After reading an interview of one of the winners, Charlie Miller, of this year's PWN2OWN hackfest, I realized how vulnerable Apple's OS X is. Sure it is *NIX-based, and inherently secure, but it doesn't mean it IS secure out-of-the-box. Firewalls and Antivirus programs are simply not enough to protect one's OS. If a bug is found and exploited in one of the applications, the whole OS is screwed. An operating system is only as secure as the applications running on it. In the hackfest, contestants try to hack different browsers by finding bugs and exploiting them as proof of the bug's existence. As the Internet becomes more ubiquitous and applications are moving to the cloud, browsers are becoming a more critical application, and it is only logical for hackers to try and hack into the system by exploiting a browser's vulnerabilities. In the interview, Charlie Miller stated that Safari on a Mac is the easiest to exploit, and Firefox on a Windows PC is the second hardest. The hardest application to exploit was Google's Chrome, partly because of Windows and partly because of the Sandbox framework(?) Google used in developing Chrome. Safari on a Mac was easiest because of Mac OS X. I'm not faulting Apple for releasing an unsecured OS. OS X is secure, don't get me wrong. However, part of the OS is the browser, in which Apple "forgot" to secure Safari, which makes OS X vulnerable to attacks as well. And with all the money in the world, Apple could have secured the OS a whole lot better. Even if almost all viruses are targeted at Windows-based machines, there's still the off-chance that one of them will be targeting OS X, or other operating systems for that matter. And as I've mentioned before, more and more applications are moving to the cloud. Viruses or other malware don't have to run on the system itself. There are websites that embed scripts that try to download and execute malicious code without the visitor even knowing about it. Having a secure operating system, however, is not enough in preventing attacks. No matter how secure the operating system, and the developers can only do so much as to warn everyone of every single virus there is out there, if the user is stupid enough to download and execute a virus, there's just no way of preventing a virus from infecting a system. It's time for people to start wisening up and prevent user-initiated errors. This, in my humble opinion, is the most dreaded type of calls, and is abhorred by tech support. Charlie Miller also mentioned in the interview that Google's Chrome and the way they developed the browser was the next evolutionary step in developing future browsers. Although Chrome was based in an open-source software dubbed Chromium, Google made it sure that Chrome is future-ready. I recently tried a pre-alpha version of Chromium, not Chrome, on my Linux install, and although it looked almost the same as Chrome, I doubt it is as secure. Preliminary tests regarding speed (in executing javascripts) were amazing. There were a number of critical things that don't work, like setting options, navigating opened tabs (tabs were invisible), and saving bookmarks (it was non-existent). And there was no support for Flash, yet. It was like Lynx with a graphical user interface. But it did pique my curiosity, and I am eagerly awaiting Google's release of Chrome's Linux version. As for me buying a Mac in the future, it will only happen when I have extra, and I mean EXTRA, cash laying around. And that would be in about N years. Maybe by that time, a Mac netbook has been released.

In my previous post, I mentioned that I was tweaking my desktops, both Windows XP and Ubuntu Intrepid Ibex. I was supposed to post screenshots of my desktops but something delayed me in doing so. That something was Windows 7 Beta. I was finally able to install it on my system, and I now have a triple-boot system (XP, 7 Beta, and Intrepid). I made the mistake of installing the 64-bit version of 7 Beta, and I'm glad I did. It was definitely a lot faster compared to the 32-bit version of XP, but it wouldn't make much difference if both were 64-bit. So far, the beta version of Windows 7 is living up to the hype.

Read the rest of this post »

The Internet has taught me web standards, PHP, MySQL, website administration, how to modify WordPress, etc. In other words, it has taught me a lot in terms of technical knowledge regarding websites. But what it actually taught me besides making myself more marketable in the field of web development is the knowledge I get when doing a research on a certain topic. Take, for example, the Microsoft-Yahoo snorefest a few months ago. Microsoft was so sure Yahoo would give in. When they did not, Microsoft stepped back from the table. However, some Yahoo shareholders would like Microsoft to make a bid again and they, the shareholders, will make sure Yahoo's board will be more agreeable. Fat chance of that happening. Microsoft was already shunned away. To keep themselves from being humiliated further, they would rather acquire Yahoo slices instead of the whole pie. As an aftermath, executives and staff alike decided to leave a sinking ship, if it really is sinking, and this is after they laid off a sizable amount of their workforce. Founders of Flickr left Yahoo, which made me wonder what will happen now to Flickr. Is the US economy really that bad that VPs and executives are leaving the company? Yahoo will have to be more agile to cope up with the scaling web. I also noticed this in Plurk, not that there's someone trying to takeover the company. After a month of plurking and being a member, it is only now that I understood why Plurk was created. It's supposed to enlighten the user. The karma points that the user receives are merely that. I used to join in on the discussions and threads, but it seems to me that Plurk has become a popularity contest, something the creators never intended it to be. So now, I'd rather read and follow Plurkers that post links to sites, videos, and pictures, and would challenge myself to find those little golden bits of amusement to share to others. It makes catching up on 400+ new plurks worthwhile. More often than not, I am thinking about the answer to the question "what's in it for me?" And if I don't have anything worthwhile to say, I won't say anything at all. This is the reason why my plurks are becoming very seldom. So, what has the Internet taught you? [gallery]

It's still a snorefest as the limelight is shifted to other news, but Microsoft's bid is still up in the air as News Corp., the owners of MySpace, is joining Microsoft in its bid for Yahoo!. However, Yahoo! thinks it can avoid the acquisition bullet by merging with AOL. AOL, meanwhile, has its problems of its own as Time Warner is thinking of selling it off. Anyway, Yahoo! also thinks that making itself a company not worth being acquired (i.e. a company losing money) is a good thing and hopefully make Microsoft retract their offer. Basically, Yahoo! wants more money from Microsoft, and if Microsoft can't or won't increase the bid, Yahoo! won't sell. To further prove to Microsoft that they should not pursue the bid, Yahoo! "partners" with Google in which Google will handle the ads shown on 3% of Yahoo!'s search results page. And this is something that made Microsoft cry foul. Yahoo! is basically telling the world that they can no longer compete with Google and is throwing the towel. Google, therefore gets the monopoly on the search advertising wars. Of course, this is unacceptable. Here's my theory on what will happen. Microsoft teams up with News Corp. to give Yahoo! what they want: more money. This is AFTER Yahoo! merges with AOL. Google will be left alone to their own devices. So it's going to be Microsoft/MySpace/Yahoo!/AOL against Google. Microsoft will get Yahoo!, with or without News Corp. but before Yahoo! merges with AOL. If Yahoo! merges with AOL, Microsoft will have no choice but to give Yahoo! more money. And they can definitely do that by getting News Corp.'s money to up the offer. Michael Arrington of TechCrunch mentions something about the health of the Internet. I believe him. Whatever happens, expect layoffs in the thousands. That is, if the acquisition pushes through. If Microsoft decides to back out of the offer, Yahoo! will then continue to do what it is doing. And that would be losing money. And at this rate, Yahoo! will be in the deadpool by next year. Personally, I hope Yahoo! finds an angel before it's too late.

Is Yahoo! being bamboozled by Microsoft or is it the other way around? Take a look at what is currently happening. Previously, they laid off 1000+ employees in various departments due to the "economic crisis." After that, the exodus didn't seem to, or will not, stop. Top ranking executives and department heads are resigning left and right to join other companies and/or start up their own businesses. There is no way the offer is going to be retracted. This will not blow over. It is time for Yahoo! to stop stalling and decide once and for all what happens with the company. If you were a Yahoo! executive, and being in a position ranking higher than most, would you leave? What would your reasons be for leaving? From a conspiracy theorist's point of view, Microsoft might be paying off Yahoo! execs to quit the company. Execs who leave may or may not have an effect on Yahoo!'s stock but there will definitely be an effect on stockholder's confidence on the company. Stockholders might sell their stock, and cheap, just to get off what they will think as a sinking boat. Yahoo! then announces an acquisition of a company that might be just the right company to boost Yahoo! stock. Stockholders are getting confused if the company is indeed sinking or not. Safest decision a stockholder would ever make is to sell. Yahoo! is left behind hanging and will begin to entertain the notion of letting Microsoft take over and start believing it is a good idea for the management's exit strategy. Microsoft wins. From an executive's perspective, if I were a Yahoo! exec, I would know something is not right. Hence, I'll look for an exit strategy. That's a big IF. Otherwise, I'll ride out the storm and see where it'll take me. From the perspective of a believer to the 48 laws of power (power hungry, in short), I'd sell my soul immediately to the highest bidder, assuming there is one. Besides, there's no reason for me to stay in a company that will not let me further my career, seeing as I'm stuck at the unrewarding position of being a head of a department. The 48 laws of power is nothing if I'm not the most powerful man in the company. But hey, somebody else knows about the 48 laws of power. Somebody else wants my power. No matter. I'll just conceal my intentions and no one will find out I'm selling out. And become the most powerful man in a much smaller company. It's been too long since Microsoft's offer was laid down on the table. It's been too long since Yahoo! told Microsoft to up their offer or do nothing. I'm not really against a Microsoft-Yahoo! merger nor am I for it, but I think it's time for the people of these two companies to grow up, sit down, and talk about it face-to-face. Of course, all of this is speculation. Just a rambling of someone who tries, and really hard, to make sense of everything he reads.