensource.org/ and http://www.opensource.org/licenses/index.php . Maybe it will help you understand that OSS and GPL aren't one and the same - there are plenty of users that will only create and use software licensed under the GPL and there are plenty that don't care which exact license is used as long as it's open. |
| #15 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 8/12/2004 9:58:35 AM |
|
All I know is what we saw. We worked to do two things: 1) allow all users to remain on the platform of their choice and 2 ) make the network and software work equally well for all of these users. In all but the .NET side of the house, what we encountered was amind-set that it could not be made to work [the software], until it of course did. Didn't matter what it was, either...embedded player controls for MAC and Linuces browsers, etc.... - we just addressed it, and built the software to be inclusive of all the systems. Once it was done, I think what happened was that the OSS and MAC guys came to see .NET and MS in a different light - as inclusive and mindful of their platform choices. Perhaps something they did not expect. It actually became pretty healthy. That said, I know who wrote the code and which side of the matter the accomodation originated and was sustained from. Interpretations of how broad the GPL applies have not been tested yet and that, too, is a source of concern for business.
I maintain that Google remains a poor example of OSS. Doesn't mean for a moment that devs cannot use OSS or write under the GPL - it does mean they have to assume the risks such as they exist to the IP created under it. The larger question is, can these devs then transfer that risk, directly, or indirectly over to their clients. The close mindedness we see manifests it self in broad statements - that MS is bad; anyone using MS is bad, or MS is not secure... Just working as we have done reverses this pretty quickly and one can get beyond that. As for other languages used....? I don't know enough people who are using perl of ada to comment and Python is not a language we take very seriously for commercial applications development - that is of course a choice, but again, I cannot comment about those using it. C? C++? Sure, we all know them and have all concluded that for commercial web work, C# under .NET allows for a lot faster development and mixing VB.NET in an application is irrelevant given how we can [using MS SW] compile it to the same common language and the same machine language at first run. We do know that we can build much richer apps usig .NET than we can in anything else, and most of us have build SW for 2 to 3 decades. We conclude that for us, MS and Windows are the better choice, more diverse and at the same time, unified. This translates into transportable solutions that work, and are less costly. It also means we can build opposite mixed clients and allow all users to work as they wish. This forum is about sharing these observations from the WIN perspective - true, or no? It is after all, ActiveWIN and not ActiveOSS - is that a fair observation? Personally, and professionally, I see MS as a force for good. They are a good company striving to be the best, and in many cases, they are. I'll read the texts above and pass them along to colleagues and get a legal opinion. We work with the ABA's Litigator community through key partners - please see, http://www.e-fiducia.com we'll give it a good look and I am certain they will be fair. One of our colleagues is an expert in IP and will ensure that we understand it better. It is ironic, we are building software now, to help defend users of OSS - to help companies manage cases that are now being brought. Boutique litigators are very tough and defending against the cases they bring is also tough - they seem to strike in areas that are not well known or well tested - hence the SW we are building to help defend companies using OSS. From our perspective, we view it as simply being fair - letting the legal experts try and test these issues in the courts and opposite existing laws as they regard property - an essential element to those who are free [owning that property]. This post was edited by lketchum on Thursday, August 12, 2004 at 10:08. |
| #16 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 8/13/2004 9:26:22 AM |
|
Interesting. Great observations, Hal. I assess you are exactly correct at #36.
Looking at my desk, I note two 1 foot high stacks of documentation - the source code, diagrams and implementation guides for http://www.edentalrep.com - an design mule for the detailing space in general. I mention it, because what I think many do, and it is a mistake, is to couch OSS and Linux in the same category. Take my example above regarding Google - a proprietary piece of software running on a Linux distribution. Then take edentalrep - an OSS initiative running on Windows 2K3. It is OSS, because we choose for it to be - giving the source code, stored and sub-procedures over to all who want them - including a very tough RMI for splitting the presentations layer and allowing FLASH to talk not only to others tiers, but allowing those tiers to dynamically render content in the running FLASH session - register at the site and run a session and not how it render's the registered name back into the SWF. Sharing source code for one component, or an entire architecture is not unique to us - nearly all do it to some extent. We share a lot and benefit from it. Insulating OSS; protecting it, is about that right - to freely share. That is a lot different than being compelled to. Linux is a different story, and a sad one. I say that because what appears to be is that the Linuces get lumped in - when I see most exploited and ironically, by commerical enterprises locking out others in the OSS community that they embrace when it is convenient for them to do so. I assess that is where the "anything but MS' position is rooted [no pun]. Now line for line, community for community, I assess that MS and .NET advocates have opened at least as much source code as any other group of people. From where I sit, MS is the biggest OSS driver there is. They may execute it differently, but they are as inclusive and open as any company I have ever dealt with and becoming more so. Windows Service for Unix is open and extremely powerful, but even that is not a great example. MS's partner channel is very rich and very deep and offers a great deal of value to whomever particpates - at the level they choose to. |
| #17 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 8/13/2004 9:26:46 AM |
|
Now, just because the source code in Windows Server 2003 is not open, did not prevent us from producing a viable application that, by choice, is open. No more than Google's use of Linux has resulted in their "not" sharing their GWS/2.x with any community. In my thinking, and as we developed eDetailing, it was a no-brainer to share it. Then I reasoned, "why not share it all...?" Here's why, "the source code isn't going to offer an advantage that would off-set the aggregate value that allows my company to compete." In other words, the value is not limited to the source, but as any written text is, it is only one interpretive way of expressing an idea and the logic attendant to it. To protect it, would be an insult to the architecture that resulted in that expression. In this I assess is the answer to a lot of OSS -v all others, conflicts. MS isn't competing with OSS, Linux is. Linuces distributors, subject to investors, bankers, pay-roll schedules, etc... are subject to the same realities and market forces as many companies are. We all know there are many *nix environments to develop for - including the commercial Unices. Nothing about OSS prevents one from developing for these operating systems. No more than using .NET will prevent me from hosting client internal devlopers and not only handing them the source code for eDetailing, but spending a week and my own cash to train them opposite that source. [Yebin arrives on Monday at my invitation]. Protecting the source would be an expression of my lack of confidence in the true value my company and its people deliver. I know others can code - the world is awash in code. The competitive advantage is much larger than that and so is the value people and companies can bring to the market. This is where Microsoft is strongest - they offer a great deal of aggregate value. About sharing that value they are extremely open. Unified and well integrated solutions that deliver lasting transportable value are only part of that, but do illustrate that value. You are most right about being on the cusp - all of us are, and I assess that no company to a greater degree than Microsoft recognizes and embraces that position.
Use of the public networks and Internet is truly in its infancy. So is OSS, which I reason will out-grow not only the Linuces, but all operating systems. Will Linux evolve? Not so long as it contradicts itself and pretends to be OSS. This is why MS is content with Novell and Red Hat. They are companies and companies can be competed with based upon what goods and services and value they deliver. I assess that puntuating all that I have written above is the reality that my clients, and the "Customer Colleagues" that I encourage all of them to become, do not come to us for source code, after all, Yebin and his wife, Hongbin, can code with the best of us, they come to us for answers, solutions and leadership. They come to us for complete solutions that they know we will stand behind and sustain. This is why we advocate Microsoft as a company and its products and tools as the basis upon which we build our products. I could go on and on about what I know about the same kind of people that have subverted other ideas [like the Linuces as OSS], but I'll save it for later. Thanks for your time. |
| #18 By 12071 (203.173.26.225) at 8/14/2004 3:34:21 AM |
|
#37 "MS is the biggest OSS driver there is."
#38 "MS isn't competing with OSS, Linux is." "Will Linux evolve? Not so long as it contradicts itself and pretends to be OSS." This from someone who equates OSS to be GPL. Congratulations! You're now officially more clueless than Parkker! |
| #19 By 478370 (109.230.213.102) at 2/13/2011 6:52:55 AM |
| Hot babes go surfing and then come home to get freaky in these movies xnxx http://www.thepornhubx.com/2011/01/29/stacie-lane-and-candice-nicole-4/ child free porn porn script |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 164 Last | Next |
The time now is
5:31:35 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
