IE6 is getting critical updates for the life of the operating system, but the problem is that the operating system is at its end of life. Microsoft have put it into extended support, where XP (and therefor IE6) gets security updates for the next 5 years.
How can Microsoft claim that Windows XP is at the end of its life when they are STILL selling it? Full support should continue on for at least a couple of years after they cease to sell the product.
Holographic storage seems to be part of the "permanent future" of stuff that is always a few years away. Holographic storage, fusion power, GNU HURD, Duke Nukem Forever, etc. On the plus side, Holographic storage is perpetually 2-5 years away, which makes it ever so much closer than fusion, which is forever 20 years out.
So what OSes are currently capable of participating in a botnet again? Hint, Linux ain't one of 'em.
Linux is quite capable of taking part in a botnet. The fact that no one has yet come up with a method to compromise enough systems to run a botnet is a different issue. I suspect that is partially Linux security, part the diversity of Linux systems and part the perception that there are not enough systems to be worth attacking even if you could come up with a successful attack.
I would disagree. It is more secure because of the design. It is designed using the same principles as Unix and Unix has had decades to debug the design. As part of that design is the use of limited user accounts.
Typically to compromise a Linux system you have to break into the user account then escalate to root privileges. It adds extra steps. Many methods of breaking in further require the user to actively cooperate.
Many Windows programs REQUIRE the use of an Admin account so if the user is compromised the whole system is already in the hands of the intruder. Even some games won't run unless you have Admin privileges. Add such things as Microsoft's penchant for integrating programs deep into the OS rather than leaving them segregated and you have more ways into the system.
What benefit do Windows or Linux offer (for a user/developer machine!!! (not server))?
I can custom build (or have custom built) my own machine to my specifications. No limits based on what Apple chooses to sell as a configuration. The only limits are the available components
I've done this ever since I had a 386 custom built for Windows to now where my Windows 2000 Pro machine and my Linux machine are ones I built myself. My machines are built with quality components and are far more stable and powerful than the run of the mill machines.
The Russian gate was the one originally used by the SGC then beamed up to the Asgard ship infested with replicators. The gate survived dropping into the ocean and was fished out by the Russians for their project.
The Antarctic gate was used by the SGC to replace the one "lost" on the Asgard ship. It was the one that was taken out into space and to explode. The SGC then rented their original gate back.
What happened to the Gate (or Gates) on the two ships that Apophis brought to Earth and subsequently destroyed by SG-1 and Master Bratac was never explained.
But isn't that absurd? Isn't the entire concept of trade that the buyer and seller freely agree to the price of their product? If a store demands a company sell a product to them at a certain price in order to get placement in the store, the company is free to agree to the price or not
This is not the manufacturer and retailer agreeing to a price between them. This is the manufacturer dictating to the retailer what price the RETAILER gets to charge its own customers.
Once the manufacturer has sold a product they should no longer have any control of it. Should the car dealer you bought from be able to dictate the price you charge when you resell it later on? Should the home builder be able to dictate what price a susequent owner sells for? I for one think not. Once the product is sold the prior owner should have no control over the new owners dealing with that product.
I am no fan of Microsoft, but it's not like they are doing anything illegal or unethical here.
You do know that Microsoft has been convicted of breaking the law many times in many countries? Everything from copyright violations and false advertising to being an abusive monopoly.
I myself would say that their "Get the facts" campaign was unethical and deceitful. Just my opinion of course.
Famous phrases from within Microsoft's top ranks. "Knife the baby". "Cut off their air supply". "Whack Dell".
They didn't have a high return rate, which makes one wonder why MSI had higher return rates on their Linux based models. Was it not as easy to use as the custom Eee's Xandros? That'd be my guess.
They delivered a Linux model without drivers for some of the hardware. I believe that both the webcam and wireless networking were not functional on the Linux version. Call it incompetence or a conspiracy, take your pick.
The problem with NetBooks is their size. They're too big to just slip into a pocket like a phone, so you need a bag - and if you have to carry a bag, you may as well just get a real laptop since you're going to need one anyway for doing real work the NetBook is inadequate for.
I think that you are making a false assumption that people who use it will automatically already have or need a laptop. You also assume that they will be using it the same way they would be using a full sized full featured laptop. I think you are wrong in both cases.
The size which you claim is too large is still far smaller than the typical laptop and more importantly far lighter. It is in fact light enough to carry very casually, even with the power supply. It also will fit into a smaller more casully carried bag. A full size laptop is too heavy to carry so casually. I myself take long hikes and long bicycle rides and would never consider taking a full size laptop on them due to weight. A netbook on the other hand I would, and it would mean leaving my PDA behind saving that weight while fulfilling the same role.
My desire for a netbook is two fold. One note taking, I use my PDA for that now but the screen and keyboard are very limited, a netbook screen and keyboard are fine. Secondly on those hikes I could use the netbook to preview pictures at a reasonable size compared to the cameras mini screen. This will allow me to redo pictures that just don't work out the way intended. I could also use it to create notes immediately about the picture and tie them together into a document so I don't forget which is which. I wish I could have done that at the air show I went to last year. I didn't take the laptop because I was going to be on my feet for nearly 16 hours that day with no where to stash the laptop, but a netbook would have been OK.
Perhaps you can explain why if Linux is so "bad" Microsoft bothers maintaining a Linux Lab? Why they have been distributing coupons for Suse ENTERPRISE Linux Server? Why does Microsoft whenever a client indicates that they are considering moving to Linux cave in and make price concessions? In short please explain why Microsoft so obviously FEARS Linux.
One Microsoft released Win CE it was envisioned to be run on several types of machines. The Palm clone is the only one that suceeded. The 2nd was more like the Atari Portfolio and the 3rd was an early precursor to the netbook which Microsoft classed as a "Jupiter Machine". There was an HP Jornada in the Jupiter machine class.
LCD screens and flash memory were too expensive to make a decent machine at the time. Now the technology has caught up with the concept and the Jupiter Machine has come back to life as the netbook.
So in a way the netbook is Microsofts own invention returned from the dead to bite them on the ass.
Funny... I always thought it was the other way around. If an observation contradicts the dominant theory, I thought the theory should be revised, not the observation.
If the observation is a unique non repeated and not independently verified one then it is rightfully "set aside" until it is verified. A single observation does not invalidate a theory as the observation itself may be faulty or even falsified.
Your invocation of the Mozilla vs. IE situation is lame bordering on trollish. IE only comes with Windows and never came out for Linux; giving it away free encouraged its domination in the market and discouraged support of other more standard and platform-neutral browsers, hence encouraging more people to run Windows.
Not quite true. When Microsoft created IE to counter Netscape they produced versions for other operating systems. Notably for the MacOS and for Unix. The Unix version of the time could be made to run on Linux. Once they had effectively destroyed Netscape they stopped development of the Unix and MacOS versions of IE.
This of course helped to slow adoption of other OS's as with each revision of IE on Windows the IE on non Microsoft OS's fell further behind. This situation was status quo for some time. The Mozilla browser then Firefox helped to repair the discrepancy in browser capabilities while Microsoft left IE 6 rotting in the field as they had no motive to develop it due to lack of competition. The sudden burst of Firefox popularity caused the current heavy work by Microsoft on browser development.
I love how a government of 500 million people claims to be the victim of a company of 100,000. It just boggles the mind.
I'm assuming that you are referring to Microsoft. If so your numbers are wrong. They just recently announced a layoff of 15,000, before that they had 90,000 leaving them currently at ~75,000.
Tell me how many people were victimized by Enron and how many people were in on the "scam"? Gangs frequently terrorize neighbourhoods containing far more people than the gang themselves. Seems to me that a large number of people are frequently vicitimzed by a smaller number.
They did have about 90,000 but they have announced the layoff of 15,000 so now they have about 75,000. Not real close to the 100k claim. They would need a 1/3 increase in staff to reach that level.
Okay, I'm going to admit my ignorance in the hopes that someone else will learn. I've been a bit removed from Linux, so my question was going to be "Does Linux support the NTFS file system?" Because VMs running on FAT-based file systems suck. The last Linux-based OS I had used was Ubuntu 6.04 (Hardy Heron), which, to my knowledge didn't support NTFS.
I use LinuxMint 5 and have a 750 GB USB HD formated with NTFS on an WinXP machine, it reads and writes to it quite easily. I use it for backup storage. So I would say that Linux can handle NTFS.
The scary thing is that in Vista they do "have the right over anything running there": They can kill any process if they decide that they want to call it malware AFAIK.
Claiming the right and actually having the right are two different things. I can claim the right to kill anyone I find annoying but I doubt that very many people would agree I actually have the right.
Personally I would be quite happy for the whiny 0.1% of users who don't want this feature (ie: 0.02% of Windows users) to either put up, or fuck off in an orderly fashion in the direction of their nearest RMS lookalike, so they can STFU, and have all the freedom they want without interrupting me, who wants his shit to just work without offering a hundred goddamn options.
These complaining people are ones who purposefully avoided using Microsofts web browser for their own reasons. Now they find that Microsoft is interfering with the web browser that they chose instead. Reason for them to be upset especially as this modification cannot be easily uninstalled by most people.
You want your "shit" to just work? Guess what so do the rest of us. For some of us that includes not having Microsoft arbitrarily taking control and modifying 3rd party software that WE installed and configured how WE want it on OUR computer. The computer does not belong to Microsoft and they should not treat it as if it does.
I gave up on IE long ago because an update to IE 5.x disabled my ability to access the internet with ANY program. Why would a browser update block ALL internet applications from working? Fortunately I had a backup from the day before the update occurred and was able to fix it. Then I moved on to Mozilla. Now I use Firefox on Linux.
I agree interially with your argument, beside's how can I install Firefox without a default browser?
How did people install their first browser in the days of Windows 3.1 (when I first got on the web)? Our ISP provided a disk with a browser on it (Netscape 1.1 for me). A download by a friend, family member, your ISP from an internet cafe, coworker or if you have an old computer download a copy using the prior computers browser. Pickup a Linux magazine which includes a LiveCD (with browser) and use it to go online and download one for the computer without a browser.There are many ways to get that first browser installed.
If you use Microsoft there is no reason they can't provide it as an optional component. Its only when it is mandatory and not truly removable that people get upset.
Slashdot Mirror
How can Microsoft claim that Windows XP is at the end of its life when they are STILL selling it? Full support should continue on for at least a couple of years after they cease to sell the product.
You forgot WinFS.
Linux is quite capable of taking part in a botnet. The fact that no one has yet come up with a method to compromise enough systems to run a botnet is a different issue. I suspect that is partially Linux security, part the diversity of Linux systems and part the perception that there are not enough systems to be worth attacking even if you could come up with a successful attack.
I would disagree. It is more secure because of the design. It is designed using the same principles as Unix and Unix has had decades to debug the design. As part of that design is the use of limited user accounts.
Typically to compromise a Linux system you have to break into the user account then escalate to root privileges. It adds extra steps. Many methods of breaking in further require the user to actively cooperate.
Many Windows programs REQUIRE the use of an Admin account so if the user is compromised the whole system is already in the hands of the intruder. Even some games won't run unless you have Admin privileges. Add such things as Microsoft's penchant for integrating programs deep into the OS rather than leaving them segregated and you have more ways into the system.
I can custom build (or have custom built) my own machine to my specifications. No limits based on what Apple chooses to sell as a configuration. The only limits are the available components
I've done this ever since I had a 386 custom built for Windows to now where my Windows 2000 Pro machine and my Linux machine are ones I built myself. My machines are built with quality components and are far more stable and powerful than the run of the mill machines.
If the computer still does what is needed why spend the money to replace it?
The Russian gate was the one originally used by the SGC then beamed up to the Asgard ship infested with replicators. The gate survived dropping into the ocean and was fished out by the Russians for their project.
The Antarctic gate was used by the SGC to replace the one "lost" on the Asgard ship. It was the one that was taken out into space and to explode. The SGC then rented their original gate back.
What happened to the Gate (or Gates) on the two ships that Apophis brought to Earth and subsequently destroyed by SG-1 and Master Bratac was never explained.
This is not the manufacturer and retailer agreeing to a price between them. This is the manufacturer dictating to the retailer what price the RETAILER gets to charge its own customers.
Once the manufacturer has sold a product they should no longer have any control of it. Should the car dealer you bought from be able to dictate the price you charge when you resell it later on? Should the home builder be able to dictate what price a susequent owner sells for? I for one think not. Once the product is sold the prior owner should have no control over the new owners dealing with that product.
You do know that Microsoft has been convicted of breaking the law many times in many countries? Everything from copyright violations and false advertising to being an abusive monopoly.
I myself would say that their "Get the facts" campaign was unethical and deceitful. Just my opinion of course.
Famous phrases from within Microsoft's top ranks. "Knife the baby". "Cut off their air supply". "Whack Dell".
They delivered a Linux model without drivers for some of the hardware. I believe that both the webcam and wireless networking were not functional on the Linux version. Call it incompetence or a conspiracy, take your pick.
I think that you are making a false assumption that people who use it will automatically already have or need a laptop. You also assume that they will be using it the same way they would be using a full sized full featured laptop. I think you are wrong in both cases.
The size which you claim is too large is still far smaller than the typical laptop and more importantly far lighter. It is in fact light enough to carry very casually, even with the power supply. It also will fit into a smaller more casully carried bag. A full size laptop is too heavy to carry so casually. I myself take long hikes and long bicycle rides and would never consider taking a full size laptop on them due to weight. A netbook on the other hand I would, and it would mean leaving my PDA behind saving that weight while fulfilling the same role.
My desire for a netbook is two fold. One note taking, I use my PDA for that now but the screen and keyboard are very limited, a netbook screen and keyboard are fine. Secondly on those hikes I could use the netbook to preview pictures at a reasonable size compared to the cameras mini screen. This will allow me to redo pictures that just don't work out the way intended. I could also use it to create notes immediately about the picture and tie them together into a document so I don't forget which is which. I wish I could have done that at the air show I went to last year. I didn't take the laptop because I was going to be on my feet for nearly 16 hours that day with no where to stash the laptop, but a netbook would have been OK.
Really? Here in Hamilton Ontario last time I looked The Source carried more Linux Netbooks than Windows ones. Admittedly that was several weeks ago.
Perhaps you can explain why if Linux is so "bad" Microsoft bothers maintaining a Linux Lab? Why they have been distributing coupons for Suse ENTERPRISE Linux Server? Why does Microsoft whenever a client indicates that they are considering moving to Linux cave in and make price concessions? In short please explain why Microsoft so obviously FEARS Linux.
Firefox on Mac was done but how about Firefox on Windows? (Nils did it on the Mac)
One Microsoft released Win CE it was envisioned to be run on several types of machines. The Palm clone is the only one that suceeded. The 2nd was more like the Atari Portfolio and the 3rd was an early precursor to the netbook which Microsoft classed as a "Jupiter Machine". There was an HP Jornada in the Jupiter machine class.
LCD screens and flash memory were too expensive to make a decent machine at the time. Now the technology has caught up with the concept and the Jupiter Machine has come back to life as the netbook.
So in a way the netbook is Microsofts own invention returned from the dead to bite them on the ass.
If the observation is a unique non repeated and not independently verified one then it is rightfully "set aside" until it is verified. A single observation does not invalidate a theory as the observation itself may be faulty or even falsified.
Judge them by both words and deeds. Here are some of their words.
"Knife the Baby."
"Cut of their air supply."
"Whack Dell."
Not quite true. When Microsoft created IE to counter Netscape they produced versions for other operating systems. Notably for the MacOS and for Unix. The Unix version of the time could be made to run on Linux. Once they had effectively destroyed Netscape they stopped development of the Unix and MacOS versions of IE.
This of course helped to slow adoption of other OS's as with each revision of IE on Windows the IE on non Microsoft OS's fell further behind. This situation was status quo for some time. The Mozilla browser then Firefox helped to repair the discrepancy in browser capabilities while Microsoft left IE 6 rotting in the field as they had no motive to develop it due to lack of competition. The sudden burst of Firefox popularity caused the current heavy work by Microsoft on browser development.
I'm assuming that you are referring to Microsoft. If so your numbers are wrong. They just recently announced a layoff of 15,000, before that they had 90,000 leaving them currently at ~75,000.
Tell me how many people were victimized by Enron and how many people were in on the "scam"? Gangs frequently terrorize neighbourhoods containing far more people than the gang themselves. Seems to me that a large number of people are frequently vicitimzed by a smaller number.
What do you mean playing? I AM a God.
;)
They did have about 90,000 but they have announced the layoff of 15,000 so now they have about 75,000. Not real close to the 100k claim. They would need a 1/3 increase in staff to reach that level.
I use LinuxMint 5 and have a 750 GB USB HD formated with NTFS on an WinXP machine, it reads and writes to it quite easily. I use it for backup storage. So I would say that Linux can handle NTFS.
Claiming the right and actually having the right are two different things. I can claim the right to kill anyone I find annoying but I doubt that very many people would agree I actually have the right.
These complaining people are ones who purposefully avoided using Microsofts web browser for their own reasons. Now they find that Microsoft is interfering with the web browser that they chose instead. Reason for them to be upset especially as this modification cannot be easily uninstalled by most people.
You want your "shit" to just work? Guess what so do the rest of us. For some of us that includes not having Microsoft arbitrarily taking control and modifying 3rd party software that WE installed and configured how WE want it on OUR computer. The computer does not belong to Microsoft and they should not treat it as if it does.
I gave up on IE long ago because an update to IE 5.x disabled my ability to access the internet with ANY program. Why would a browser update block ALL internet applications from working? Fortunately I had a backup from the day before the update occurred and was able to fix it. Then I moved on to Mozilla. Now I use Firefox on Linux.
How did people install their first browser in the days of Windows 3.1 (when I first got on the web)? Our ISP provided a disk with a browser on it (Netscape 1.1 for me). A download by a friend, family member, your ISP from an internet cafe, coworker or if you have an old computer download a copy using the prior computers browser. Pickup a Linux magazine which includes a LiveCD (with browser) and use it to go online and download one for the computer without a browser.There are many ways to get that first browser installed.
If you use Microsoft there is no reason they can't provide it as an optional component. Its only when it is mandatory and not truly removable that people get upset.