>Put the burden of fixing the problem on the end-users.
Seriously, isn't this the way OpenSource works, since we are all the end-users?
Your comparison is flawed.
In Open Source software, the burden is on the programmers, it's just that any end user has both the right, and are provided with the means, to become a programmer. With Proprietary Software, the burden is quite often put on the end user who is provided with limited or inequitable means to do so.
There is a patch coming, but it's not available yet.
No one suggested otherwise. The problem is that the delay between the discovery of critical flaws and the release of a patch from MS is abysmally long. If the fix is so simple as changing a few lines in a config file, the patch should be out no more than 5 minutes after the web page that tells how to fix it. You can be sure that if this was a F/OSS program that was so widely used, the slashdot headline would have been "Patch Released for Project X Vulnerability"--not because slashdot is biased, but because there's actually a patch!
You can wait for the patch and be insecure, shut down your site, or re-write the code.
In other words, it's just like F/OSS where you can fix it yourself or wait for someone else to fix it for you, except that it's harder to fix yourself, and there's only one vendor to fix it for you (and they don't tend to fix these things very quickly).
Even worse, you have to pay for this level of (dis)service? What a sham.
*However*, this is not a Microsoft- or closed-source- specific problem. It could happen just as easily to, say, the perl community.
Water can kill you, so can a hand grenade. Therefore water is just as dangerous as hand grenades.
F/OSS can be compromised, proprietary software can be compromised...
The problem is that if you look with even mild interest into the issue, you'll see major differences.
Such as:
1. Due to the inherent properties of proprietary software, you install today's system with the exact same disk you used 2 years ago. That means a default install today has all the flaws that have been uncovered since the disc went gold. With F/OSS, you are far more likely to have an up-to-date install CD.
2. Update mechanisms for Linux are used far more extensively than for Windows. One of the primary reasons for this is that the goal of F/OSS is to be used, the goal of proprietary software is to make money. For this reason, it's far more likely that a Windows update will come with unacceptable issues than a Linux update.
3. The design philosophy with regards to security between Linux and Windows is night-and-day. Linux tends to disable services unless you specifically enable them, and even then the default options tend to be chosen with security in mind. With Windows (since '95!) you have ports open by default that have been used to crack into the system. With XP, these ports can lead to a compromised system before the install has even finished!
You missing the point that the FCC still regulates the entire radio spectrum, including the microwave frequencies used by WiFi.
It's not "deregulation" that has promoted such fecundity in the wireless networking arena. It's the fact that the FCC has regulated that part of the spectrum in a way that the average person is able to participate in.
Specifically, it's the fact that the FCC chose not to require a license to broadcast at those frequencies (at least, under a certain strength). Before you think that this lesson could be applied to the current AM/FM spectrum, keep in mind that there are already bands for everything else, so it's not economically viable to put a television station (for example) at the WiFi spectrum--for one you'd have to convince Sony and RCA, etc, to make new TVs.
If the FM band, for example, were unlicensed, what would there be to stop someone from hijacking a popular station? Say the Rush Limbaugh/Al Franken station (whichever you'd rather listen to)? As you're driving along, some company whose sole source of income is advertising puts up antennae along the highway and broadcasts over Franken/Limbaugh. The system breaks down.
Now, I don't mean to say that the current scheme (for AM/FM/TV) is very good (in fact, I think it's awful), but deregulation in the Libertarian sense is not the answer.
Just one example (out of many potential ideas) would be to sanction a non-profit industry group with a socially progressive charter as the arbiter of some band (say, the AM band). Allow the citizen/government oversight of that organization (within clearly defined limits, such as the government couldn't suppress free speech and the like). Then, the industry group (similar to the W3C or the IETF) would define the system under which Clear Channel, your local community station, Sony, etc, would be bound to.
If done well, such a system would overwhelmingly outshine our current morass, and that was just a spur of the moment idea. I'm sure a dedicated group could do even better.
First off was the small problem that... the president can't reinstate the draft, it would take congress (you know, that silly checks and balances thing).
Not a problem if the House and Senate have a Republican majority. If Bush says we need the draft to pursue the so-called "War on Terror", he'll get the draft. He'll even put on a heart-felt press conference where he says he searched his soul and decided that a draft was needed, and in other interviews, he'll say that he knows God wanted him to do it.
My second question would be (this is to those who said the draft would be reinstated)... why? What political purpose would it serve (besides increasing troop numbers)?
You answered your own question. Just because you put it in parentheses doesn't make it wrong.
Bush really believes in using military force for whatever ends the US (meaning Cheney) desires. If Bush plans to keep up his warmongering, he'll need the draft. To actually win in Iraq, we'll have to increase our force in the nation. You can't win a war without winning the "hearts and minds" of the people you are occupying. Two ways to win their hearts and minds is to show them that you are there to help and are working for their best interest, the other is to beat them into submission. Bush has demonstrated he won't do the former, so we're stuck with the latter. The latter requires increased hostilities. To do that we'll either need *at least* twice the number of troops in Iraq, or we'll need to step up our actions to even greater horrors.
And that's just Iraq. Don't forget that war plans are already being drawn up for Iran and Syria, and in an amazing case of foolishness, Bush has even pointed his military desires towards Cuba. There's no way on Earth to fight those wars without the draft.
And that's assuming all stays "quiet" on the Korean Peninsula.
You might be rational enough to think that even if Bush is as ignorant as he's portrayed, there's no way he would bring about such a calamity of wars upon the US. But consider that if you believed (like Bush does) that the events in Revelations are a good thing, would you be a "girly-man" about the issue, or would your faith in the God of Revelations make it easier to make the insane decisions that eventually lead to WWIII?
sure its mostly an illigal "network" but it still substitutes for TV and pushes a hell of a lot of content across it.
As you correctly point out, the content is the primary difference. Secondarily, the author wants to make the process simpler than it is now (something akin to putting the tracker interface into the bittorrent client, along with the media player, and probably defining certain standards for dates, file types, moderation, etc).
So, no, suprnova is not doing "EXACTLY" what this guy proposes. In fact, qualitatively, it's a far cry from what the author proposes.
Isn't one of the prerequisites for a patent that the new idea must be "non-obvious to someone in the industry" or something to that effect?
I mean, come on, this patent is on something so ridiculously simple and obvious, how could it even have been approved in the first place?
Mostly because it was non-obvious to someone in the US Patent Office. This is a manifestation of the trend of trusting industries to police themselves. Sure, when it works it's better than regulation, but when it doesn't...
...since the horizon on flat ground is 25 miles away, how did they manage 55 miles? Must have been some hills involved? If so, then the distance as the crow flies would perhaps be less than 55.1 miles...
Less than 55.1 miles, as in 55.0? Or are you going for 55.09657(etc) miles (which is the same as 55.1, given the same level of precision reported in the article)?
I think it more likely it would increase the distance. The change seems like it would be too small to count much anyway.
You implied, "not buying it but downloading it anyway."
That is correct. Your argument centered around not buying the music which is what I was responding too (your high-horse attitude drew the "retard" barb from me).
If that's not what you meant, then I apologize.
No, that's exactly what I meant. Your point assumes that the current system is moral. I do not see how it could be called 'moral' by any human-centric standard. It's merely a system which rewards businesses/corporations and works against both the musician and the listener.
I've never heard an objective reason an mp3 should be considered property. I've heard subjective reasons, but in the subjective realm, our current system does more harm than good.
It's people like you who cause the RIAA and MPAA to sue ordinary citizens.
It's the flawed system that promotes the greed of the corporation which causes the RIAA and MPAA to sue ordinary citizens. So-called 'piracy' is a symptom of the problem, not the problem itself.
Freeloaders who show no appreciation or respect for musicians hard work
Sounds likes you are describing the labels & RIAA to me.
Most - as in 99.999% of musicians are overworked and underpaid.
This was true long before Napster was born. In fact, it was true long before Shawn Fanning was born.
Essentially all those arguments could be applied to Kerry supporters if/when some silly story breaks.
The evidence just isn't there to back you up. If you listen to arguments from the two sides. From the right you'll tend to hear the very simplistic messege the previous poster mentioned. From the left you won't get the same.
From the right you get such amazing doublethink as to blow one's mind. For example, Rush Limbaugh will say things like "The Democrats always put symbolism before substance," then go on to denigrate the "French-looking John Kerry".
* This is, BTW, the most compelling argument I've seen against Bush thus far. As an Atheist, that much God-stuff in the White House is scary shit. But then...Kerry has done nothing to suggest he's any different.
Are you serious? If you stand waaaaay back (we're talking HST distances here), and squint really hard, then they almost look the same on the God front. Do you think Kerry will:
1. Say God told him to do X (for Bush, X tends to be invade some country)? 2. Deliberately and openly tear down the seperation between church and state? 3. Oppose the removal of overt religious icons from government courthouses?
Etc? Sure, he'll say "God bless America" all the time, and he'll be seen going to church, but he's not going to be anywhere near as egregious about it as Bush.
Here's a novel idea... how about if something isn't worth paying for, then don't buy it? Guess what? Music is a luxury, not a necessity. If you don't like their terms, then don't buy it. Simple as that.
Uh, yeah retard. Not buying it is exactly what I implied should be done.
Why? If you don't believe "The Man" deserves the payment, why pay him?
The reason: "Or we'll sue you into the poor house", isn't very endearing. The reason: "Or we won't be able to to continue our decadent and culture-destroying entperprise," is far from compelling.
I sugjest that you tell your boss that your willing to work for free. Since you think my time isn't worth money I assume you think the same of yourself.
I suggest you tell your kids/wife/friends/parents/whoever, that they start paying you for the time you spend with them, since you think people only do things with their time in order to be paid.
The Internet should be for the People, by the People, and of the People. There has to be a better solution than having the U.N. get involved.
As the Internet gets more and more controlled, you'll see three forces at play.
1. Corporate 2. Government (ie: 1. Corporate) 3. The anarchy/democratic/social/liberty interests
Now, if you can get 2 to cede to the UN (a body that often finds it can't do anything much of importance), we'll still have a strong 3, and now a weakened 2. And with a weakened 2, 1 will have lost a major ally.
Yeah, let's give the last remaining actual "freedom" we have left (the Net) over to the most corrupt and widely-policing Capitalist Authoritarian organization possible.
Too late. Your IP has been tracked and the CIA will be by shortly to assist your enrollment in a 're-education' program. You'll be wearing Nikes, bopping to Britney Spears, and taping Survivor in no time.
Don't worry, you'll still be allowed choices. Specifically "Coke or Pepsi" and "Doritos, Doritos Extreme and Lo-Carb Mega Doritos Extreme".
The battle for desktop supremacy, however, is already won.
There is no 'won', there is only 'winning' (or if you really want, 'won for now'). Windows might be king forever, but it's not likely at all.
Hardware and OS's are going to continue to evolve and as time goes on, I think the specific OS you chose is going to become less and less important.
Also, one would think UNIX refugees coming to Mac would boost the platform on the desktop. Not happening. I think people are finally settling on the fact that UNIX is a rock-solid server, but that doesn't necessarily make it a great desktop.
Who are these 'people' you are talking about? I guarantee you that more people today use Unix as their desktop OS than have ever in the past, and that number is growing.
Whether it's Windows or some other windowing system that wins the crown, I'm not sure, but classic UNIX is pretty much finished.
What do you mean by 'classic UNIX'? Solaris, Linux, OS X and BSD are modern Unices. I could just as easily say 'classic Windows' is pretty much finished, and be just as correct.
Apple, by being based on OSS, may be spared that death, but hard to tell.
It's easy to tell. Name one reason why Mac OS will die.
(there are none)
There are reasons it won't be the number one OS, but absolutely no reason for it to die. All the 'pundits' that claim Mac OS is doomed don't realize that there's a market for more than one consumer/desktop OS.
I apologize if I have misinterpreted your meaning, but your post does read that way.
No problem. If you re-read my original post you'll see it's more of how you read it than how I said it (I imagine you read it through slashdot-colored glasses, as it were).
I left out OSX only because he cannot install OSX on a Windows machine.
But presumably it is an option available to him. Cost is an issue he'll have to weigh for himself if he deems it worthwhile. I was just offering two options that work for me.
Buying all of Slashdot's hype that Linux is secure, I built a Linux webserver for my company. 2 weeks later it was rooted.
The guy doesn't sound like he's interested in running a web server. There are plenty of ways to make an apache install insecure. Again, to make a fair comparison, it's easier to crack IIS than it is Apache. That you got 0wn3d doesn't detract from my point. I never said Linux was uncrackable, I said it's more secure (by a large margin).
My only real point is that you have to be vigilant either way.
This is the "what do you mean by that realm". 'Vigilant' is a term that is subjective. Under Debian, 'vigilant' means running apt/aptitude/dselect (whichever is your choice) and telling it to update your system. Under Mac OS X, 'vigilant' means clicking "install" when Software Update pops up. Under Windows, 'vigilant' is far more involved.
Subjectively you can say both require 'vigilance', but they are not equal. You are repeating the confusion of a Windows apologist. When a Linux advocate (yeah, sometimes they are rabid too), claims that Windows is less secure, the Windows apologist will say Linux has security holes too. But when you look closely, you'll see a world of difference. Both a glass of water, and a handfull of rattle snakes can kill you, but one is far safer than the other.
It's far easier to crack a Windows computer than a Linux computer by a wide margin.
It's a question of whether or not it's 'worth the fuss'.
Which is what I said in my original post.
I'll put it another way: I'm a Windows user. I have several machines I have to take care of. I don't have problems with exploits trojans or spyware. Once in a great while something will come along. I take care of it, bfd. I spent more time building the ill-fated Linux/Apache server than I have in a year of maintaining exploit-related Windows problems.
Then Linux isn't for you. I never said it was for everyone. I suggested he consider it (maybe he has, maybe he hasn't, I have no way to know, but both Linux and Mac OS X are viable alternatives and worth considering).
it's not all that clear that hassle would suddenly disappear
I don't know what you mean by "suddenly disappear" (it certainly wasn't in reference to anything I stated in my post). If you mean all systems have the potential for being cracked, then sure. But that doesn't tell anything near the whole story. If you run Linux (or OS X, which you left out in your reply), your odds of being cracked/spywared drop low enough that it's not really worth fretting over--even if you don't turn on the built-in firewalls (which are infinitely superior to the Windows built-in firewall).
So while you may be playing the pedant card and using language that is "technically correct", you have added more confusion than clarification to the issue. I hope you don't mean that Windows, Linux, and Mac OS X are all equally crackable. If you aren't careful, you can end up with a cracked XP system during the install process, what a joke!
Slashdot Mirror
>Put the burden of fixing the problem on the end-users.
Seriously, isn't this the way OpenSource works, since we are all the end-users?
Your comparison is flawed.
In Open Source software, the burden is on the programmers, it's just that any end user has both the right, and are provided with the means, to become a programmer. With Proprietary Software, the burden is quite often put on the end user who is provided with limited or inequitable means to do so.
There is a patch coming, but it's not available yet.
No one suggested otherwise. The problem is that the delay between the discovery of critical flaws and the release of a patch from MS is abysmally long. If the fix is so simple as changing a few lines in a config file, the patch should be out no more than 5 minutes after the web page that tells how to fix it. You can be sure that if this was a F/OSS program that was so widely used, the slashdot headline would have been "Patch Released for Project X Vulnerability"--not because slashdot is biased, but because there's actually a patch!
You can wait for the patch and be insecure, shut down your site, or re-write the code.
In other words, it's just like F/OSS where you can fix it yourself or wait for someone else to fix it for you, except that it's harder to fix yourself, and there's only one vendor to fix it for you (and they don't tend to fix these things very quickly).
Even worse, you have to pay for this level of (dis)service? What a sham.
*However*, this is not a Microsoft- or closed-source- specific problem. It could happen just as easily to, say, the perl community.
Water can kill you, so can a hand grenade. Therefore water is just as dangerous as hand grenades.
F/OSS can be compromised, proprietary software can be compromised...
The problem is that if you look with even mild interest into the issue, you'll see major differences.
Such as:
1. Due to the inherent properties of proprietary software, you install today's system with the exact same disk you used 2 years ago. That means a default install today has all the flaws that have been uncovered since the disc went gold. With F/OSS, you are far more likely to have an up-to-date install CD.
2. Update mechanisms for Linux are used far more extensively than for Windows. One of the primary reasons for this is that the goal of F/OSS is to be used, the goal of proprietary software is to make money. For this reason, it's far more likely that a Windows update will come with unacceptable issues than a Linux update.
3. The design philosophy with regards to security between Linux and Windows is night-and-day. Linux tends to disable services unless you specifically enable them, and even then the default options tend to be chosen with security in mind. With Windows (since '95!) you have ports open by default that have been used to crack into the system. With XP, these ports can lead to a compromised system before the install has even finished!
And the list goes on...
How do you rebroadcast something that's never been broadcast in the first place?
You missing the point that the FCC still regulates the entire radio spectrum, including the microwave frequencies used by WiFi.
It's not "deregulation" that has promoted such fecundity in the wireless networking arena. It's the fact that the FCC has regulated that part of the spectrum in a way that the average person is able to participate in.
Specifically, it's the fact that the FCC chose not to require a license to broadcast at those frequencies (at least, under a certain strength). Before you think that this lesson could be applied to the current AM/FM spectrum, keep in mind that there are already bands for everything else, so it's not economically viable to put a television station (for example) at the WiFi spectrum--for one you'd have to convince Sony and RCA, etc, to make new TVs.
If the FM band, for example, were unlicensed, what would there be to stop someone from hijacking a popular station? Say the Rush Limbaugh/Al Franken station (whichever you'd rather listen to)? As you're driving along, some company whose sole source of income is advertising puts up antennae along the highway and broadcasts over Franken/Limbaugh. The system breaks down.
Now, I don't mean to say that the current scheme (for AM/FM/TV) is very good (in fact, I think it's awful), but deregulation in the Libertarian sense is not the answer.
Just one example (out of many potential ideas) would be to sanction a non-profit industry group with a socially progressive charter as the arbiter of some band (say, the AM band). Allow the citizen/government oversight of that organization (within clearly defined limits, such as the government couldn't suppress free speech and the like). Then, the industry group (similar to the W3C or the IETF) would define the system under which Clear Channel, your local community station, Sony, etc, would be bound to.
If done well, such a system would overwhelmingly outshine our current morass, and that was just a spur of the moment idea. I'm sure a dedicated group could do even better.
First off was the small problem that... the president can't reinstate the draft, it would take congress (you know, that silly checks and balances thing).
Not a problem if the House and Senate have a Republican majority. If Bush says we need the draft to pursue the so-called "War on Terror", he'll get the draft. He'll even put on a heart-felt press conference where he says he searched his soul and decided that a draft was needed, and in other interviews, he'll say that he knows God wanted him to do it.
My second question would be (this is to those who said the draft would be reinstated)... why? What political purpose would it serve (besides increasing troop numbers)?
You answered your own question. Just because you put it in parentheses doesn't make it wrong.
Bush really believes in using military force for whatever ends the US (meaning Cheney) desires. If Bush plans to keep up his warmongering, he'll need the draft. To actually win in Iraq, we'll have to increase our force in the nation. You can't win a war without winning the "hearts and minds" of the people you are occupying. Two ways to win their hearts and minds is to show them that you are there to help and are working for their best interest, the other is to beat them into submission. Bush has demonstrated he won't do the former, so we're stuck with the latter. The latter requires increased hostilities. To do that we'll either need *at least* twice the number of troops in Iraq, or we'll need to step up our actions to even greater horrors.
And that's just Iraq. Don't forget that war plans are already being drawn up for Iran and Syria, and in an amazing case of foolishness, Bush has even pointed his military desires towards Cuba. There's no way on Earth to fight those wars without the draft.
And that's assuming all stays "quiet" on the Korean Peninsula.
You might be rational enough to think that even if Bush is as ignorant as he's portrayed, there's no way he would bring about such a calamity of wars upon the US. But consider that if you believed (like Bush does) that the events in Revelations are a good thing, would you be a "girly-man" about the issue, or would your faith in the God of Revelations make it easier to make the insane decisions that eventually lead to WWIII?
isn't this EXACTLY what suprnova is doing?
No, and you even say exactly why below:
sure its mostly an illigal "network" but it still substitutes for TV and pushes a hell of a lot of content across it.
As you correctly point out, the content is the primary difference. Secondarily, the author wants to make the process simpler than it is now (something akin to putting the tracker interface into the bittorrent client, along with the media player, and probably defining certain standards for dates, file types, moderation, etc).
So, no, suprnova is not doing "EXACTLY" what this guy proposes. In fact, qualitatively, it's a far cry from what the author proposes.
Mostly because it was non-obvious to someone in the US Patent Office. This is a manifestation of the trend of trusting industries to police themselves. Sure, when it works it's better than regulation, but when it doesn't...
the discovery of asymptotic freedom in the theory of the strong interaction
You mean George W. Bush won the Nobel Prize for his cock-up of a war in Iraq?
...since the horizon on flat ground is 25 miles away, how did they manage 55 miles? Must have been some hills involved? If so, then the distance as the crow flies would perhaps be less than 55.1 miles...
Less than 55.1 miles, as in 55.0? Or are you going for 55.09657(etc) miles (which is the same as 55.1, given the same level of precision reported in the article)?
I think it more likely it would increase the distance. The change seems like it would be too small to count much anyway.
You implied, "not buying it but downloading it anyway."
That is correct. Your argument centered around not buying the music which is what I was responding too (your high-horse attitude drew the "retard" barb from me).
If that's not what you meant, then I apologize.
No, that's exactly what I meant. Your point assumes that the current system is moral. I do not see how it could be called 'moral' by any human-centric standard. It's merely a system which rewards businesses/corporations and works against both the musician and the listener.
I've never heard an objective reason an mp3 should be considered property. I've heard subjective reasons, but in the subjective realm, our current system does more harm than good.
It's people like you who cause the RIAA and MPAA to sue ordinary citizens.
It's the flawed system that promotes the greed of the corporation which causes the RIAA and MPAA to sue ordinary citizens. So-called 'piracy' is a symptom of the problem, not the problem itself.
Freeloaders who show no appreciation or respect for musicians hard work
Sounds likes you are describing the labels & RIAA to me.
Most - as in 99.999% of musicians are overworked and underpaid.
This was true long before Napster was born. In fact, it was true long before Shawn Fanning was born.
Depends... who's askin'?
Essentially all those arguments could be applied to Kerry supporters if/when some silly story breaks.
The evidence just isn't there to back you up. If you listen to arguments from the two sides. From the right you'll tend to hear the very simplistic messege the previous poster mentioned. From the left you won't get the same.
From the right you get such amazing doublethink as to blow one's mind. For example, Rush Limbaugh will say things like "The Democrats always put symbolism before substance," then go on to denigrate the "French-looking John Kerry".
* This is, BTW, the most compelling argument I've seen against Bush thus far. As an Atheist, that much God-stuff in the White House is scary shit. But then...Kerry has done nothing to suggest he's any different.
Are you serious? If you stand waaaaay back (we're talking HST distances here), and squint really hard, then they almost look the same on the God front. Do you think Kerry will:
1. Say God told him to do X (for Bush, X tends to be invade some country)?
2. Deliberately and openly tear down the seperation between church and state?
3. Oppose the removal of overt religious icons from government courthouses?
Etc? Sure, he'll say "God bless America" all the time, and he'll be seen going to church, but he's not going to be anywhere near as egregious about it as Bush.
Here's a novel idea... how about if something isn't worth paying for, then don't buy it? Guess what? Music is a luxury, not a necessity. If you don't like their terms, then don't buy it. Simple as that.
Uh, yeah retard. Not buying it is exactly what I implied should be done.
Pay The Man.
Why? If you don't believe "The Man" deserves the payment, why pay him?
The reason: "Or we'll sue you into the poor house", isn't very endearing. The reason: "Or we won't be able to to continue our decadent and culture-destroying entperprise," is far from compelling.
I sugjest that you tell your boss that your willing to work for free. Since you think my time isn't worth money I assume you think the same of yourself.
I suggest you tell your kids/wife/friends/parents/whoever, that they start paying you for the time you spend with them, since you think people only do things with their time in order to be paid.
The Internet should be for the People, by the People, and of the People. There has to be a better solution than having the U.N. get involved.
As the Internet gets more and more controlled, you'll see three forces at play.
1. Corporate
2. Government (ie: 1. Corporate)
3. The anarchy/democratic/social/liberty interests
Now, if you can get 2 to cede to the UN (a body that often finds it can't do anything much of importance), we'll still have a strong 3, and now a weakened 2. And with a weakened 2, 1 will have lost a major ally.
At least, that's one way to look at it.
destroy authority.
By what authority?
Yeah, let's give the last remaining actual "freedom" we have left (the Net) over to the most corrupt and widely-policing Capitalist Authoritarian organization possible.
Too late. Your IP has been tracked and the CIA will be by shortly to assist your enrollment in a 're-education' program. You'll be wearing Nikes, bopping to Britney Spears, and taping Survivor in no time.
Don't worry, you'll still be allowed choices. Specifically "Coke or Pepsi" and "Doritos, Doritos Extreme and Lo-Carb Mega Doritos Extreme".
The battle for desktop supremacy, however, is already won.
There is no 'won', there is only 'winning' (or if you really want, 'won for now'). Windows might be king forever, but it's not likely at all.
Hardware and OS's are going to continue to evolve and as time goes on, I think the specific OS you chose is going to become less and less important.
Also, one would think UNIX refugees coming to Mac would boost the platform on the desktop. Not happening. I think people are finally settling on the fact that UNIX is a rock-solid server, but that doesn't necessarily make it a great desktop.
Who are these 'people' you are talking about? I guarantee you that more people today use Unix as their desktop OS than have ever in the past, and that number is growing.
Whether it's Windows or some other windowing system that wins the crown, I'm not sure, but classic UNIX is pretty much finished.
What do you mean by 'classic UNIX'? Solaris, Linux, OS X and BSD are modern Unices. I could just as easily say 'classic Windows' is pretty much finished, and be just as correct.
Apple, by being based on OSS, may be spared that death, but hard to tell.
It's easy to tell. Name one reason why Mac OS will die.
(there are none)
There are reasons it won't be the number one OS, but absolutely no reason for it to die. All the 'pundits' that claim Mac OS is doomed don't realize that there's a market for more than one consumer/desktop OS.
I apologize if I have misinterpreted your meaning, but your post does read that way.
No problem. If you re-read my original post you'll see it's more of how you read it than how I said it (I imagine you read it through slashdot-colored glasses, as it were).
I left out OSX only because he cannot install OSX on a Windows machine.
But presumably it is an option available to him. Cost is an issue he'll have to weigh for himself if he deems it worthwhile. I was just offering two options that work for me.
Buying all of Slashdot's hype that Linux is secure, I built a Linux webserver for my company. 2 weeks later it was rooted.
The guy doesn't sound like he's interested in running a web server. There are plenty of ways to make an apache install insecure. Again, to make a fair comparison, it's easier to crack IIS than it is Apache. That you got 0wn3d doesn't detract from my point. I never said Linux was uncrackable, I said it's more secure (by a large margin).
My only real point is that you have to be vigilant either way.
This is the "what do you mean by that realm". 'Vigilant' is a term that is subjective. Under Debian, 'vigilant' means running apt/aptitude/dselect (whichever is your choice) and telling it to update your system. Under Mac OS X, 'vigilant' means clicking "install" when Software Update pops up. Under Windows, 'vigilant' is far more involved.
Subjectively you can say both require 'vigilance', but they are not equal. You are repeating the confusion of a Windows apologist. When a Linux advocate (yeah, sometimes they are rabid too), claims that Windows is less secure, the Windows apologist will say Linux has security holes too. But when you look closely, you'll see a world of difference. Both a glass of water, and a handfull of rattle snakes can kill you, but one is far safer than the other.
It's far easier to crack a Windows computer than a Linux computer by a wide margin.
It's a question of whether or not it's 'worth the fuss'.
Which is what I said in my original post.
I'll put it another way: I'm a Windows user. I have several machines I have to take care of. I don't have problems with exploits trojans or spyware. Once in a great while something will come along. I take care of it, bfd. I spent more time building the ill-fated Linux/Apache server than I have in a year of maintaining exploit-related Windows problems.
Then Linux isn't for you. I never said it was for everyone. I suggested he consider it (maybe he has, maybe he hasn't, I have no way to know, but both Linux and Mac OS X are viable alternatives and worth considering).
it's not all that clear that hassle would suddenly disappear
I don't know what you mean by "suddenly disappear" (it certainly wasn't in reference to anything I stated in my post). If you mean all systems have the potential for being cracked, then sure. But that doesn't tell anything near the whole story. If you run Linux (or OS X, which you left out in your reply), your odds of being cracked/spywared drop low enough that it's not really worth fretting over--even if you don't turn on the built-in firewalls (which are infinitely superior to the Windows built-in firewall).
So while you may be playing the pedant card and using language that is "technically correct", you have added more confusion than clarification to the issue. I hope you don't mean that Windows, Linux, and Mac OS X are all equally crackable. If you aren't careful, you can end up with a cracked XP system during the install process, what a joke!