For you not to be impressed by modern Apple hardware is also interesting. I get it that it isn't very easy to tear apart an iMac, but it is, after all, just a PC with PC parts. Now that other companies are doing it, where's the criticism towards Dell/Sony/et. al. ? I will concede Apple needs to make a mid-range tower, if only to silence the loud minority of us geeks who want to futz around with components.
My point was more along the lines of: Commodity hardware that is more expensive than the same commodity hardware in "PC equivalents that allowed me to toy with the components, something that is not very true of Macs. My point was: Why is it that I can buy the same type of RAM, hard disks/ internal devices, etc for PCs that Macs might already have bundled in or available, but for cheaper? And I don't buy "extensive QA" testing because most decent hardware has that. Frankly, my beef is: Why should a 2 GiB DDR2 stick of RAM "designed" for Mac cost so much more than the exact same stick of RAM for PC? The answer is that it shouldn't: That cheaper PC stick of RAM works fine in a Mac (Accoprding to a friend of mine. I personally don't have/want a Mac, ever.) Its almost like those headphones that are "For the iPod." There's no difference between it and other headphones... at all. Jut white. It works fine in any other electronic. Why bother believing all the "For " hype? If I wanna run Mac OS X, It'll be on non-limited PC hardware. (Cracked and put on a PC.)
Also, how do Intel Macs NOT run PC software natively? If I boot up in WinXP mode via bootcamp, I'm running the stuff natively. Care to elaborate? Are you inferring the lack of BIOS with the mac/intel machines makes it non-native? Perhaps you are saying the people you spoke with claimed that PC software just works right inside OSX, in which case I'd say there are stupid people everywhere. Sounds like that kind of person misunderstood what the guy at the Apple Store told them.
What I meant was the claim of Mac OS X running it natively. I'll concede the other points for the most part. But these two Apply fanboys were basically touting that the Mac was able to run Windows software out of the box without things like dual-booting or virtualization OR emulation. That was what pissed me off. Without at least an equivalent API no way can an OS runs another OS's software. POSIX was meant to override this a wee bit. That was mostly by making POSIX compliant OS's roughly the same as any other. Mac is POSIX-certified UNIX now. But since Windows is not really POSIX (Sure it can be POSIX-level by having tools, but compliance and certification requires a bit more.) it doesn't really make Windows Software native to Mac OS X in any way.
This is why I like WINE. Still not really native, but its not really binary emulation. (What's the point? WINE is designed for x86(_64) machines to *run* regular Windows software, which is x86. No need for binary emulation. It runs in a rather unique way from what I can tell: Open source implementations of Windows APIs, the ability to import DLLs, etc. But I wouldn't call it native since WINE is not a system component or part of Linux or any of its platforms. I can't call it native. WINE APIs =/= System APIs)
I apologize for the underpowered comment. But the 90s were a dark time for Apple. It managed to last until 1997 possibly because of people hanging on to their stuff. Back in the day, though, I still preferred PC. I still prefer it now.
Sadly, this is true of too many apple fanboys for me to not find comparing Applephiles to fanatics unfair. Remember during the '90s when Apple products were underpowered pieces of crap. But you still had Apple fans having orgasms about their lousy hardware. I'd call that "sticking to guns whether they are loaded or not" considering.
This is not to say I'm very impressed by modern Apple hardware either. For being essentially locked-down commodity hardware that you can change very little, it is very expensive. I'll just stick to a Linux-powered PC. (Don't get me started about Windows.)
I strongly agree with the apple fanboy diagnosis of being absolutely nuts about their hardware to the point of thinking that it is almost saintly and perfect. I had reams of them claiming that Mac OS X could run Windows software natively because it runs on the same architecture, demonstrating they have no real knowledge of how a computer actually works. I had another "dynamic duo" trying to tell me it has no viruses and is completely secure. I seem to recall there being at last count around 300 in-the-wild viruses. That's more than Linux but significantly less than Windows. Still, it made me want to puke. I don't want to flame or troll anyone, but Apple fanboys are disturbing people, really.
That is what I do. I went from pure Windows to dual booting with Linux having the smaller partition, to dual booting with equal resources, to Linux having greater resources, and then ultimately broomed Windows altogether and made my machine all Linux. I have XP in a virtual machine, but it rarely ever comes out to play. And usually whenever I decide to get more disk space, that Windows VM is the first thing to go. (I can easily get 3-4 GiB out of that.)
I bet Steve Ballmer would throw a fit to hear stories like this. "Joe Consumer decides he is pissed off by Windows, wipes it off completely and installs Linux and never looks back. And now suddenly he's using Google and traded his Zune for an iPod." Take that, Ballmer.
Reformatting for a dual boot is not needed. Mostly you only really need two things
1. A good backup
2. A freshly defragged hard disk.
The installer can make its own partition for Ubuntu (Or it can take the whole disk.) so I wouldn't fuss with the ultimately broken disk partitioner Vista uses, or the fully crippled one XP uses. Once you have those two prerequisites, just make sure you have ~20 GiB. of free hard disk space so that Ubuntu can have some stretching room. (Minimum required is 4, I believe.) After that, just burn yourself a LiveCD, pop it in, restart your computer and make sure it boots from the CD-ROM drive.
After that, just run the installer. (The link is right on the desktop.) When it reaches the partition editor, I suggest having it use the largest empty space on the disk. (Which should be the fresh new partition, unallocated.)
Of course, if you're using a work laptop, I'd use virtualization, not Wubi. Operating systems always operate better when they believe they are in charge of their machines. Virtualization is best, because it doesn't have to act like a guest operating system like it would be in the case of Cygwin or MinGW or Wubi. (Virtualized OSes are still guests with little power over the host OS, but they *are* masters of the domain they are in, the virtual machine, and thus get better performance, reliability, and power out of the deal. That and it's very easy to remove.)
I will never understand why open source enthusiasts get so angry when Microsoft starts giving things away for free. Has anyone ever stopped to think that this antitrust thing is the reason windows is such an underpowered POS? Maybe this is why they aren't able to give away decent developer tools, standardized antivirus, or a decent package management system.
Most FOSSies aren't pissed about giving stuff away for free, even from Microsoft. What they are pissed off about is when Microsoft virtually forces them to use it by way of shell integration. The difference between say, Windows and IE and KDE and Konquerer's integration is the fact that, in my experience, removing Konquerer is still an option, whereas there's no easy method of removing Internet Explorer. Though I still don't care for KDE. I'm probably one of the few who likes GNOME. Windows has always been a POS, even before all this anti-trust action came up. The reason they haven't released decent tools is less to do with anti-trust and less because they don't give a crap about these things. Developers Tools? They practically dominate the Windows development market with Visual Studio. It has degenrated into a nasty vendor lock-in mess I could care less for..Net made this worse. They implemented Windows Defender for antivirus, and it is no secret that Defender can't stop viruses worth a shit. And the MS lapdog Symantec produces worse. And Microsoft has absolutely no interest in package management, unless you count MSI as such. Why? Because too many software vendors are more than happy enough to kiss Microsoft's ass and produce physical media for the vast majority of its software, making package management redundant and pointless.
Mircosoft does a lot of bad things, but giving away software is not one of them. Their competitors (various open source projects) give away much higher quality code for free. Every time Microsoft tries to add a new feature, they get their asses sued off by every company that hacked in that new feature before, and are now charging ridiculous amounts of money for it.
I agree, giving away their software isn't bad. But making it so that the software they give away becomes the only real solution is. This is why Silverlight bothers me so much. What happens if Flash becomes defunct and Silverlight takes over? I don't want any Microsoft software on *my* machine. But what if Microsoft crushes Flash with Silverlight the way they crushed Netscape with Internet Explorer. Sure, there are "alternatives" but will the average user be aware of it or even care?
I dislike Microsoft because they do not play well with standards bodies. I think that's lame, and they need to learn their place. On the other hand, if they actually started shipping a fully featured OS where I didn't have to pay a ton of money for all the additional bell and whistles, I would seriously consider switching to windows.
No, they don't play very well. Whenever they see a standard that threatens their monopoly position, they do the familiar embrace, extend, extinguish. I've seen them break way too many standards, in IE, in Visual Studio, etc. And Windows *is* fully featured except in markets where they have to abide by the anti-trust decisions. That's most of the world, unfortunately. But that's the problem is because the features integrate, from a technical perspective, where they really shouldn't. Internet Explorer, Explorer, IIS, DRM, etc. UNIX may not be perfect, but I find it wins in the kernel department thanks to the philosophy of doing only what it is *supposed* to do that's relevant to what it is. A kernel shouldn't have anything to do with the GUI, web browser, DRM, or web servers. All a kernel *should* do is manage memory and hardware and act as a messenger for the software and drivers. Though this differs from UNIX to UNIX and UNIX-like to UNIX-like. I like a monolithic kernel simply so that sen
Novell is dead once they stopped being rival/alternative to MS. RIP for a long time. They took that great distro with them too. I know people who ordered Suse Linux CD from 5000 kilometres away before broadband age because they loved it. Now why should they choose Suse? Not to get sued by MS?
Except its becoming increasingly clear MS isn't about to sue anyone over this patent FUD, and a real shame that the likes of Novell fell for it. I am like most FOSSers in that I say to Microsoft: "Put up or shut up." Much like Torvalds. Microsoft isn't going to sue anybody, they have nothing to gain from it. What they want are big Linux distributors bowing and scraping in fear of being sued.
Not that Novell is in the clear on this, they very obviously got the better end of this pact with MS. Quarter of a billion dollars? Almost feels like bribery, even if it isn't really.
I agree with you wholeheartedly about choice. Its important people choose. Though I think you're overestimating dependence on Mono in GNOME. I use regular Ubuntu, which means I'm into a lot of GNOME with plenty of apps, I don't see a single instance of Mono or even its packages installed. KDE is good, I like it a bit, its just not my prefered environment.
What really gets me is how too many in the/. crowd hate GNOME simply because Manuel de Icaza used to be the project leader, totally ignoring the fact he isn't really active on that project anymore. I use GNOME a lot, sure it isn't as powerful as KDE, but Its more than sufficient for my desktop needs, since if I want to do something powerful its best to do it through BASH anyway.
I think most people hate GNOME simply because Manuel de Icaza is a sellout and an asshole. Bothers me because I don't see any real problems with GNOME. Unless you can give me a good technical reason why GNOME is a horrible environment (Good luck) wherein I would need to use it or KDE for something I can use BASH for anyway then I have no reason to believe GNOME is that bad and that people are just being arbitrary here.
Why can't people just say they hate Icaza and leave a decent desktop environment out of it? I hate Icaza for supporting OOXML and Mono. (I don't like Mono, because it is to much like.net for my tastes, I prefer to program more low-level than frameworks like Mono and.net allow.) I don't care about Novell as much, though they also strike me as a sellout, but not as bad as the "anti-MS horde" likes to make it. They carry on as if Novell is being controlled by Microsoft, but I see no actual case of this, the deal they have is actually a cross-patent deal that basically states they won't sue the tar out of each other for certain rights. This is one reason why I don't like to read/. that often. Too many conspiracy theorists and sensationalists blowing innocent things out of proportion and abandoning logic just so they can say "BOO" to MS.
I hate MS as much as the next FOSS enthusiast, but I at least think a little bit about reality here. Even if, God forbid, Microsoft does take over Novell, I don't see much a of a downturn for Linux. Last I checked, Linus Torvalds and his "lieutenants" had the power to authorize changes to Linux itself, so no matter what crap Microsoft would try to send up to ruin Linux, it wouldn't matter since people in the actual Linux project have more common sense than the average Windows project manager in MS. So I doubt losing Novell to MS would be a tremendous blow to Linux/FOSS. Anything MS tries to close up that was contributed by Novell is likely to be forked from an earlier version, and SUSE loses more users for turning into a crap pile when Microsoft ruins it completely.
I'm sick of the Reality Distortion Field around a lot of FOSSies. Its almost as bad as Apple and MS users' RDFs.
1. Take control of a second-rate UNIX distributor
2. Squander all the products that were being made to the point there is no actual product development taking place.
3. Hire your lawyer brother and go after giant technology companies *and* customer companies simultaneously for copyrights you *know* you don't have.
4. Tie up the court system for more than five years.
5. Go bankrupt.
6. Get bought out.
7. ???
8. Profit!!!
Step seven might multiply into numerous more steps for Darl. Only an idiot would stick around after nearly killing a company and letting it get bailed out of a shithole he dug it into. Joking aside, for me, I only see up as a direction for SCO with a moron like Darl out of the picture. With the UNIX copyright clearly not in their hands, I don't see any way they can make much more out of the FUD they've been doing. So yeah, Darl has made an ass of himself in the industry, but I doubt he's anywhere near penniless because of it.
THANK YOU! Mod parent up! The reason Linux and UNIXes and Mac OS X tend to operate with a more stable security model is the systems they descend (Or base themselves off of, in Linux's case.) from implemented a multiple user security model that assured that administrative permissions were only used when needed and only by specific users.
No, I am not going to fall into the pit and claim that UNIX and UNIX-likes are the end-all. Such mode of thinking is destructive and is one of the major reasons why the user is the least secure part of the system. Don't get cocky, keep trying to lock down your system and making sure that the software on your computer is the software *you* authorize and that the incoming signals from a network are meant to be there. One of the more important philosophies of software is the *new.* I think what we would need is something new. Improves on things the models of various OSes have done: Multi-user UNIX model, ease of use Mac model, and a marketing model of Windows (Sans corruption and sleaze, of course.). I always hated the phrase "reinventing the wheel" because that was how most great software actually came to be!
The problem Windows suffers is the single-user model. Its still not quite there. Sure theree's secure shells in some cases, its still not very done in the case of multiple users running the same computer at the same time. And as the parent has pointed out, Windows has also descended from the model of its own ancestor, and pretty much giving the user unbridled control of the system.
NT was not a port, it was a derivative. No actual VMS code was ever actually included in NT. Read Showstopper! by Zachary, it was all about NT's development.
Ubuntu anyone? Last I checked, as of 7.10 AppArmor was part of its default configuration.
However, most people in this thread seem to be overlooking that the weakest link in computer security is not in hardware or software, but bioware. (The idiot sitting at the keyboard.)
Though I get your point, I'm betting no company wanting to stay kosher would, unless they could de-monopolize it. Seems kinda counterproductive though. (Well, more than Windows normally would be.)
64 megs of ram for *any* Windows after 98 is a nightmare. My sister's computer is tragically running XP on 64 MiB of RAM. Unbearably slow. Though I wouldn't be fair to say that most modern flavors of Linux won't run very well on 64 MiB either, unless you count compact lightweights like Damn Small Linux or if one never uses the GUI, I suppose. I am mostly guessing on that part, my Ubuntu box ran fine with 512 MiB, but if I ran Compiz, it would slow down very quickly, so I tried not to use Compiz much until I treated myself to a full GiB stick and Compiz runs like a dream. Worth it to me.
My point being is "barely adequate" is more a matter of preference than it gets credit for. A Linux could probably run in a low-end manner pretty well in well under a plain BASH prompt without a desktop manager or window manager in less than 128 MiB, whereas if you launch KDE/GNOME you might be smart to have at *least* 256 MiB in your system to really enjoy it to full flair.
Different base uses have different "barely adequacies." The same applies for Windows, though Windows uses more memory than Linux for various reasons.
Apparently the EU makes a lot of exceptions when it comes to Microsoft. They seem to be working on an entire Applicable-Only-To-Microsoft body of law, like the whole "When MS bundles a web browser, it's bad and teh evil, but when Apple does it, or Teh Lunix does it, it's a great feature!" lawsuit they are pushing. Same thing with the lawsuit MS lost, in which apparently it's teh evil when a Microsoft operating system includes a means of watching video... but it's a really great innovation when when Apple or Teh Lunix do it (and especially when Apple ties it in to an entire store, and a line of portable devices, too).
1. The EU has been pissed off about Media Player, not Internet Explorer.
2. Microsoft was leveraging its position as a desktop monopoly to force people into using said web browser.
3. The difference between Linux distribution developers and Microsoft is they aren't bundling their own browser in the first place, whereas Microsoft is bundling their own browser with their own operating system. As far as I can tell, Mozilla never made an operating system, yet they make the somewhat more common Linux browser.
4. You can uninstall and install other web browsers at will. What does Microsoft offer? A forced web browser that you can't uninstall.
5. I don't recall too many Linux developers taking credit for *creating* their 'innovative' technologies, unlike Microsoft, which takes something, rebrands it, and tries to act like it was their own creation.
The EU must view Microsoft as this really great cash cow for them, and every year or so they can simply extort a few billion from them.
Little comment there, except I think fining a corrupt organization is hardly an extortion, I don't care how much they actually fine.
Umm... no. I don't know where you are getting your bullshit ideas from, but pirated copies of Windows and Office are not "know to work much better" than legit copies. Feel free to cite a source on that one.
Sure, I understand you mean it doesn't improve the mediocre quality of the system itself. What it does do, however, is circumvent God awful anti-piracy "features" Microsoft throws in there like product keys and WGA, which have done more harm than good. Don't get me wrong, I don't like piracy either, but there are just really stupid ideas and Microsoft software tends to be loaded with them: WGA, Clippy, Microsoft Bob, on and on.
Well, despite over a decade of Teh Lunix trying to make a "wanna-be Windows", this supposed better OS maker hasn't materialized yet. Teh Lunix, in all flavors, has a marketshare under 2%. Vista exceeded the Lunix installed base on it's first day of commercial release. The iPhone now has a larger install base than Teh Lunix. Please note, all the hot new products are closed source, and stay as far away from FOSSies and Stallmanistas as humanly possible.
Where the hell do you get the idea that Linux is trying to be like Windows in any remote way? And don't feed me "GNOME and KDE" bullshit. Those aren't strictly Linux, they're just commonly used by it. CLIs? BASH couldn't be anymore different than DOS. (And again, BASH isn't strictly Linux either.) As for market share, I don't think people inside or outside of FOSS give a flying fuck that their OS is actually *popular.* You also ignore the fact that there are cases where FOSS beats the trash out of proprietary, Including Apache and Linux as a server platform. LAMP stack, anyone? As for "Stallmanism," get a grip. Sure, the guy is one of the most important FOSSies out there, but I don't really care for him. (GPL, sure, just not Stallman himself.) I think most FOSSies are smart enough not to be force-fed by big companies which have a habit of telling people what they like as opposed to pitching their product. Give me Linux over Windows any day. Firefox over Internet Ex
That sounds pretty good to me. Split up Microsoft without overtly destroying their (mediocre) product line while spreading it across various related companies while keeping those company from working too closely with each other. A split up monopoly's parts working closely together is just as bad as when the monopoly was whole, except maybe now there's *more* high-ranking executives pissing all over anything. Not to say all communication should be barred.
This is why I would vote for a candidate like Obama, because it seems more likely the split up will finally happen and that the "baby Microsofts" will be monitored appropriately, much how Bell was. The difference being there would be more effective regulation and control in that method.
Oi, assuming he gets anywhere,how many times would this be that this guy has tried running for president? I think he's a wee bit too late in the running to make much of a difference.
How the hell is the parent a troll? I no way was he really putting RMS down, it was actually funny as hell. XD Those were actual disputes by Stallman, and all he was saying was its ironic he could be nominated for something like the Nobel Peace Prize when he's been known to be not-so-much peaceful.
Of course, I'm still bitter about the Linux naming controversy. I'm part of the circle that things RMS was taking credit more than anything.
Despite arguments to the contrary, most Average Joe users are almost totally unaware of the alternatives and think that Windows is not just their operating system, but their entire computer.
To them, Linux is just some other strange tech speak due to the network effect of Windows and Microsoft's own aggressive practices in making sure Average Joe only really knows Windows. To Average Joe, Macs are strange PCs nobody but artists and hippies use. And Be OS got crushed by MS when it actually had a shot at being a decent OEM alternative. This was due to, you guessed it, more MS anti-competes. What many groups would almost call "racketeering" Be all Windows and it won't cost you.
Basically, non-IT types use Windows because they are absolutely clueless about the alternatives. To them, using a computer is sitting infrom of a screen clicking a mouse with a stupid expression on their face, oblivious to the likelihood their computer is already part of a bot net and God knows what else.
Not to mention almost ten years ago, the infamous Halloween Documents. Microsoft is indeed threatened by FOSS. Is this new? No. News? No. Are they right to be threatened? Yes. does this mean we rest easy? No. We have a long long way to go before we can find ourselves safe from Microsoft lip-service and trolling. I haven't seen Microsoft shut up about the 235 patents crap, and then we have moves like Shared Source and this little stunt.
Shared source being a nice looking lure, eh? Nice and shiny, unfortunately to those developers as dull as fish they do not see the sharp hook hidden beneath the lure. And now Microsoft is claiming to be more interoperable, more lip service, this time trying to get themselves out of trouble they put themselves in.
On a slightly off topic note, I wonder what would happen if Microsoft were hit by the DoJ again in the next administration. No Bush administration to bail them out. If its an administration that isn't gonna let Microsoft get away with this stuff, an anti-trust suit against Microsoft might even have the potential of turning into a conviction of being a monopoly here in the United States that is actually productive.
The other reason it could harm an economic system as you described is the fct that *once* this concept has become the hypothetical empire you described it is no longer theory, it was already there, making its impact while under the control of one person.
The only way that this patented theory would *not* have an impact is if the person who discovered/invented it kept his mouth shut and never actually used it in the wreal world. Clearly not the case if he makes himself an empire off of it and makes billions.
I'm not so sure about the patents thing. Microsoft is already throwing around the old 235 patents bullshit. I think anyone can see that these patent violations don't likely exist. Aside from Microsoft, what patents does SCO hold that are relevant to Linux or even UNIX? They can try to FUD it like the copyrights, I suppose, and try to go to court again without a shred of evidence.
In response to many posts I've been seeing about MS being involved in some way with this $5 to $100 megadollar deal? I doubt it. I don't think links with the Carlyle Group, Saudi's and ultimately Gates are really plausible in this case. Sure, you can make a line between Mr. Morris and Mr. Gates, but the way I see it, the longer and more convoluted the line of association is, the less likely this line is relevant. I could link half the people listed in my phone book to this case if I tried.
Its almost akin to charging someone with murder simply because the victim was your wife's cousin's girlfriend's best friend's wedding planner's barber. Get real.
I'm no defender of Microsoft, but unless there's something more concrete linking Microsoft to this deal, I don't believe they're involved.
Slashdot Mirror
This is why I like WINE. Still not really native, but its not really binary emulation. (What's the point? WINE is designed for x86(_64) machines to *run* regular Windows software, which is x86. No need for binary emulation. It runs in a rather unique way from what I can tell: Open source implementations of Windows APIs, the ability to import DLLs, etc. But I wouldn't call it native since WINE is not a system component or part of Linux or any of its platforms. I can't call it native. WINE APIs =/= System APIs)
I apologize for the underpowered comment. But the 90s were a dark time for Apple. It managed to last until 1997 possibly because of people hanging on to their stuff. Back in the day, though, I still preferred PC. I still prefer it now.
Sadly, this is true of too many apple fanboys for me to not find comparing Applephiles to fanatics unfair. Remember during the '90s when Apple products were underpowered pieces of crap. But you still had Apple fans having orgasms about their lousy hardware. I'd call that "sticking to guns whether they are loaded or not" considering.
This is not to say I'm very impressed by modern Apple hardware either. For being essentially locked-down commodity hardware that you can change very little, it is very expensive. I'll just stick to a Linux-powered PC. (Don't get me started about Windows.)
I strongly agree with the apple fanboy diagnosis of being absolutely nuts about their hardware to the point of thinking that it is almost saintly and perfect. I had reams of them claiming that Mac OS X could run Windows software natively because it runs on the same architecture, demonstrating they have no real knowledge of how a computer actually works. I had another "dynamic duo" trying to tell me it has no viruses and is completely secure. I seem to recall there being at last count around 300 in-the-wild viruses. That's more than Linux but significantly less than Windows. Still, it made me want to puke. I don't want to flame or troll anyone, but Apple fanboys are disturbing people, really.
That is what I do. I went from pure Windows to dual booting with Linux having the smaller partition, to dual booting with equal resources, to Linux having greater resources, and then ultimately broomed Windows altogether and made my machine all Linux. I have XP in a virtual machine, but it rarely ever comes out to play. And usually whenever I decide to get more disk space, that Windows VM is the first thing to go. (I can easily get 3-4 GiB out of that.)
I bet Steve Ballmer would throw a fit to hear stories like this. "Joe Consumer decides he is pissed off by Windows, wipes it off completely and installs Linux and never looks back. And now suddenly he's using Google and traded his Zune for an iPod." Take that, Ballmer.
Reformatting for a dual boot is not needed. Mostly you only really need two things
1. A good backup
2. A freshly defragged hard disk.
The installer can make its own partition for Ubuntu (Or it can take the whole disk.) so I wouldn't fuss with the ultimately broken disk partitioner Vista uses, or the fully crippled one XP uses. Once you have those two prerequisites, just make sure you have ~20 GiB. of free hard disk space so that Ubuntu can have some stretching room. (Minimum required is 4, I believe.) After that, just burn yourself a LiveCD, pop it in, restart your computer and make sure it boots from the CD-ROM drive.
After that, just run the installer. (The link is right on the desktop.) When it reaches the partition editor, I suggest having it use the largest empty space on the disk. (Which should be the fresh new partition, unallocated.)
Of course, if you're using a work laptop, I'd use virtualization, not Wubi. Operating systems always operate better when they believe they are in charge of their machines. Virtualization is best, because it doesn't have to act like a guest operating system like it would be in the case of Cygwin or MinGW or Wubi. (Virtualized OSes are still guests with little power over the host OS, but they *are* masters of the domain they are in, the virtual machine, and thus get better performance, reliability, and power out of the deal. That and it's very easy to remove.)
Most FOSSies aren't pissed about giving stuff away for free, even from Microsoft. What they are pissed off about is when Microsoft virtually forces them to use it by way of shell integration. The difference between say, Windows and IE and KDE and Konquerer's integration is the fact that, in my experience, removing Konquerer is still an option, whereas there's no easy method of removing Internet Explorer. Though I still don't care for KDE. I'm probably one of the few who likes GNOME. Windows has always been a POS, even before all this anti-trust action came up. The reason they haven't released decent tools is less to do with anti-trust and less because they don't give a crap about these things. Developers Tools? They practically dominate the Windows development market with Visual Studio. It has degenrated into a nasty vendor lock-in mess I could care less for. .Net made this worse. They implemented Windows Defender for antivirus, and it is no secret that Defender can't stop viruses worth a shit. And the MS lapdog Symantec produces worse. And Microsoft has absolutely no interest in package management, unless you count MSI as such. Why? Because too many software vendors are more than happy enough to kiss Microsoft's ass and produce physical media for the vast majority of its software, making package management redundant and pointless.
I agree, giving away their software isn't bad. But making it so that the software they give away becomes the only real solution is. This is why Silverlight bothers me so much. What happens if Flash becomes defunct and Silverlight takes over? I don't want any Microsoft software on *my* machine. But what if Microsoft crushes Flash with Silverlight the way they crushed Netscape with Internet Explorer. Sure, there are "alternatives" but will the average user be aware of it or even care?
No, they don't play very well. Whenever they see a standard that threatens their monopoly position, they do the familiar embrace, extend, extinguish. I've seen them break way too many standards, in IE, in Visual Studio, etc. And Windows *is* fully featured except in markets where they have to abide by the anti-trust decisions. That's most of the world, unfortunately. But that's the problem is because the features integrate, from a technical perspective, where they really shouldn't. Internet Explorer, Explorer, IIS, DRM, etc. UNIX may not be perfect, but I find it wins in the kernel department thanks to the philosophy of doing only what it is *supposed* to do that's relevant to what it is. A kernel shouldn't have anything to do with the GUI, web browser, DRM, or web servers. All a kernel *should* do is manage memory and hardware and act as a messenger for the software and drivers. Though this differs from UNIX to UNIX and UNIX-like to UNIX-like. I like a monolithic kernel simply so that sen
Except its becoming increasingly clear MS isn't about to sue anyone over this patent FUD, and a real shame that the likes of Novell fell for it. I am like most FOSSers in that I say to Microsoft: "Put up or shut up." Much like Torvalds. Microsoft isn't going to sue anybody, they have nothing to gain from it. What they want are big Linux distributors bowing and scraping in fear of being sued.
Not that Novell is in the clear on this, they very obviously got the better end of this pact with MS. Quarter of a billion dollars? Almost feels like bribery, even if it isn't really.
I agree with you wholeheartedly about choice. Its important people choose. Though I think you're overestimating dependence on Mono in GNOME. I use regular Ubuntu, which means I'm into a lot of GNOME with plenty of apps, I don't see a single instance of Mono or even its packages installed. KDE is good, I like it a bit, its just not my prefered environment.
What really gets me is how too many in the /. crowd hate GNOME simply because Manuel de Icaza used to be the project leader, totally ignoring the fact he isn't really active on that project anymore. I use GNOME a lot, sure it isn't as powerful as KDE, but Its more than sufficient for my desktop needs, since if I want to do something powerful its best to do it through BASH anyway.
.net for my tastes, I prefer to program more low-level than frameworks like Mono and .net allow.) I don't care about Novell as much, though they also strike me as a sellout, but not as bad as the "anti-MS horde" likes to make it. They carry on as if Novell is being controlled by Microsoft, but I see no actual case of this, the deal they have is actually a cross-patent deal that basically states they won't sue the tar out of each other for certain rights. This is one reason why I don't like to read /. that often. Too many conspiracy theorists and sensationalists blowing innocent things out of proportion and abandoning logic just so they can say "BOO" to MS.
I think most people hate GNOME simply because Manuel de Icaza is a sellout and an asshole. Bothers me because I don't see any real problems with GNOME. Unless you can give me a good technical reason why GNOME is a horrible environment (Good luck) wherein I would need to use it or KDE for something I can use BASH for anyway then I have no reason to believe GNOME is that bad and that people are just being arbitrary here.
Why can't people just say they hate Icaza and leave a decent desktop environment out of it? I hate Icaza for supporting OOXML and Mono. (I don't like Mono, because it is to much like
I hate MS as much as the next FOSS enthusiast, but I at least think a little bit about reality here. Even if, God forbid, Microsoft does take over Novell, I don't see much a of a downturn for Linux. Last I checked, Linus Torvalds and his "lieutenants" had the power to authorize changes to Linux itself, so no matter what crap Microsoft would try to send up to ruin Linux, it wouldn't matter since people in the actual Linux project have more common sense than the average Windows project manager in MS. So I doubt losing Novell to MS would be a tremendous blow to Linux/FOSS. Anything MS tries to close up that was contributed by Novell is likely to be forked from an earlier version, and SUSE loses more users for turning into a crap pile when Microsoft ruins it completely.
I'm sick of the Reality Distortion Field around a lot of FOSSies. Its almost as bad as Apple and MS users' RDFs.
Sure is. I couldn't imagine a more ideal time:
1. Take control of a second-rate UNIX distributor 2. Squander all the products that were being made to the point there is no actual product development taking place. 3. Hire your lawyer brother and go after giant technology companies *and* customer companies simultaneously for copyrights you *know* you don't have. 4. Tie up the court system for more than five years. 5. Go bankrupt. 6. Get bought out. 7. ??? 8. Profit!!!
Step seven might multiply into numerous more steps for Darl. Only an idiot would stick around after nearly killing a company and letting it get bailed out of a shithole he dug it into. Joking aside, for me, I only see up as a direction for SCO with a moron like Darl out of the picture. With the UNIX copyright clearly not in their hands, I don't see any way they can make much more out of the FUD they've been doing. So yeah, Darl has made an ass of himself in the industry, but I doubt he's anywhere near penniless because of it.
THANK YOU! Mod parent up! The reason Linux and UNIXes and Mac OS X tend to operate with a more stable security model is the systems they descend (Or base themselves off of, in Linux's case.) from implemented a multiple user security model that assured that administrative permissions were only used when needed and only by specific users.
No, I am not going to fall into the pit and claim that UNIX and UNIX-likes are the end-all. Such mode of thinking is destructive and is one of the major reasons why the user is the least secure part of the system. Don't get cocky, keep trying to lock down your system and making sure that the software on your computer is the software *you* authorize and that the incoming signals from a network are meant to be there. One of the more important philosophies of software is the *new.* I think what we would need is something new. Improves on things the models of various OSes have done: Multi-user UNIX model, ease of use Mac model, and a marketing model of Windows (Sans corruption and sleaze, of course.). I always hated the phrase "reinventing the wheel" because that was how most great software actually came to be!
The problem Windows suffers is the single-user model. Its still not quite there. Sure theree's secure shells in some cases, its still not very done in the case of multiple users running the same computer at the same time. And as the parent has pointed out, Windows has also descended from the model of its own ancestor, and pretty much giving the user unbridled control of the system.
NT was not a port, it was a derivative. No actual VMS code was ever actually included in NT. Read Showstopper! by Zachary, it was all about NT's development.
Ubuntu anyone? Last I checked, as of 7.10 AppArmor was part of its default configuration.
However, most people in this thread seem to be overlooking that the weakest link in computer security is not in hardware or software, but bioware. (The idiot sitting at the keyboard.)
Lucky for us all that, unless I am mistaken, a Linux port is supposedly in the works. I read it somewhere, can someone back me up?
I'm happy with Linux's freedom of choice, thanks. Its better than Microsoft's freedom of choice because I'm not being raped by a monopoly.
Though I get your point, I'm betting no company wanting to stay kosher would, unless they could de-monopolize it. Seems kinda counterproductive though. (Well, more than Windows normally would be.)
64 megs of ram for *any* Windows after 98 is a nightmare. My sister's computer is tragically running XP on 64 MiB of RAM. Unbearably slow. Though I wouldn't be fair to say that most modern flavors of Linux won't run very well on 64 MiB either, unless you count compact lightweights like Damn Small Linux or if one never uses the GUI, I suppose. I am mostly guessing on that part, my Ubuntu box ran fine with 512 MiB, but if I ran Compiz, it would slow down very quickly, so I tried not to use Compiz much until I treated myself to a full GiB stick and Compiz runs like a dream. Worth it to me.
My point being is "barely adequate" is more a matter of preference than it gets credit for. A Linux could probably run in a low-end manner pretty well in well under a plain BASH prompt without a desktop manager or window manager in less than 128 MiB, whereas if you launch KDE/GNOME you might be smart to have at *least* 256 MiB in your system to really enjoy it to full flair.
Different base uses have different "barely adequacies." The same applies for Windows, though Windows uses more memory than Linux for various reasons.
1. The EU has been pissed off about Media Player, not Internet Explorer.
2. Microsoft was leveraging its position as a desktop monopoly to force people into using said web browser.
3. The difference between Linux distribution developers and Microsoft is they aren't bundling their own browser in the first place, whereas Microsoft is bundling their own browser with their own operating system. As far as I can tell, Mozilla never made an operating system, yet they make the somewhat more common Linux browser.
4. You can uninstall and install other web browsers at will. What does Microsoft offer? A forced web browser that you can't uninstall. 5. I don't recall too many Linux developers taking credit for *creating* their 'innovative' technologies, unlike Microsoft, which takes something, rebrands it, and tries to act like it was their own creation.
Little comment there, except I think fining a corrupt organization is hardly an extortion, I don't care how much they actually fine.
Sure, I understand you mean it doesn't improve the mediocre quality of the system itself. What it does do, however, is circumvent God awful anti-piracy "features" Microsoft throws in there like product keys and WGA, which have done more harm than good. Don't get me wrong, I don't like piracy either, but there are just really stupid ideas and Microsoft software tends to be loaded with them: WGA, Clippy, Microsoft Bob, on and on.
Where the hell do you get the idea that Linux is trying to be like Windows in any remote way? And don't feed me "GNOME and KDE" bullshit. Those aren't strictly Linux, they're just commonly used by it. CLIs? BASH couldn't be anymore different than DOS. (And again, BASH isn't strictly Linux either.) As for market share, I don't think people inside or outside of FOSS give a flying fuck that their OS is actually *popular.* You also ignore the fact that there are cases where FOSS beats the trash out of proprietary, Including Apache and Linux as a server platform. LAMP stack, anyone? As for "Stallmanism," get a grip. Sure, the guy is one of the most important FOSSies out there, but I don't really care for him. (GPL, sure, just not Stallman himself.) I think most FOSSies are smart enough not to be force-fed by big companies which have a habit of telling people what they like as opposed to pitching their product. Give me Linux over Windows any day. Firefox over Internet Ex
That sounds pretty good to me. Split up Microsoft without overtly destroying their (mediocre) product line while spreading it across various related companies while keeping those company from working too closely with each other. A split up monopoly's parts working closely together is just as bad as when the monopoly was whole, except maybe now there's *more* high-ranking executives pissing all over anything. Not to say all communication should be barred.
This is why I would vote for a candidate like Obama, because it seems more likely the split up will finally happen and that the "baby Microsofts" will be monitored appropriately, much how Bell was. The difference being there would be more effective regulation and control in that method.
You buy the Coke, chained to the store and not only is Hymn a glass, but also the getaway car!
There, problem fixed.
Oi, assuming he gets anywhere,how many times would this be that this guy has tried running for president? I think he's a wee bit too late in the running to make much of a difference.
How the hell is the parent a troll? I no way was he really putting RMS down, it was actually funny as hell. XD Those were actual disputes by Stallman, and all he was saying was its ironic he could be nominated for something like the Nobel Peace Prize when he's been known to be not-so-much peaceful.
Of course, I'm still bitter about the Linux naming controversy. I'm part of the circle that things RMS was taking credit more than anything.
Despite arguments to the contrary, most Average Joe users are almost totally unaware of the alternatives and think that Windows is not just their operating system, but their entire computer.
To them, Linux is just some other strange tech speak due to the network effect of Windows and Microsoft's own aggressive practices in making sure Average Joe only really knows Windows. To Average Joe, Macs are strange PCs nobody but artists and hippies use. And Be OS got crushed by MS when it actually had a shot at being a decent OEM alternative. This was due to, you guessed it, more MS anti-competes. What many groups would almost call "racketeering" Be all Windows and it won't cost you.
Basically, non-IT types use Windows because they are absolutely clueless about the alternatives. To them, using a computer is sitting infrom of a screen clicking a mouse with a stupid expression on their face, oblivious to the likelihood their computer is already part of a bot net and God knows what else.
Not to mention almost ten years ago, the infamous Halloween Documents. Microsoft is indeed threatened by FOSS. Is this new? No. News? No. Are they right to be threatened? Yes. does this mean we rest easy? No. We have a long long way to go before we can find ourselves safe from Microsoft lip-service and trolling. I haven't seen Microsoft shut up about the 235 patents crap, and then we have moves like Shared Source and this little stunt.
Shared source being a nice looking lure, eh? Nice and shiny, unfortunately to those developers as dull as fish they do not see the sharp hook hidden beneath the lure. And now Microsoft is claiming to be more interoperable, more lip service, this time trying to get themselves out of trouble they put themselves in.
On a slightly off topic note, I wonder what would happen if Microsoft were hit by the DoJ again in the next administration. No Bush administration to bail them out. If its an administration that isn't gonna let Microsoft get away with this stuff, an anti-trust suit against Microsoft might even have the potential of turning into a conviction of being a monopoly here in the United States that is actually productive.
The other reason it could harm an economic system as you described is the fct that *once* this concept has become the hypothetical empire you described it is no longer theory, it was already there, making its impact while under the control of one person.
The only way that this patented theory would *not* have an impact is if the person who discovered/invented it kept his mouth shut and never actually used it in the wreal world. Clearly not the case if he makes himself an empire off of it and makes billions.
But I like my healthy irradiated glow!
I'm not so sure about the patents thing. Microsoft is already throwing around the old 235 patents bullshit. I think anyone can see that these patent violations don't likely exist. Aside from Microsoft, what patents does SCO hold that are relevant to Linux or even UNIX? They can try to FUD it like the copyrights, I suppose, and try to go to court again without a shred of evidence.
In response to many posts I've been seeing about MS being involved in some way with this $5 to $100 megadollar deal? I doubt it. I don't think links with the Carlyle Group, Saudi's and ultimately Gates are really plausible in this case. Sure, you can make a line between Mr. Morris and Mr. Gates, but the way I see it, the longer and more convoluted the line of association is, the less likely this line is relevant. I could link half the people listed in my phone book to this case if I tried.
Its almost akin to charging someone with murder simply because the victim was your wife's cousin's girlfriend's best friend's wedding planner's barber. Get real.
I'm no defender of Microsoft, but unless there's something more concrete linking Microsoft to this deal, I don't believe they're involved.