The problem with Ubuntu here is that the disk goes into power saving mode while the OS is still using it. This is clearly inefficient. You can fix this either by having drive manufacturers all agree to get together and tweak their defaults, or you can fix it once in software. Either keep the disk spinning or cluster your IO access patterns more (pretty sure the update does the former). No need to hate on Microsoft here.
Don't bother writing your script either. Efficient would be linux finishing all its IO in 9 seconds instead of forcing the disk to keep spinning while spreading out IO over a longer period of time. I think you've drank a little too much of the Kool-aid...
Well, it will be physically impossible to continue stuffing more transistors onto silicon in about 8 years, so there definitely will be some radical changes needed. Good job trying to predict the future though. Want to buy some lottery tickets?
Maybe in the US. You know, the Rockets games last year had more viewers than the Superbowl thanks to Yao and China. US ratings don't matter anymore when a billion people have TVs across the pond...silly redneck
Just because something's old doesn't mean it's bad. Besides, the difference is MAYBE a megabyte or two per second. It's a fact of life with journaling filesystems, you can't beat just plain not having to write to the journal in terms of performance. The Linux filesystems are better designed but they're not the comparative speed demons you think they are. A performance difference of ~8% is not "complete incompetent".
It still has *some* benefit. RAM's still faster than going to disk, even with a SSD. The difference is smaller but you still want to have something cached in RAM if you're gonna use it. Optimizations for spatial/temporal locality will still be relevant. That's basically the assumption we rely on when reading extra sectors from disk anyway, so the old algorithms should still be useful.
You fling these terms around like you know something. But your standard antivirus program is not going to catch rootkits or security vulnerabilities in existing software. He said nothing about ditching his firewall. Pretty much everyone connects through a router nowadays, and the firewall is comparable to or trounces anything you can install. Your computer is a lot more likely to be compromised than your router anyway, so having the firewall on the computer it's protecting isn't as nice as having it on a separate device.
Bottom line is, for a home user who is minimally competent at not downloading and running random files, antivirus is fairly useless.
Because when a dumb shit like you fucks up while texting âoecul8er!!:D:D" and crashes into someone, some innocent bystander gets wrecked for no reason. Nobody gives a shit about you, you can go drive off a cliff for all we care.
Oh great, bring out that strawman again. Not everyone wants to work on a steaming pile of crap. If your code isn't even approachable then you damn well better not be expecting people to hack on it for fun.
Maybe because competition is a good thing. It seems that when OSS zealots are on the losing end, they start trumpeting competition, but when they have the upper edge (Firefox is a great browser, after all), then fuck competition can go to hell. I can't understand you people.
Because when you do that your fat american ass will be sad as all your shit is made in china for a reason - you're expensive and incompetent. Tough luck, lardy.
Is there anything you *don't* complain about? How about you be the one to update the site after helping land something four hundred million miles away. Jesus.
In a computer security context, when an attacker gains physical access you basically assume they have access to everything, and to change everything. You can have the many levels of software in the system check and guard themselves all you want, but all it takes is one oversight to ruin your scheme. It's safer to just assume the worst, and taking the ingenuity of people who do this sort of thing into account, it's a fairly smart assumption as well.
Now, as for a whitelist. Dumb idea. It puts too much power in the hands of AV companies (who can say "$$$ to get on the list!" or if users can change it, they'll get "IMPORTANT WINDOWS UPDATE- REMEMBER TO ADD TO YOUR WHITELIST!". What about unsigned programs? Updated versions?
A whitelist might work for children, for work PCs, for other non-administrators. But people ultimately want to install their own programs without the blessing of company XYZ.
And, as a geek, I strongly disagree that it's impossible to remain secure, it just takes a little training. I know nontechnical users, I teach them for 10 minutes, and they have good habits. Don't open emails saying "A greeting card from a classmate", don't run unsolicited programs, if you get an email saying it's from chase.com "Important Account Update" visit their directly, etc.). Those habits go a long way, along with some layered protection (ZoneAlarm Free, Router w/ a firewall, Avast Home, Immunize in SpywareBlaster, and Immunize in Spybot S&D). That user still has some trouble with some tasks, but with a little common sense and some good protection, they've stayed infection free for 4 years. I'm not sure what your rant has to do with the article here. It's talking about corporate reliance on AV and patches for their security. You're talking about geeks "securing" their own PCs. Completely different world here. You have nothing that anyone would want. If you're protecting data of value then damn straight you want a whitelist restricting what programs can run.
You are a geek more in the sense of Best Buy's "geek squad", rather than say, Bruce Schneier. I hope to god you're not in charge of securing anything important.
You have the wrong idea. Usability testing is not a competition. In any case, the goal isn't to be "just as good" as a bare Windows install. Why not be better?
You will not find a computer with Windows preinstalled that has any of the problems above. OEMs pre-load them with all the third-party software necessary. Why can't Ubuntu?
Show me a computer with that install. You won't find it. If you buy a Windows computer today it will have Flash (if only to run all the crapware that comes with it). Also, one would imagine that if one wanted to use MSN, they would have an account.
Why so defensive? It's all constructive criticism. Improve Pidgin's UI - it's not bad as is, but some of the menus could stand to be renamed/rearranged. And youtube redirects you to adobe's site if you don't have flash, so his girlfriend must be retarded if she couldn't get that working.
Sounds like there's not much reason to use Linux then, if the attitude is just "we don't feel like implementing this, despite the fact that many people feel it's useful".
Unfortunately, for any nontrivial problem the forums just send you in circles.
Ubuntu is easy to use - if you don't do anything. As soon as you do something out of the ordinary, it's back to the commandline. For example, the version of gstreamer-ffmpeg in the repositories right now chokes on h264 files. Your average user has no idea why this happens, they just think, "oh, ubuntu is slower than windows". In reality, you can go download the newest release and compile from source, but it's not just a simple./configure && make && make install either.
That said, it's not unusual for a book to exist. There's books for OSX and Windows too. Books save you the trouble of having to wade through the low signal-to-noise ratio that is ubuntuforums.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem with Ubuntu here is that the disk goes into power saving mode while the OS is still using it. This is clearly inefficient. You can fix this either by having drive manufacturers all agree to get together and tweak their defaults, or you can fix it once in software. Either keep the disk spinning or cluster your IO access patterns more (pretty sure the update does the former). No need to hate on Microsoft here.
Don't bother writing your script either. Efficient would be linux finishing all its IO in 9 seconds instead of forcing the disk to keep spinning while spreading out IO over a longer period of time. I think you've drank a little too much of the Kool-aid...
quit whining, use wine
You're still a grade-A douchebag!
Neither is not providing a good/familiar web browser, though...
Well, it will be physically impossible to continue stuffing more transistors onto silicon in about 8 years, so there definitely will be some radical changes needed. Good job trying to predict the future though. Want to buy some lottery tickets?
Maybe in the US. You know, the Rockets games last year had more viewers than the Superbowl thanks to Yao and China. US ratings don't matter anymore when a billion people have TVs across the pond...silly redneck
Just because something's old doesn't mean it's bad. Besides, the difference is MAYBE a megabyte or two per second. It's a fact of life with journaling filesystems, you can't beat just plain not having to write to the journal in terms of performance. The Linux filesystems are better designed but they're not the comparative speed demons you think they are. A performance difference of ~8% is not "complete incompetent".
It still has *some* benefit. RAM's still faster than going to disk, even with a SSD. The difference is smaller but you still want to have something cached in RAM if you're gonna use it. Optimizations for spatial/temporal locality will still be relevant. That's basically the assumption we rely on when reading extra sectors from disk anyway, so the old algorithms should still be useful.
Where's the quality control in OSS? e.g debian SSL bug. It's a universal problem, and why software engineering still feels like an oxymoron...
You fling these terms around like you know something. But your standard antivirus program is not going to catch rootkits or security vulnerabilities in existing software. He said nothing about ditching his firewall. Pretty much everyone connects through a router nowadays, and the firewall is comparable to or trounces anything you can install. Your computer is a lot more likely to be compromised than your router anyway, so having the firewall on the computer it's protecting isn't as nice as having it on a separate device. Bottom line is, for a home user who is minimally competent at not downloading and running random files, antivirus is fairly useless.
Sorry about your inferiority complex.
Because when a dumb shit like you fucks up while texting âoecul8er!! :D :D" and crashes into someone, some innocent bystander gets wrecked for no reason. Nobody gives a shit about you, you can go drive off a cliff for all we care.
Oh great, bring out that strawman again. Not everyone wants to work on a steaming pile of crap. If your code isn't even approachable then you damn well better not be expecting people to hack on it for fun.
Actually, you sound like a nut yourself.
Maybe because competition is a good thing. It seems that when OSS zealots are on the losing end, they start trumpeting competition, but when they have the upper edge (Firefox is a great browser, after all), then fuck competition can go to hell. I can't understand you people.
Because when you do that your fat american ass will be sad as all your shit is made in china for a reason - you're expensive and incompetent. Tough luck, lardy.
Is there anything you *don't* complain about? How about you be the one to update the site after helping land something four hundred million miles away. Jesus.
In a computer security context, when an attacker gains physical access you basically assume they have access to everything, and to change everything. You can have the many levels of software in the system check and guard themselves all you want, but all it takes is one oversight to ruin your scheme. It's safer to just assume the worst, and taking the ingenuity of people who do this sort of thing into account, it's a fairly smart assumption as well.
I forsee you filing for bankruptcy in a few years then...that is a terrible way to treat your employees
You have the wrong idea. Usability testing is not a competition. In any case, the goal isn't to be "just as good" as a bare Windows install. Why not be better? You will not find a computer with Windows preinstalled that has any of the problems above. OEMs pre-load them with all the third-party software necessary. Why can't Ubuntu?
Not a problem with Vista!
Show me a computer with that install. You won't find it. If you buy a Windows computer today it will have Flash (if only to run all the crapware that comes with it). Also, one would imagine that if one wanted to use MSN, they would have an account. Why so defensive? It's all constructive criticism. Improve Pidgin's UI - it's not bad as is, but some of the menus could stand to be renamed/rearranged. And youtube redirects you to adobe's site if you don't have flash, so his girlfriend must be retarded if she couldn't get that working.
Sounds like there's not much reason to use Linux then, if the attitude is just "we don't feel like implementing this, despite the fact that many people feel it's useful".
Unfortunately, for any nontrivial problem the forums just send you in circles. Ubuntu is easy to use - if you don't do anything. As soon as you do something out of the ordinary, it's back to the commandline. For example, the version of gstreamer-ffmpeg in the repositories right now chokes on h264 files. Your average user has no idea why this happens, they just think, "oh, ubuntu is slower than windows". In reality, you can go download the newest release and compile from source, but it's not just a simple ./configure && make && make install either.
That said, it's not unusual for a book to exist. There's books for OSX and Windows too. Books save you the trouble of having to wade through the low signal-to-noise ratio that is ubuntuforums.