When I first got done reading this article, I just couldn't believe that a reasonable person could ever conceive of such a mind numbingly stupid idea as this. Since it clearly defies all logic, I began to consider what might motivate someone to publicly express this ludicrous opinion. And then it became stunningly obvious: large software companies will be able to protect their programmers by either purchasing insurance, or deploying their fleet of lawyers when the need arises. Whatever additional expense is incurred will simply be passed on to the customer (or possibly recouped from the programmers in the form of lower salaries, fewer benefits, no bonuses, etc.). Problem solved. Of course, there is a fortuitous side effect to a policy such as this: open source programmers will either need purchase expensive liability insurance just to continue doing something that most of them do for free, or simply quit coding.
So, it's pretty obvious that this would be a losing proposition for everyone involved except for very large software companies with deep pockets and an army of lawyers. Customers would almost certainly be required to pay more for shrinked wrapped software, FOSS could be severly crippled, and programmers would suddenly become even more dependent on big corps for employment. Good luck getting that startup off the ground with the added load of crushing liability insurance rates. Sounds to me like this would seriously chill inovation, increase costs to users, and probably drive programmer salaries down. I'm not sure what effect this might have on off-shoring, but I'm betting that it might become even more attractive as it would be difficult (and probably not that financially rewarding) to sue some programmer in India making $10/hr.
And lets not forget that this is all based on the premise that it's even possible to write completely secure (and useful) software. Doesn't the old saying goe something like this: Cheap. Easy to use. Secure. - Choose any two.
Also, the risk/reward ratio for programmers suddenly goes through the roof. Let me get this straight - if I work for a smallish software company, I'm more than likely going to be *personally* at risk of financial ruin in the event of failure, and (unless I'm lucky enough to have my compensation tied to sales) have virtually no chance of a financial windfall in the case of success. Sticks, sticks, and more sticks, but where the FUCK are the carrots?
This whole thing just makes me want to puke. If my car stereo gets stolen, can I get the engineer who designed the door lock to buy me a new one? If my house is burglarized, can I sue the carpenter? If I get mugged walking down the street, can I sue the guy who poured the concrete for the sidewalk?
Which leads me to the conclusion that Howard Schmidt is either a nitwit of titanic magnitude, or simply another corporate shill. Personally, I'm thinking both.
Since when do you have to shell out big bucks to read MS Office documents? MS itself provides free viewers for all their formats.
Well, that's true - now. What makes you think it will be true forever? Is MS somehow obligated to continue providing viewers for free?
What about 10 years down the road? Will their viewers be backward compatible, or will you have to hunt down a ten year old version of the viewer?
Furthermore, the next version of MS Office will have open formats.
Please provide some evidence of this. I frankly don't believe it for a minute. While the upcoming Office file formats will be XML based, there is absolutely no reason to believe that the format will be open. Unless I've missed the boat entirely (which is certainly possible), it's my understanding that the "open" XML documents will contain lots of binary information understandable only by Office and decidedly not open.
Also, since when is open source a guarantee that a file format will be around forever? It seems to me the opposite is true.
If that's the way it seems to you, then you aren't thinking too clearly. Open source definitely guarantees that a file format will be around forever because the source will be around forever. In the absolute worst case, you would need to find a dusty old version of the app in question, and compile it yourself. However, I can't see how that worst case could ever happen since I'm assuming that the document format would be open as well as the application source. Think about it for a minute. If the source code of the application that produces and consumes the documents is open, then how in the hell would the document format be closed?!
It seems to me like Massachussett's decision is based more on politicking than anything else.
I suspect that this could very well be true, but I don't have enough first hand knowledge of the situation to come to any definite conclusion.
Personally, I think that at minimum we need to get to a state where, like most commercial desktop OSs, you download a file which appears as an icon and double-click that to install it on your computer.
Just because Windows forces you to go and download a file and then run that file for every piece of software that you want to install doesn't mean that all operating systems should do the same. Different from Windows does not mean more difficult. In this case, it actually means easier:
Whenever I want to install software, or update my system, I just click the pretty icon on my desktop that's labeled 'Synaptic'. Then, after supplying the root password, I can install any software that is available in the Debian repository. No need to go download a special installer for every program that I want to install. It really is that easy.
For example, in order to update all of my currently installed software to the latest versions, it takes exactly 5 mouse clicks (two to launch Synaptic) and a password. Try that with Windows - and no, 'Windows Update' doesn't count because all that does is update Windows files - not your office suite, database server, integrated development environment, etc.
Or, what if I read about some snazzy new tool on slashdot and I just have to have it on my Debian system? Well, chances are, there's a package in the Debian repository. Fire up Synaptic, use the search, select the package, click the install button, maybe pick a few more things and do likewise, and then finally click the big friendly 'Execute' button. In most cases, that's all there is to do. Some packages require minor configuration which means there may be a question or two to answer, but that's it. Done.
Now, what about the Windows way? Well, first, I'd have to go buy, or download an installer and run it. Then, I'd probably have to decide where to install the software. If my system didn't meet minimum requirements, I might even need to go buy or download additional software to install first. Sure, there would probably be a soothing installer to watch, a progress meter or two, maybe some fancy pictures, etc. Finally, assuming everything goes well, I will more than likely have a shortcut on the desktop and a new group in my Start menu (score one for MS here). Great, all done.
But, here are the things that nobody ever thinks about:
What if I uninstall the software and then decide I'd like it back? Well, I better have kept that installer program lying around somewhere.
What about when a new version comes out? Time to go get another installer - and better keep that one around too.
How about patches and security updates? Ditto.
So, in essence what you end up doing is maintaining your very own package repository just so you can be sure that you'll be able to reinstall the software should the need arise. That sounds easy, doesn't it? Hell no! But wait, Debian is happy to do that for me - and you too!
I also think it would be better if we did not have to go that far to install software. Perhaps when we reach the point where through a web interface on a site a user could signal his/her intent to use a piece of software (perhaps by clicking a link) and that software would then be downloaded, installed, and launched. It should also be easy to go back to an older version or get rid of the software cleanly.
See above. We're already there, except no need to use a web interface, the GTK+ interface is just fine. Going back to an older version? Sure. Uninstall cleanly? Do you want to keep the configuration, or nuke that too? It's your choice, but both are already possible and only a few clicks away.
The moral to this little story is: Just because you know how to do something one way does not mean that way is the easiest or best way.
When people ask me if Linux is harder to use than Windows, I usually ask them this question: Is French harder to speak than English? Obvi
Actually, yes and yes. On my machine (Debian unstable w/ Crossover Office) MS Word starts in 3 seconds and OpenOffice.org Writer starts in about 11 seconds. Once running, they seem to be roughly comparable in speed.
I'd really love to be able to ditch Word, but for long (100+ pages), complicated (proposals with lots of formatting) documents that I need to share with Windows users, OpenOffice.org doesn't quite cut it. For simple documents that don't need to be maintained in any meaningful way by a group of coworkers who insist on Word, OpenOffice.org is perfectly fine.
I live fairly close to TMI and, even though I was in elementary school at the time, I remember the "incident" well. It was only catastrophic in the sense that the reactor (number 2?) in question was pretty much destroyed and had to be shut down for a very long time. A financial catastrophe for sure. However, there are a couple points that failed to make headlines.
1. The amount of radiation released was approximately the same amount as we recieve from the sun pretty much every day.
2. Since TMI is located within a few hundred yards of Harrisburg International Airport and just about right in the flight path, the containment buildings were built to withstand the direct impact of a DC-10. The walls are (I think, but could be wrong) something like 10 foot thick steel reinforced concrete.
So, even though bad stuff happened inside the reactor, it was not a complete meltdown, and even if it had been, it probably wouldn't have been much worse than it was. Now, I'm sure there can be an argument that there was alot of thermal pollution put into the Susquehana river, and I won't even begin to argue that point. The fact remains that, overall, there was very little if any damage done to the environment or the public at large. The catastrophe was contained by the containment building, just as it was designed to do. The problem is that doesn't make good headlines.
What are the recommended specs for enjoying Live Phish Downloads?
Windows
Windows 98SE, 2000, ME, XP, or later
128 MB RAM
10 GB Hard Drive (a larger hard drive is optimal)
Pentium III 750MHz or faster (or equivalent)
Cable Modem or DSL
Internet Explorer 5.5 or later
Mac OS
Mac OS 9.1 or later
128 MB RAM
10GB Hard Drive (a larger hard drive is optimal)
Cable Modem or DSL
Internet Explorer 5 or later
Get dynamic DNS service and for God's sake don't forward X over the internet - use ssh!
I have a dynamic IP, and I have no trouble ssh'ing into my machine no matter the IP. There's even a very nice java ssh client WITH X server that allows running X apps on my machine from any web browser with java support.
You should probably read Atlas Shrugged and Fountainhead again. When you're done, ask yourself this question: Were Howard Roark or Hank Rearden motivated by financial gain? The answer you come up with should be no. They were not opposed to financial gain, as were their antagonists, but they were simply trying to build buildings and make metal - because that's what they wanted to do. In other words, they were motivated by their own passion to create.
Now, look at what Linus did. He created a unix workalike kernel because he wanted a unix system, but couldn't afford any of the commercialy available systems at the time. Did he create it for us? No. Did he create it to achieve fame and popularity? No. He created it because he wanted to, and he could. Plain and simple. This is exactly what objectivism is all about. It's not about greed or money. It is about selfishness - just not the common understanding of the word.
I'd have to disagree here. If he were an adult, you would certainly have a valid point, but 13 year old kids do not necessarily think like adults. They tend to make rash decisions without fully comprehending all of the possible ramifications. In this case, I believe that he may indeed have been an otherwise 'normal' well adjusted teen who was simply overwhelmed by the apparent possibility of incarceration. Of course, it's also possible that he was on the brink of disaster, but definitely far from a certainty. I guess what I'm saying is that, by adult standards, nearly all 13 year olds have some psychological problems. We really shouldn't lose sight of what a volatile time it is in a person's life.
Jeff opined: ------------------------------------------------ - The day after the ILOVEYOU virus hit our campus, I was walking to lunch with a co-worker of mine. On the way, we were discussing this very topic. He said, "Watch.. In a few days, there will be a story on Slashdot about how Linux triumphed over Windows because they weren't affected." Thinking that this viewpoint was a little cynical (even for me), we argued about this for a bit.
Sure enough, less than a week later, there is an obnoxious story on Slashdot about how Linux triumped over Windows.
Why is this obnoxious, you ask? Maybe it's because the virus was written for software that Linux doesn't even offer.
Was it a Slashdot story when crackers started taking out Linux/UNIX boxes via one of one wu-ftpd/proftpd buffer overflows, but not Windows boxes? Of course not. Was it a big story when Linux/UNIX-based email servers all over the world were getting rooted and turned into DDoS agents because of an imapd overflow, but not Windows? Of course not - Windows doesn't run that software, how could it affect it?
It seems that quite a few people don't understand that claiming triumph over Windows for something like this is very much like claiming that you're immortal because a bomb went off and didn't kill you - but the bomb went off two cities away.
I'm not an MS lover be any stretch of the imagination - but this sort of cocky, misinformed bullshit is exactly why the Linux community is laughed at so often - and exactly why the Linux community laughs at the "closed-source" world.
Reply: ------------------------------------------------ -- The point you make is certainly a valid one, and I won't defend/. on this.
However, I think that the important distinction between all of the *nix exploits that you cited and the ILOVEYOU worm is the reaction of the software authors responsible for leaving the security hole. In the case of all of the *nix exploits, the reaction was prompt security patches. In the case of the ILOVEYOU worm, Lord Bill cries, "It's a feature, not a bug! Everyone needs these 'productivity' features, so quit complaining." Utterly reprehensible if you ask me.
OK, call me crazy, but I just don't buy this yet. I got to thinking about why in the world AOL/Time Warner would want to be producing (however indirectly) software which would enable wholesale piracy of music/video - the very products which they sell! Well, this is what I came up with:
Napster already exists and is wildly popular, so what can they do about that?
Well, the RIAA (who represents AOL/TW) is suing Napster, and if they are successful, I would imagine that might spell doom for Napster.
If Napster is gone, there would be a vacuum in this software space.
Sinse nature, and OS software, hates a vacuum, it would rapidly be filled by something similar to Napster.
HOWEVER, if Gnutella exists and prospers before Napster is killed (injured?), then suddenly AOL/TW control this space and is free to castrate Gnutella in any way they see fit.
OK, I know that this argument is really full of holes, especially since Gnutella is open source. BUT, don't forget that we haven't seen any of the source yet, so who's to say that we ever will? I just can't believe that AOL/TW are allowing this when it will certainly lead to even more widespread music/video piracy. I for one will not be using this until I see some source - just so I can be sure that it won't be killed by AOL/TW. Oh, and a *nix version would be nice too.
No, they are selling toys using tech which they hope to use for medicine. They are only selling the toys to raise funding for continuing research. Next time, read the article before posting. By the way, I love animals, but last time I checked, humans have rights and animals don't - period.
WinNT is based on OS/2 (well, sort of). IIRC, it started out as a joint project between MS and IBM. At some point, the parties split, each taking the code that had been jointly developed (forking) and each continuing the development. In the end, IBM had OS/2 and MS had NT
Unfortunately, this is probably true. I currently am forced to use VMWare to run Quickbooks, and will probably also resort to the same strategy for TurboTax when Tax time comes around. The good news is that VMWare has been rock solid from day one in this capacity. The bad news is, of course, that it is not open source, nor free (quite expensive in fact), and (even though I am spared a reboot) it's just too much like running Windows (well, because it really is running Windows).
I have noticed that the most recent release of Wine does an excellent job with running Quickbooks apart from seriously mangling the fonts (which I can't even straighten out with a tt font server) and not being able to print. I'm not to the point where I will trust Wine with this, but it does not seem far off anymore - maybe within the next year. Also, it seems that tax programs are among the things which alot of people have at least been trying to run with Wine, so it is worth a shot - just don't expect to be able to print anything!
The bottom line is that if Intuit would just release a Linux version of Quickbooks and Turbotax, I think I could once and for all rid my computer of that nasty Redmond virus. And, I would bet that I am not alone in this regard.
Has anyone inquired about this? These two things (accounting and tax programs - not necessarily Intuit's) really seem like killer apps for getting Linux onto alot more desktops.
I can't beleive that nobody has figured out why the installation process is so heavily weighted by the c|net reviewers. Coming from a windows centric outlet such as this, it is obvious. If you have ever used windows of any sort you would realize that the OS installer is probably the most frequently used application!! c|net just doesn't realize that for a linux distro, the installer is only used once per machine.
Slashdot Mirror
When I first got done reading this article, I just couldn't believe that a reasonable person could ever conceive of such a mind numbingly stupid idea as this. Since it clearly defies all logic, I began to consider what might motivate someone to publicly express this ludicrous opinion. And then it became stunningly obvious: large software companies will be able to protect their programmers by either purchasing insurance, or deploying their fleet of lawyers when the need arises. Whatever additional expense is incurred will simply be passed on to the customer (or possibly recouped from the programmers in the form of lower salaries, fewer benefits, no bonuses, etc.). Problem solved. Of course, there is a fortuitous side effect to a policy such as this: open source programmers will either need purchase expensive liability insurance just to continue doing something that most of them do for free, or simply quit coding.
So, it's pretty obvious that this would be a losing proposition for everyone involved except for very large software companies with deep pockets and an army of lawyers. Customers would almost certainly be required to pay more for shrinked wrapped software, FOSS could be severly crippled, and programmers would suddenly become even more dependent on big corps for employment. Good luck getting that startup off the ground with the added load of crushing liability insurance rates. Sounds to me like this would seriously chill inovation, increase costs to users, and probably drive programmer salaries down. I'm not sure what effect this might have on off-shoring, but I'm betting that it might become even more attractive as it would be difficult (and probably not that financially rewarding) to sue some programmer in India making $10/hr.
And lets not forget that this is all based on the premise that it's even possible to write completely secure (and useful) software. Doesn't the old saying goe something like this: Cheap. Easy to use. Secure. - Choose any two.
Also, the risk/reward ratio for programmers suddenly goes through the roof. Let me get this straight - if I work for a smallish software company, I'm more than likely going to be *personally* at risk of financial ruin in the event of failure, and (unless I'm lucky enough to have my compensation tied to sales) have virtually no chance of a financial windfall in the case of success. Sticks, sticks, and more sticks, but where the FUCK are the carrots?
This whole thing just makes me want to puke. If my car stereo gets stolen, can I get the engineer who designed the door lock to buy me a new one? If my house is burglarized, can I sue the carpenter? If I get mugged walking down the street, can I sue the guy who poured the concrete for the sidewalk?
Which leads me to the conclusion that Howard Schmidt is either a nitwit of titanic magnitude, or simply another corporate shill. Personally, I'm thinking both.
Since when do you have to shell out big bucks to read MS Office documents? MS itself provides free viewers for all their formats.
Furthermore, the next version of MS Office will have open formats.
Please provide some evidence of this. I frankly don't believe it for a minute. While the upcoming Office file formats will be XML based, there is absolutely no reason to believe that the format will be open. Unless I've missed the boat entirely (which is certainly possible), it's my understanding that the "open" XML documents will contain lots of binary information understandable only by Office and decidedly not open.
Also, since when is open source a guarantee that a file format will be around forever? It seems to me the opposite is true.
If that's the way it seems to you, then you aren't thinking too clearly. Open source definitely guarantees that a file format will be around forever because the source will be around forever. In the absolute worst case, you would need to find a dusty old version of the app in question, and compile it yourself. However, I can't see how that worst case could ever happen since I'm assuming that the document format would be open as well as the application source. Think about it for a minute. If the source code of the application that produces and consumes the documents is open, then how in the hell would the document format be closed?!
It seems to me like Massachussett's decision is based more on politicking than anything else.
I suspect that this could very well be true, but I don't have enough first hand knowledge of the situation to come to any definite conclusion.
Personally, I think that at minimum we need to get to a state where, like most commercial desktop OSs, you download a file which appears as an icon and double-click that to install it on your computer.
Just because Windows forces you to go and download a file and then run that file for every piece of software that you want to install doesn't mean that all operating systems should do the same. Different from Windows does not mean more difficult. In this case, it actually means easier:
Whenever I want to install software, or update my system, I just click the pretty icon on my desktop that's labeled 'Synaptic'. Then, after supplying the root password, I can install any software that is available in the Debian repository. No need to go download a special installer for every program that I want to install. It really is that easy.
For example, in order to update all of my currently installed software to the latest versions, it takes exactly 5 mouse clicks (two to launch Synaptic) and a password. Try that with Windows - and no, 'Windows Update' doesn't count because all that does is update Windows files - not your office suite, database server, integrated development environment, etc.
Or, what if I read about some snazzy new tool on slashdot and I just have to have it on my Debian system? Well, chances are, there's a package in the Debian repository. Fire up Synaptic, use the search, select the package, click the install button, maybe pick a few more things and do likewise, and then finally click the big friendly 'Execute' button. In most cases, that's all there is to do. Some packages require minor configuration which means there may be a question or two to answer, but that's it. Done.
Now, what about the Windows way? Well, first, I'd have to go buy, or download an installer and run it. Then, I'd probably have to decide where to install the software. If my system didn't meet minimum requirements, I might even need to go buy or download additional software to install first. Sure, there would probably be a soothing installer to watch, a progress meter or two, maybe some fancy pictures, etc. Finally, assuming everything goes well, I will more than likely have a shortcut on the desktop and a new group in my Start menu (score one for MS here). Great, all done.
But, here are the things that nobody ever thinks about:
So, in essence what you end up doing is maintaining your very own package repository just so you can be sure that you'll be able to reinstall the software should the need arise. That sounds easy, doesn't it? Hell no! But wait, Debian is happy to do that for me - and you too!
I also think it would be better if we did not have to go that far to install software. Perhaps when we reach the point where through a web interface on a site a user could signal his/her intent to use a piece of software (perhaps by clicking a link) and that software would then be downloaded, installed, and launched. It should also be easy to go back to an older version or get rid of the software cleanly.
See above. We're already there, except no need to use a web interface, the GTK+ interface is just fine. Going back to an older version? Sure. Uninstall cleanly? Do you want to keep the configuration, or nuke that too? It's your choice, but both are already possible and only a few clicks away.
The moral to this little story is: Just because you know how to do something one way does not mean that way is the easiest or best way.
When people ask me if Linux is harder to use than Windows, I usually ask them this question: Is French harder to speak than English? Obvi
Actually, yes and yes. On my machine (Debian unstable w/ Crossover Office) MS Word starts in 3 seconds and OpenOffice.org Writer starts in about 11 seconds. Once running, they seem to be roughly comparable in speed.
I'd really love to be able to ditch Word, but for long (100+ pages), complicated (proposals with lots of formatting) documents that I need to share with Windows users, OpenOffice.org doesn't quite cut it. For simple documents that don't need to be maintained in any meaningful way by a group of coworkers who insist on Word, OpenOffice.org is perfectly fine.
I live fairly close to TMI and, even though I was in elementary school at the time, I remember the "incident" well. It was only catastrophic in the sense that the reactor (number 2?) in question was pretty much destroyed and had to be shut down for a very long time. A financial catastrophe for sure. However, there are a couple points that failed to make headlines.
1. The amount of radiation released was approximately the same amount as we recieve from the sun pretty much every day.
2. Since TMI is located within a few hundred yards of Harrisburg International Airport and just about right in the flight path, the containment buildings were built to withstand the direct impact of a DC-10. The walls are (I think, but could be wrong) something like 10 foot thick steel reinforced concrete.
So, even though bad stuff happened inside the reactor, it was not a complete meltdown, and even if it had been, it probably wouldn't have been much worse than it was. Now, I'm sure there can be an argument that there was alot of thermal pollution put into the Susquehana river, and I won't even begin to argue that point. The fact remains that, overall, there was very little if any damage done to the environment or the public at large. The catastrophe was contained by the containment building, just as it was designed to do. The problem is that doesn't make good headlines.
Windows
Windows 98SE, 2000, ME, XP, or later
128 MB RAM
10 GB Hard Drive (a larger hard drive is optimal)
Pentium III 750MHz or faster (or equivalent)
Cable Modem or DSL
Internet Explorer 5.5 or later
Mac OS
Mac OS 9.1 or later
128 MB RAM
10GB Hard Drive (a larger hard drive is optimal)
Cable Modem or DSL
Internet Explorer 5 or later
Unix
You probably don't need our advice.
I have a dynamic IP, and I have no trouble ssh'ing into my machine no matter the IP. There's even a very nice java ssh client WITH X server that allows running X apps on my machine from any web browser with java support.
Get a clue and quit complaining.
Now, look at what Linus did. He created a unix workalike kernel because he wanted a unix system, but couldn't afford any of the commercialy available systems at the time. Did he create it for us? No. Did he create it to achieve fame and popularity? No. He created it because he wanted to, and he could. Plain and simple. This is exactly what objectivism is all about. It's not about greed or money. It is about selfishness - just not the common understanding of the word.
I'd have to disagree here. If he were an adult, you would certainly have a valid point, but 13 year old kids do not necessarily think like adults. They tend to make rash decisions without fully comprehending all of the possible ramifications. In this case, I believe that he may indeed have been an otherwise 'normal' well adjusted teen who was simply overwhelmed by the apparent possibility of incarceration. Of course, it's also possible that he was on the brink of disaster, but definitely far from a certainty. I guess what I'm saying is that, by adult standards, nearly all 13 year olds have some psychological problems. We really shouldn't lose sight of what a volatile time it is in a person's life.
Pay attention. In the related links box it's .com. Unless you have those boxes turned off that is. VA's gotta get somethin' for their money.
Jeff opined:- -
- -- /. on this.
-----------------------------------------------
The day after the ILOVEYOU virus hit our campus, I was walking to lunch with a co-worker of mine. On the way, we were discussing this very topic. He said, "Watch.. In a few days, there will be a story on Slashdot about how Linux triumphed over Windows because they weren't affected." Thinking that this viewpoint was a little cynical (even for me), we argued about this for a bit.
Sure enough, less than a week later, there is an obnoxious story on Slashdot about how Linux triumped over Windows.
Why is this obnoxious, you ask? Maybe it's because the virus was written for software that Linux doesn't even offer.
Was it a Slashdot story when crackers started taking out Linux/UNIX boxes via one of one wu-ftpd/proftpd buffer overflows, but not Windows boxes? Of course not. Was it a big story when Linux/UNIX-based email servers all over the world were getting rooted and turned into DDoS agents because of an imapd overflow, but not Windows? Of course not - Windows doesn't run that software, how could it affect it?
It seems that quite a few people don't understand that claiming triumph over Windows for something like this is very much like claiming that you're immortal because a bomb went off and didn't kill you - but the bomb went off two cities away.
I'm not an MS lover be any stretch of the imagination - but this sort of cocky, misinformed bullshit is exactly why the Linux community is laughed at so often - and exactly why the Linux community laughs at the "closed-source" world.
Reply:
-----------------------------------------------
The point you make is certainly a valid one, and I won't defend
However, I think that the important distinction between all of the *nix exploits that you cited and the ILOVEYOU worm is the reaction of the software authors responsible for leaving the security hole. In the case of all of the *nix exploits, the reaction was prompt security patches. In the case of the ILOVEYOU worm, Lord Bill cries, "It's a feature, not a bug! Everyone needs these 'productivity' features, so quit complaining." Utterly reprehensible if you ask me.
- Napster already exists and is wildly popular, so what can they do about that?
- Well, the RIAA (who represents AOL/TW) is suing Napster, and if they are successful, I would imagine that might spell doom for Napster.
- If Napster is gone, there would be a vacuum in this software space.
- Sinse nature, and OS software, hates a vacuum, it would rapidly be filled by something similar to Napster.
- HOWEVER, if Gnutella exists and prospers before Napster is killed (injured?), then suddenly AOL/TW control this space and is free to castrate Gnutella in any way they see fit.
OK, I know that this argument is really full of holes, especially since Gnutella is open source. BUT, don't forget that we haven't seen any of the source yet, so who's to say that we ever will? I just can't believe that AOL/TW are allowing this when it will certainly lead to even more widespread music/video piracy. I for one will not be using this until I see some source - just so I can be sure that it won't be killed by AOL/TW. Oh, and a *nix version would be nice too.No, they are selling toys using tech which they hope to use for medicine. They are only selling the toys to raise funding for continuing research. Next time, read the article before posting. By the way, I love animals, but last time I checked, humans have rights and animals don't - period.
WinNT is based on OS/2 (well, sort of). IIRC, it started out as a joint project between MS and IBM. At some point, the parties split, each taking the code that had been jointly developed (forking) and each continuing the development. In the end, IBM had OS/2 and MS had NT
READ, READ, READ! Jon "Maddog" Hall != John T. Hall.
I have noticed that the most recent release of Wine does an excellent job with running Quickbooks apart from seriously mangling the fonts (which I can't even straighten out with a tt font server) and not being able to print. I'm not to the point where I will trust Wine with this, but it does not seem far off anymore - maybe within the next year. Also, it seems that tax programs are among the things which alot of people have at least been trying to run with Wine, so it is worth a shot - just don't expect to be able to print anything!
The bottom line is that if Intuit would just release a Linux version of Quickbooks and Turbotax, I think I could once and for all rid my computer of that nasty Redmond virus. And, I would bet that I am not alone in this regard.
Has anyone inquired about this? These two things (accounting and tax programs - not necessarily Intuit's) really seem like killer apps for getting Linux onto alot more desktops.
Very true. Now just change *subject* to *object* (since it is the object of the preposition 'about') and we've got something!
I can't beleive that nobody has figured out why the installation process is so heavily weighted by the c|net reviewers. Coming from a windows centric outlet such as this, it is obvious. If you have ever used windows of any sort you would realize that the OS installer is probably the most frequently used application!! c|net just doesn't realize that for a linux distro, the installer is only used once per machine.