This code is not intended for general use, and is known to be inefficient, difficult to work with, and riddled with bugs
Inefficiency and bugs are common characteristics of alpha/beta code. But what do you mean when you say "difficult to work with"? A code that is difficult to understand/maintain/evolve?
Does this mean that Linux was never more secure than Windows--only more obscure?
No. Linux is open source and everybody can read its source. So, its security is not based on obscurity. In fact, Windows (source) is much more obscure.
The majority of the end users do not even know that they have the choice to downgrade...
If you ask an end user what windows he is using, probably he will not know what to respond.
You are right on your point, but you also have to agree that the open source nature of a software makes it easy to audit and gives it a fast fix process.
A very important thing to say is that it comes with LTS: "Ubuntu 8.04 will be the second long-term support (LTS) release, which means that it will be supported on the desktop for three years and on the server for five years."
Awesome for those who want a stable environment and don't like to dist-upgrade frequently.
That's amazing. It would be very nice if the code of other titles were released also. Many old (but good) softwares were forgoten because their sources were not available to maintain it's life.
A happy Windows user and developer, And PROUD of it!
Nothing wrong of using or developing MS software, but are you really proud of it?
Proud of a company that uses weird tactics and the power of its monopoly to totally crush its competition? A company that (to better profit) tries to pervert the idea of the free and open software (and destroy it)?
No. I could eventually use MS software and even develop (as I said before, nothing wrong with this), but I could never really be proud.
Slashdot Mirror
The Spirit's Book.
This code is not intended for general use, and is known to be inefficient, difficult to work with, and riddled with bugs
Inefficiency and bugs are common characteristics of alpha/beta code. But what do you mean when you say "difficult to work with"? A code that is difficult to understand/maintain/evolve?
Does this mean that Linux was never more secure than Windows--only more obscure?
No. Linux is open source and everybody can read its source. So, its security is not based on obscurity. In fact, Windows (source) is much more obscure.
It's just holding sockets open; that's the "Hello, world!" of DOS attacks.
Yeah, a very effective 'Hello World', unfortunately.
The majority of the end users do not even know that they have the choice to downgrade... If you ask an end user what windows he is using, probably he will not know what to respond.
"Why do people have to believe in stupid stuff like that anyway?"
People don't HAVE TO believe. But they HAVE THE RIGHT TO believe.
To believe in a God is not stupid. It is just human.
... then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."
Gandhi.
Future studies of such worlds will radically alter our understanding of how planets are formed
"All That Is Solid Melts Into Air"
This statement (from Marx, I think) fits perfectly in our understanding of the universe.
You are right on your point, but you also have to agree that the open source nature of a software makes it easy to audit and gives it a fast fix process.
This was going to be the year of Linux on the Desktop!! Now what do we do??
;)
And it still is the Desktop Year for Linux. What would be of a Desktop OS whithout a local exploit?
A very important thing to say is that it comes with LTS: "Ubuntu 8.04 will be the second long-term support (LTS) release, which means that it will be supported on the desktop for three years and on the server for five years." Awesome for those who want a stable environment and don't like to dist-upgrade frequently.
That's amazing. It would be very nice if the code of other titles were released also. Many old (but good) softwares were forgoten because their sources were not available to maintain it's life.
A happy Windows user and developer, And PROUD of it!
Nothing wrong of using or developing MS software, but are you really proud of it?
Proud of a company that uses weird tactics and the power of its monopoly to totally crush its competition? A company that (to better profit) tries to pervert the idea of the free and open software (and destroy it)?
No. I could eventually use MS software and even develop (as I said before, nothing wrong with this), but I could never really be proud.