Slashdot Mirror
Spyware in Audio Galaxy
LintMan and a zillion other people wrote in about the story on Portal of Evil discussing spyware bundled with Audio Galaxy that seems to be even more nasty than usual. Others have written about it as well - there's Counterexploitation and Wired stories. Frankly, we're kind of bored by all these spyware/shareware stories (don't people learn?) so we let it sit around in the submissions bin for a few days, until, say, a slow Saturday night.
A parody of a classic troll. Now that's funny
I work as Senior Tech Support, and its not really any big suprise that audio galaxy has spyware... We've known this in the Tech Support world since it came out. Usually the spyware also has a nasty habit of screwing with your TCP/IP stack and associated registry keys that results in the loss of your connection, until you rebuild the registry keys. Post news in slashdot, not stuff that people in tech support know.
Mmm....If your ass is a chinese restaurant, I'll have the poo-poo platter!
C-X C-S
Too right. Moderators aren't dumb. We don't need to be told what is a troll and what isn't.
Nothing annoys me more than
^^ MOD PARENT UP ^^
or MOD PARENT -1 TROLL
--jquirke
Huh? The most common reference to FAT I've seen used refers to what are (now) known as FAT12 and FAT16 - the predecessors of FAT32. These are hardly beta, and were adequately suited to their original intended purpose: storage on a single-user, non-multitasking system.
...unless this is something new in WinXP (which I have avoided like the plague), I don't know what else you could possibly be referring to.
The other proposed 'solution', NTFS, is nothing more than an ugly hack to put journaling into the file system. All the drawbacks of the ancient FAT32 file system remain in NTFS, for the sake of 'forward- and backward compatibility'.
Once again, I wonder if you have any idea what you're talking about.
NTFS predates FAT32 by several years, and the two have many functional differences. About the only thing NTFS and FAT32 have in common is that they are file systems used by Microsoft.
As for the "forward- and backward compatibility", you are wrong there as well, since NTFS isn't backwards compatible.
On top of that a lot of them spit out the most childish and unprofessional messages, indicating that they were created by 14-year olds with too much time, no talent and a bad attitude.
Strange... I was thinking the exact same thing about your message...
Posts like yours give Linux users a bad name. Do the rest of us a favor and shut up and go away.
--The Rizz
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." --Mark Twain
Dude, that post is a joke. It's a mockery of the well known Linux troll post. Exchange Fat32 for ext3.. :)
If you're not a Liberal in your 20's, then you have no heart.If you're still a Liberal in your 30's you have no brain.
I had never seen the original, so I had no idea that this was a reference/parody of something else.
why the hell your quoting this here is a mystery.
Because I was responding to a post in this thread. It seems that the post I was responding to has fallen below your viewing threshold - which seems to cause slashdot to put it as it's own post, rather than a follow-up.
--The Rizz
"I used to think that the brain was the most wonderful organ in my body. Then I realized who was telling me this." --Emo Phillips
Now I feel there is no excuse for RedHat users such as myself not to help fund RedHat.
In praise of 100% GPL-focused RedHat
RedHat, despite what you might think of their distro or business-side tactics, funds probably the greatest number of 100% GPL software developers (since VA no longer does). I cannot stress enough the importance of this fact. Every distro enjoys the fruits of RedHat employee labor, and not just Gnome developments either.
Imagine the number of developers that could be hired
For every 2,000 people who sign up for the service, that's $120K/year for RedHat. Figuring half of that goes to upgrades to their network infrastructure to support the additional downloads, that leaves $60K to fund another developer on-staff. If all 2 million RedHat sysadmins (my estimate is 2M, which equals ~20M installs, ~10 installs/per sysadmin on average) coughed up $60/year, that's $120M/year for RedHat. That could equate to adding $60M for developers, or about a thousand employees!
Personal note
I've been a total RedHat leech here. Although I have worked for various companies who have paid for Cygnus tools (Cygnus is a division of RedHat), I've pretty much only bought the boxed sets on every .2 release (and I haven't bought 7.2 yet). I've been running RedHat on this system
(through various hardware upgrades) since 4.2, only re-installing once to move to XFS (RedHat 7.0.92 + XFS 1.0 betas was a "clean" install).
I've installed RedHat on close to 500 systems now, and I'm sure well over half of those are still in use. So that amounts to about $0.10 per system I've installed. Definately not enough IMHO. I want to change this. This is a great avenue to do so.
-- Bryan "TheBS" Smith
Independent Author, Consultant and Trainer
I have to say that your summary here about computer ownership (in a de facto sense) is the most cogent argument I have read in a long, long time for running open source stuff.
I plan to copy your comment and put it in my quotes file. Thanks, and I mean it.