Have you ever installed Windows 9x from scratch? It's not that easy to get started. With most current Linux distros, it's at least as easy to install. Partition, assign into the FS tree, start the install. It's easy.
I've seen some (dare I say many) Win9x boxen where you don't even have to mess around with them - just constant use for a few months is simply enough to make them go mad, and all you can do is just blow everything away and reinstall fresh.
Re:Linux=Desktop and Small Server, Not Enterprise
on
Microsoft Janus
·
· Score: 1
They should be worried about Microsoft's prices - especially if M$ tries to get cute and start with yearly (lease|rental|etc.) fees.
Which vendor offers the best support? Have you ever DEALT with Microsoft's support? And if you mean hardware support, yea, they support a lot of hardware, but it's not guaranteed to work RIGHT. And yes, commercial UNIXen have most (if not all) the major server-side apps that you could want.
Microsoft knows they're late to the party, and they don't care. They know they can market their way into and out of a paper bag, so who gives a damn about real features or real value?
Re:An actual quote from MS's PR machine:
on
BO2K cracked
·
· Score: 1
But it's not in Microsoft's interest (at least from their point of view) to protect anything but their bottom line. If it won't hit them in the pocketbook, they're not going to care. So basically they're saying "Fixing these bugs we won't admit to wouldn't be profitable to us, so we're not going to admit to the fact they exist."
How about that?
Re:An actual quote from MS's PR machine:
on
BO2K cracked
·
· Score: 1
No joke. Sounds like a dead end situation to me - you bear all the responsibility, but have no power to remedy the situation? And the people who can remedy the situation have no responsibility? How is anyone supposed to accomplish anything that way?:)
Hell, they switched CPUs without breaking my software.
Yea, and they left a lot of 68k assembly in MacOS too (for a long time - did they ever finally get all the 68k assembly out of it?). I'm all for backward compatibility, but having to emulate parts of the OS is ridiculous.
Whatever. Some of us will select commercial software when alternatives aren't available. If QuickTime was actually available for Linux, lots of people would probably be using it. Also, like the previous poster said, how is it that RealNetworks can afford to provide a Linux client (at least at some point), while Apple can only support their platform, and Windows (obviously, since they have to support the most proliferant platform)? Seems pretty cheesy to me.
What do the 2 have to do with one another? You can tell truth without having many domain names, and you can have many domain names and lie your ass off. If you want to HAVE domains, that's fine. I personally think it's ridiculous to buy up a bunch of domain names and then whine and bitch when everyone else doesn't scoop them up (because, in all reality, a domain name in and of itself is pretty damn worthless).
Rob didn't create the Bill of Borg image, actually. It was by some other guy who was selling t-shirts with the image on it, and I guess Microsoft was breathing down his neck over it, so he disbanded (I think).
Actually, that is a bad, bad idea. If you allocate away all your system RAM, and only have a swap file, all the paging goes through the VFS layer, which needs memory to do its work. You could (theoretically, I don't know if this is practical or not) introduce a deadlock condition where the code needed to manage VFS and the FS the swap partition can't allocate the memory it needs to do its job. I may be wrong, but it's certainly a possibility...
Actually, it does. Back when I still ran Slack 3.1 on my home box, I used RAID 0 to join 2 partitions on my 2 IDE hard drives (I know, I know) and used that as my swap space. It worked just fine.
FX!32 doesn't do any thunking. Why? Because WinNT on an Alpha runs in a 32-bit mode (yes, I said NT on AXP runs in 32-bit mode). The individual instructions are simply translated from ix86 assembly to AXP 32-bit assembly.
0: Yes, Microsoft sucks. If they're so bad, (which I believe they are) I don't think millions should be relying on them to have the "latest technology" spoon-fed to them.
1: If you're gullible enough to just RUN an untrusted binary, I tend to think that you get exactly what you deserve. (yes, I sound like an elitist snob. so sue me, ok?)
2: Of course M$ should shoulder some blame for the security holes being there. They add features for the sake of adding features, leaving gaping holes in, and not caring that their lovely little "feature" makes a system that much more exploitable. If you leave your front door unlocked and you know you are in an area where crime is possible (i.e. most anywhere), and your stereo/television/computer/etc. get(s) stolen, I'm NOT going to shed too many tears. If you cared about your belongings you'd take proper precautions against having them stolen!
3: cDc told Microsoft about these exploits ages ago. Microsoft hasn't been too proactive about getting them fixed. I don't think giving them prerelease source for BO2000 is gonna make a huge difference.
4: They ARE helping the community. If used in a particular way, it is a useful administration tool. If used otherwise, it's a script kiddie's wet dream come to life. If someone doesn't expose the security flaws in Windows, Microsoft doesn't have much incentive to fix them - they'll do like they've frequently done, try to sweep it under the rug. "Never mind the man behind that curtain!"
Come on. You are refusing to see that this is how security testing works - on Linux, too, when a security hole is found, an exploit is written, then a patch is written and sent to the relevant people. Unfortunately, with Windows, patching is difficult to impossible, so the best that can be done is to expose the problems, so that maybe enough people will demand they be fixed.
(note: I'm not a cDc member, I've never used BackOrifice. However, I think they're doing a public service.)
Wrong answer. cDc tried telling Microsoft about the flaws they've found. Microsoft chose not to respond. cDc decided that wasn't good enough. I think it's perfectly legitimate to release an exploit (especially when the individual exploits that make up BO have been around for some time, just not necessarily all in one package). It makes people aware that there actually IS a problem. Of course, Microsoft would have people believe that BO introduces the bugs, and that their software is bug-free. That's not the case, though - the bugs are already there, this software just exploits them. Also, as others have said, it's more plain bad design than it is just bugs.
I know one major reason no major production houses will release NC-17 rated movies is because Blockbuster Video has specifically refused to carry NC-17 rated movies in any of their stores.
I know Matt and Trey are pretty proud of the TV-MA rating that South Park garners on TV, but I can understand why an NC-17 rating would be... less than acceptable. A lot of theaters won't show NC-17 movies, I think, and Blockbuster (obviously the foremost video rental chain in the US) refuses to rent NC-17 rated movies. It would've severely limited the movie's exposure. I would've done my best to see it regardless, tho. (I'm going to see it tonight. I may end up in the hospital - they might hafta sew my ass back on after I laugh it off!)
Slashdot Mirror
That's 1,000 angry and unhappy customers, not 10,000. 0.1% of 1,000,000 is definitely NOT 10,000... :)
I don't think you caught what the previous poster meant by X. X refers to some generic task, not the X window system in particular.
Have you ever installed Windows 9x from scratch? It's not that easy to get started. With most current Linux distros, it's at least as easy to install. Partition, assign into the FS tree, start the install. It's easy.
I've seen some (dare I say many) Win9x boxen where you don't even have to mess around with them - just constant use for a few months is simply enough to make them go mad, and all you can do is just blow everything away and reinstall fresh.
They should be worried about Microsoft's prices - especially if M$ tries to get cute and start with yearly (lease|rental|etc.) fees.
Which vendor offers the best support? Have you ever DEALT with Microsoft's support? And if you mean hardware support, yea, they support a lot of hardware, but it's not guaranteed to work RIGHT. And yes, commercial UNIXen have most (if not all) the major server-side apps that you could want.
Microsoft knows they're late to the party, and they don't care. They know they can market their way into and out of a paper bag, so who gives a damn about real features or real value?
Great, so it shipped. Doesn't make it GOOD, just means that some poor schmuck can BUY it and think he's getting enterprise-class clustering.
I guess sarcasm isn't in your vocabulary.
But it's not in Microsoft's interest (at least from their point of view) to protect anything but their bottom line. If it won't hit them in the pocketbook, they're not going to care. So basically they're saying "Fixing these bugs we won't admit to wouldn't be profitable to us, so we're not going to admit to the fact they exist."
How about that?
No joke. Sounds like a dead end situation to me - you bear all the responsibility, but have no power to remedy the situation? And the people who can remedy the situation have no responsibility? How is anyone supposed to accomplish anything that way? :)
That's not mp4, that's MS Audio 4.
Hell, they switched CPUs without breaking my software.
Yea, and they left a lot of 68k assembly in MacOS too (for a long time - did they ever finally get all the 68k assembly out of it?). I'm all for backward compatibility, but having to emulate parts of the OS is ridiculous.
Whatever. Some of us will select commercial software when alternatives aren't available. If QuickTime was actually available for Linux, lots of people would probably be using it. Also, like the previous poster said, how is it that RealNetworks can afford to provide a Linux client (at least at some point), while Apple can only support their platform, and Windows (obviously, since they have to support the most proliferant platform)? Seems pretty cheesy to me.
What do the 2 have to do with one another? You can tell truth without having many domain names, and you can have many domain names and lie your ass off. If you want to HAVE domains, that's fine. I personally think it's ridiculous to buy up a bunch of domain names and then whine and bitch when everyone else doesn't scoop them up (because, in all reality, a domain name in and of itself is pretty damn worthless).
Rob didn't create the Bill of Borg image, actually. It was by some other guy who was selling t-shirts with the image on it, and I guess Microsoft was breathing down his neck over it, so he disbanded (I think).
Your last comment sounds like a job for swapd. Search freshmeat for it, and give it a spin.
Actually, that is a bad, bad idea. If you allocate away all your system RAM, and only have a swap file, all the paging goes through the VFS layer, which needs memory to do its work. You could (theoretically, I don't know if this is practical or not) introduce a deadlock condition where the code needed to manage VFS and the FS the swap partition can't allocate the memory it needs to do its job. I may be wrong, but it's certainly a possibility...
Actually, it does. Back when I still ran Slack 3.1 on my home box, I used RAID 0 to join 2 partitions on my 2 IDE hard drives (I know, I know) and used that as my swap space. It worked just fine.
FX!32 doesn't do any thunking. Why? Because WinNT on an Alpha runs in a 32-bit mode (yes, I said NT on AXP runs in 32-bit mode). The individual instructions are simply translated from ix86 assembly to AXP 32-bit assembly.
My response to your points:
0: Yes, Microsoft sucks. If they're so bad, (which I believe they are) I don't think millions should be relying on them to have the "latest technology" spoon-fed to them.
1: If you're gullible enough to just RUN an untrusted binary, I tend to think that you get exactly what you deserve. (yes, I sound like an elitist snob. so sue me, ok?)
2: Of course M$ should shoulder some blame for the security holes being there. They add features for the sake of adding features, leaving gaping holes in, and not caring that their lovely little "feature" makes a system that much more exploitable. If you leave your front door unlocked and you know you are in an area where crime is possible (i.e. most anywhere), and your stereo/television/computer/etc. get(s) stolen, I'm NOT going to shed too many tears. If you cared about your belongings you'd take proper precautions against having them stolen!
3: cDc told Microsoft about these exploits ages ago. Microsoft hasn't been too proactive about getting them fixed. I don't think giving them prerelease source for BO2000 is gonna make a huge difference.
4: They ARE helping the community. If used in a particular way, it is a useful administration tool. If used otherwise, it's a script kiddie's wet dream come to life. If someone doesn't expose the security flaws in Windows, Microsoft doesn't have much incentive to fix them - they'll do like they've frequently done, try to sweep it under the rug. "Never mind the man behind that curtain!"
Come on. You are refusing to see that this is how security testing works - on Linux, too, when a security hole is found, an exploit is written, then a patch is written and sent to the relevant people. Unfortunately, with Windows, patching is difficult to impossible, so the best that can be done is to expose the problems, so that maybe enough people will demand they be fixed.
(note: I'm not a cDc member, I've never used BackOrifice. However, I think they're doing a public service.)
Wrong answer. cDc tried telling Microsoft about the flaws they've found. Microsoft chose not to respond. cDc decided that wasn't good enough. I think it's perfectly legitimate to release an exploit (especially when the individual exploits that make up BO have been around for some time, just not necessarily all in one package). It makes people aware that there actually IS a problem. Of course, Microsoft would have people believe that BO introduces the bugs, and that their software is bug-free. That's not the case, though - the bugs are already there, this software just exploits them. Also, as others have said, it's more plain bad design than it is just bugs.
Unix itself isn't open source. The free BSD variants (Net/Open/FreeBSD) and Linux are, Solaris sorta-kinda-maybe is, and the others I know of are not.
I was just plain scared! Well, not really. :)
I know one major reason no major production houses will release NC-17 rated movies is because Blockbuster Video has specifically refused to carry NC-17 rated movies in any of their stores.
I know Matt and Trey are pretty proud of the TV-MA rating that South Park garners on TV, but I can understand why an NC-17 rating would be... less than acceptable. A lot of theaters won't show NC-17 movies, I think, and Blockbuster (obviously the foremost video rental chain in the US) refuses to rent NC-17 rated movies. It would've severely limited the movie's exposure. I would've done my best to see it regardless, tho. (I'm going to see it tonight. I may end up in the hospital - they might hafta sew my ass back on after I laugh it off!)
Ooooh... wonder if one could reverse-engineer a client to stream to a file... *bad thoughts enter my mind* Any thoughts on that possibility?