Of course it would, fuckwit. The thing is that the majority of people are against that, so there'd be a strong economic disincentive to be that kind of bigot -- too much risk of a boycott.
You are part of why libertarians are considered to be intellectual lightweights.
Assuming her computer is powerful enough to handle this.
It's not a bad idea otherwise, except you don't want to do VNC sharing unless you're also doing a VPN and don't forward the port at her router, and make sure to harden the host's ssh a bit - port knocking (optionally), random high port forwarding to the host, PKI - if you're not doing VPN.
Also: no Java, not ever. I would have added Flash and Adobe Reader to this, but Adobe's really cleaned up their act lately - at any rate, the updater no longer sucks as long as you start with the newest versions.
You're right that apt-get/aptitude should check your free space before starting the upgrade process, but it's not like the Ubuntu devs make a conscious choice to do this, unlike the Arch devs.
What do you mean "the old ones are left uninstalled"? Are you griping about it getting rid of old vulnerable versions, or do you have really ancient copies of Java prior to 6.0 update 10 still installed? Java 6u10 was the first version to be automatically removable by subsequent versions, so 6u7 and earlier must be manually uninstalled.
The updater still sucks in that it requires manual intervention instead of updating in the background, yes.
Also the Arch devs are entirely willing to let pacman break your system if you don't religiously keep up with the announcements on their website. If you let a system go for a few months and then run pacman without reading the last several announcements, your system has an excellent chance of being hosed in a way that requires manual tinkering.
Slashdot Mirror
...because Macs are full of Antivirus 2000 and the Ask toolbar.
Idiot.
Quite. It's just like this extreme libertarian I knew who called me a slavemaster because I didn't accept his premise that all coercion is bad.
Because clearly only married people are capable of producing a baby.
Jesus, you're retarded.
Of course it would, fuckwit. The thing is that the majority of people are against that, so there'd be a strong economic disincentive to be that kind of bigot -- too much risk of a boycott.
You are part of why libertarians are considered to be intellectual lightweights.
Because when you buy a book the author gets some money, and we don't want our money to go to an asshole.
Rule 34.
That joke is going to be a bit too subtle for some people.
When I read LWW in fifth grade (USA 10-11 years) I totally didn't pick up on the Christian symbolism, and I was raised in a Lutheran church.
Might have gotten a glimmer of equivalence between Aslan's self-sacrifice and that of Jesus, but that'd be about it.
You're supposed to use the web version, obviously.
Assuming her computer is powerful enough to handle this.
It's not a bad idea otherwise, except you don't want to do VNC sharing unless you're also doing a VPN and don't forward the port at her router, and make sure to harden the host's ssh a bit - port knocking (optionally), random high port forwarding to the host, PKI - if you're not doing VPN.
I wouldn't say she's a slut, but... she's running a really old copy of Sendmail as an open relay.
Also: no Java, not ever. I would have added Flash and Adobe Reader to this, but Adobe's really cleaned up their act lately - at any rate, the updater no longer sucks as long as you start with the newest versions.
Your mom's box uses anonymous FTP.
You're right that apt-get/aptitude should check your free space before starting the upgrade process, but it's not like the Ubuntu devs make a conscious choice to do this, unlike the Arch devs.
Anybody who doesn't like Larry Ellison, i.e. everyone who's dealt with him personally.
It'd be more effective if the attacker would use hot grits instead.
Big surprise. Libertarian finds something that government does wrong and generalizes it to OMG GOVERNMENT ALWAYS BAD.
Ever dealt with "enterprise" vendors? With that attitude I bet you haven't.
Because Java 7 ignores previous Java 6 installs. New Java 7 updates will remove previous Java 7 instances.
It probably makes sense in some use cases.
"Xfce" is a funny way to spell "MATE".
It's a lot easier to bitch about Oracle, especially given how shoddily written their software is.
I mean, fuck. They've managed to take the crappy security award away from Adobe.
I wasn't involved in the purchase, but the program requires JavaFX and does not appear to work with any Java 7 REs I've tried.
Marvelous. We just bought a package that requires 6 to work and doesn't with 7, /and/ it needs the browser plugin.
Eat a bag of dicks, Ellison.
What do you mean "the old ones are left uninstalled"? Are you griping about it getting rid of old vulnerable versions, or do you have really ancient copies of Java prior to 6.0 update 10 still installed? Java 6u10 was the first version to be automatically removable by subsequent versions, so 6u7 and earlier must be manually uninstalled.
The updater still sucks in that it requires manual intervention instead of updating in the background, yes.
Also the Arch devs are entirely willing to let pacman break your system if you don't religiously keep up with the announcements on their website. If you let a system go for a few months and then run pacman without reading the last several announcements, your system has an excellent chance of being hosed in a way that requires manual tinkering.