Well, at least in my experience (and various Linux magazines have alluded to it) APT is much faster then YUM, and also RPM has had a nasty but in Fedora until Fedora 8 that wouldn't even let you install a RPM without an internet connection by default (and the steps were complicated on how to make it work).
Apple is innovating?
They take technology that exists in lots of other places, and put it in a prettier package. OSX is nice, but it's BSD with pretty graphics.
Well, it sure innovates more then MS, Yahoo and a lot of other major tech companies do...
Ok, so how else is MS going to get money when businesses are not buying Office 2007 because it is too different, not buying Vista because of reliability issues, and even the ordinary person sees Vista as a slow, unfamiliar piece of crap? What else is going to fill this void? Not Apple for sure after all the "think different" campaigns, the Apple brand has to be higher then the ordinary brand, and MS seems to have killed off all commercial OSes, so where else are people going to get OSes for computers? Linux is free, can look just like Windows/Mac/Atari/Amiga/etc. and is supported by many major businesses. you can't avoid the fact that Vista is a disaster, and Office 2007 is unfamiliar, MS has to innovate or die and it has shown it is not capable of innovating
Because most religions fall into politics. For example, if your religion has a commandment disallowing stealing, then most people wouldn't be to happy if stealing was permitted. Then there is the issue of say I have a Christmas tree in my store along with a nativity scene which should be allowed under the "freedom of religion" part of the constitution, however some person that doesn't share my religion is offended so I can't do that. So really, it is almost to where it isn't a matter of just the people with a religion but also those who don't want anything to do with religion and any mention of religion offends them.
I would assume only a fool would write off two of the largest tech companies in the country (with a combined revenue of 57.33B).
MS and Yahoo are both going downhill. About the only people I know who use Yahoo just use it for the e-mail, most everyone else uses Google, also just look at the verb Google and you get an idea of how Google is the preferred search rather then Yahoo.
Yes because we all know the only real innovation isn't done in multi-million dollar research centers, it's done in dad's garage, duh!
Well, if you look at how much more innovative Ubuntu is compared to Vista, you get the idea. MS can't innovate. They can copy, they can pre-install crap on people's computers and they will use it, but seriously, no one can say without lying that Vista is more innovative then Ubuntu.
Yeah one would think the nightly car bombings outside of Microsoft's HQ would finally stop this 'stay the course' mentality. But for some reason people seem to enjoy using a OS on cheap hardware the runs reliably and quickly when configured properly. Oh and plays the latest games!.. We're in the twilight zone now.
Ummm... Linux fills that void also. I am, as I type this, on an old Dell Dimension desktop (made in 2002) I got for $25, with a monitor I got for $7 and Xubuntu (8.04 making it newer then Vista) that cost me about 10 cents for the blank CD and perhaps 25 cents for the bandwidth needed to download it, bringing my rig to a grand total of $32.35, now don't tell me I can get a Windows machine (with Vista Home Basic as we are comparing both of the newest low-end OSes) that runs as well as my Dimension for less then $32.35. Now, Macs are more expensive, but if you compare the price to see how much it takes to run Vista at the same level as OS X runs on the Mac, they aren't that much different. As for games, it would take a computer made in 2007/2008 to run most of the latest games unless you upgraded the computer and that computer would have cost about $600-$1000 making the lowest at least as cheap as a Mac Mini. So unless you can prove to me otherwise, stop spreading your lies.
MS needs to either figure out why they aren't as successful as Google in the web portal business and concentrate on fixing what they already have or find a different battle to fight.
Because MS can't innovate, they might be able to copy, but they haven't innovated since they were founded. Sure they can take someone else's idea and make it into an OK product, but more often then not the original is better. If MS actually innovated, invented and didn't make everything seem so "corporate" they could have a better marketshare, but honestly, MS has never really innovated, be it with DOS, Windows, Office, etc. MS can not innovate. And in the web, you don't need rock-solid code (though that would be nice) but you need standards and innovation, both which MS has always proven they lack.
Hmmm... Could it be that IBM *gasp* innovated and adapted to the changing environment again and again? Something that MS/Yahoo never have done? IBM went from punch-card machines, to computers, from proprietary OSes to supporting Linux in full. All MS seems to have done is "Oh the Mac has a GUI lets copy it and put it on DOS!" and Yahoo is more like "Oh Google added a new feature, we will copy that, add a few banner ads, and a ton of Flash and put it online!". Face it, IBM innovates and adapts in a way that MS and Yahoo can't even comprehend.
Look at the Yahoo homepage, immediately there are banner ads, and heavy use of both Flash and JavaScript. With Google, you get a simple, fast loading homepage with only a few links, a search box and the Google logo. If you prefer a "portal" look, iGoogle is much better then Yahoo because A) You choose what you want on there B) No flash C) No banner ads D) customized look. Also, look at how much Yahoo has innovated in the last oh 8 years, 0. Google on the other hand added, maps, satellite imagery, iGoogle, Google News, Froogle, online video, a code search, medical records search, a decent translator program, oh not to mention you can work on documents and spreadsheets. And what as Yahoo added new that Google didn't have first? More banner ads? Oh, and there is also the Yahoo toolbar that just about everything installed in Windows wants you to add, that is just plain annoying (yes Google has one but not every program on Windows wants to install it for you).
The thing though with Red Hat (and Fedora) are losing distro marketshare to Ubuntu and other Debian-based distros. RPM and YUM are miles behind DEB and APT though RPM is improving. I don't think that Red Hat will suddenly go bankrupt, but I think that after the MS collapse it will be Canonical at number 1, Novell and Red Hat tied for number 2 and then Apple for number 3 (Apple cannot survive if it doesn't keep the "better underdog" spot) and then various other Linux businesses such as TurboLinux, Xandros, etc.
Its just another step removed. For example when you start up Firefox the first time it asks you if you want it to be the default browser so this just simplifies it and asks that during the install rather then the first run.
For "normal" users OS X is very secure, why? Because when you see why most spyware gets downloaded it is either via A) Active X and drive-by-downloads or B) various freeware programs. With OS X, because it doesn't have IE Active X and drive-by-downloads are eliminated and most mac freeware is virus/adware free.
And the information you carry in your Address Book, Calender and Notes are *that* valuable to warrant more expensive hardware with encryption? Seriously, myself and most people I know have people's names and numbers in the address book and meetings in the calender and really the worst thing that could happen is that they use that info to do a phishing attack to get more information. For you and a handful of other people this might be useful but for the 99% of us that don't, it just adds more bloat/price to an already bloated/expensive platform (mobile phones/PDAs)
Chances are, it is more risky to connect to an unencrypted network at a local coffee shop and check your e-mail on your PDA then it is to leave it without a password. I know on my computers the information stored on it is useless to a thief but some e-mails (stored on a remote server) has more confidential information then what is stored on the device (and just about all webmail require you to use a password). So really, for me and most other people, a 1337 H@X0R with Wireshark will do more damage then some guy who steals your PDA/Laptop.
Only four in 10 had encrypted data on their laptops, and the remainder said the information was 'not worth' protecting
And honestly, a lot of them could be right in that it wasn't worth protecting. For example, what percentage of documents are really needed to be secret for a company's existence? My guess is about.001% is. From where I have worked and what I have seen most of the documents are simply letters, forms, etc. and not Our_Credit_Card_Numbers.doc or All_Employee_SSN.xls. So for most people, most small businesses, most employees, the information isn't really worth protecting. Now, if you are say, a bank, the information is more valuable then say a restaurant or a factory's info, but for the average employee with a laptop, most of the documents if not all of the documents are free of personal information or company secrets. Chances are some guy with a packet sniffer will get more information off of a laptop then a thief taking it and reading the documents.
Please note that vigilantism is _not_ something that justifies breaking US federal or state law.
No, but it sure can add reason. Judges are human too (though sometimes it seems they aren't often enough and other times they are human too often), and if someone can give a good enough reason why they thought they needed to break the law, a judge could acquit them because of the reason.
How long until the government mandates that these must have HRM on them (Human Rights Management) which would make it impossible to do certain "illegal" things. For example if it doesn't think you are 21 you can't pick up a beer bottle or a wine glass, it wouldn't let you pull a trigger of a gun, nor wield a knife defensively. Now, this technology is still 25-75 years off before it could actually be used, but could it be that in 150 years you would have to have your normal arms either amputated or modified to support Human Rights Management?
This is a great time to flood congresses inboxes with letters asking them to convect these people, though I would wait until the FBI investigation comes to an end first...
So if what MediaDefender is doing is legal, then because Apple is "not allowing me my fair use rights" when you download songs from iTunes that gives me a right to A) hack iTunes and put bogus songs on there that will spread a virus and kill iPods B) perform a massive DoS attack on Apple and C) tell iTunes to take down the "copyrighted" content that you have added in the first place and ask for a log of users to sue. Would that work if I did it? No, but it seems like the law doesn't apply to a corrupt congress and *AA.
There is no "gap" between Windows and Linux for general use. Windows has more specialty applications that Linux lacks but that is only because it has been around in desktop use (for most people who use Linux we aren't talking about Linus here....) for longer then Linux has. All Linux is lacking is good support pre-installed by most manufacturers, with the EEE, the XO and now this, it seems like Linux can start being installed on more things. The gap is closing with every new computer maker who installs Linux on new computers.
Honestly neither McCain, Obama, or Clinton is going to be good for F/OSS. None of them are programmers, none of them know much about computers, Obama doesn't proclaim to use Linux, McCain isn't a Gnome (or KDE) fanatic and Clinton's favorite text editor is probably Notepad. Just because Obama wants to use some F/OSS guys in development of his website that doesn't mean that he is for F/OSS any more then any of the candidates are. And no, if Obama uses Linux in his servers and it runs on Apache that doesn't make that the "preferred" choice for the F/OSS community, because, really we have no choice unless a third-party member can win which I doubt they can...
Roku: Third, we've heard feedback from home theater purists who said that they don't want to hear fan noise.
HotHardware: Is that right?
Tim: Yep. Quite a few people don't want to hear the hum of a fan in the background while watching TV.
But wasn't that kinda like what happened at Apple...
Steve : We've heard feedback from people who said that they don't want to hear a fan in a computer
Apple Guy But on the Apple III we need to have at least a fan, or air vents...
Steve : No! We will just make a huge heatsink! No fans, no air vents! Apple Guy But...
Steve : NO BUTS!!!! The Apple III will ship with no air vents and no fans and that is final!!!!
5 months later....
Customer : Ummm... My Apple III is displaying random data and the disks seem to be melted....
Apple Tech : Just pick up the Apple III about 1 inch off the ground and drop it.
HDs though, go bad quickly. For me not a single flash chip has ever catastrophically failed like many HDs I have had. Also, do you really want to carry a hard drive in your cell phone? And flash chips are much, much, faster then most hard drives. And really, HD speeds are one of the biggest bottlenecks in high-speed computers, RAM is cheap enough to get 1 GB for less then $50, CPUs are multi-core, Linux has a fast and usable OS, USB is fast enough for most devices, so all we need is faster HD read/writes and we have a much faster computer, problem is, the way to speed up a HD is only via either A) RAID 0 which costs reliability or B) increase RPMs which add price and chances are, decrease reliability over time. So as of now, the only way to get large amounts of space, without spending a fortune and having it be reliable (no moving parts) and fast is with Flash chips and SSDs.
No, because Nintendo, Sony, EA, even MS realize that reviews help people buy games much as how music videos help people choose which music to buy. Because there is more competition, unlike in the record business, the companies usually are more sane. For example, Nintendo will most likely never go after someone downloading ROMs like the *AA will for people downloading songs, even though proportionally Nintendo loses more money per ROM download then the *AA loses per music download (A song costs $.99 or less usually while a game costs $5 for a NES game on the Wii).
There are a few problems, A) IE is proprietary and throughout its history has been plagued by many security flaws B) IE (and even Firefox) are not fully standards compliant, whereas WebKit is mostly compliant C) WebKit may render things faster then IE and Gecko and the more competition we have to make the fastest layout engine the better.
Well, for Safari, I can see that Firefox isn't very "Mac like" in the fact that it lets you have tons of options to configure and more then like 3 buttons. And as for MS they want to keep people tied to the Windows platform and not move on to Linux or a Mac so they are going to try to make an incompatible browser so anything that uses Active X needs to be run on Windows and if that is a major website, that could kill any move to move to better platforms.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, at least in my experience (and various Linux magazines have alluded to it) APT is much faster then YUM, and also RPM has had a nasty but in Fedora until Fedora 8 that wouldn't even let you install a RPM without an internet connection by default (and the steps were complicated on how to make it work).
Well, it sure innovates more then MS, Yahoo and a lot of other major tech companies do...
Ok, so how else is MS going to get money when businesses are not buying Office 2007 because it is too different, not buying Vista because of reliability issues, and even the ordinary person sees Vista as a slow, unfamiliar piece of crap? What else is going to fill this void? Not Apple for sure after all the "think different" campaigns, the Apple brand has to be higher then the ordinary brand, and MS seems to have killed off all commercial OSes, so where else are people going to get OSes for computers? Linux is free, can look just like Windows/Mac/Atari/Amiga/etc. and is supported by many major businesses. you can't avoid the fact that Vista is a disaster, and Office 2007 is unfamiliar, MS has to innovate or die and it has shown it is not capable of innovating
Because most religions fall into politics. For example, if your religion has a commandment disallowing stealing, then most people wouldn't be to happy if stealing was permitted. Then there is the issue of say I have a Christmas tree in my store along with a nativity scene which should be allowed under the "freedom of religion" part of the constitution, however some person that doesn't share my religion is offended so I can't do that. So really, it is almost to where it isn't a matter of just the people with a religion but also those who don't want anything to do with religion and any mention of religion offends them.
MS and Yahoo are both going downhill. About the only people I know who use Yahoo just use it for the e-mail, most everyone else uses Google, also just look at the verb Google and you get an idea of how Google is the preferred search rather then Yahoo.
Yes because we all know the only real innovation isn't done in multi-million dollar research centers, it's done in dad's garage, duh!
Well, if you look at how much more innovative Ubuntu is compared to Vista, you get the idea. MS can't innovate. They can copy, they can pre-install crap on people's computers and they will use it, but seriously, no one can say without lying that Vista is more innovative then Ubuntu.
Yeah one would think the nightly car bombings outside of Microsoft's HQ would finally stop this 'stay the course' mentality. But for some reason people seem to enjoy using a OS on cheap hardware the runs reliably and quickly when configured properly. Oh and plays the latest games!.. We're in the twilight zone now.
Ummm... Linux fills that void also. I am, as I type this, on an old Dell Dimension desktop (made in 2002) I got for $25, with a monitor I got for $7 and Xubuntu (8.04 making it newer then Vista) that cost me about 10 cents for the blank CD and perhaps 25 cents for the bandwidth needed to download it, bringing my rig to a grand total of $32.35, now don't tell me I can get a Windows machine (with Vista Home Basic as we are comparing both of the newest low-end OSes) that runs as well as my Dimension for less then $32.35. Now, Macs are more expensive, but if you compare the price to see how much it takes to run Vista at the same level as OS X runs on the Mac, they aren't that much different. As for games, it would take a computer made in 2007/2008 to run most of the latest games unless you upgraded the computer and that computer would have cost about $600-$1000 making the lowest at least as cheap as a Mac Mini. So unless you can prove to me otherwise, stop spreading your lies.
Because MS can't innovate, they might be able to copy, but they haven't innovated since they were founded. Sure they can take someone else's idea and make it into an OK product, but more often then not the original is better. If MS actually innovated, invented and didn't make everything seem so "corporate" they could have a better marketshare, but honestly, MS has never really innovated, be it with DOS, Windows, Office, etc. MS can not innovate. And in the web, you don't need rock-solid code (though that would be nice) but you need standards and innovation, both which MS has always proven they lack.
Hmmm... Could it be that IBM *gasp* innovated and adapted to the changing environment again and again? Something that MS/Yahoo never have done? IBM went from punch-card machines, to computers, from proprietary OSes to supporting Linux in full. All MS seems to have done is "Oh the Mac has a GUI lets copy it and put it on DOS!" and Yahoo is more like "Oh Google added a new feature, we will copy that, add a few banner ads, and a ton of Flash and put it online!". Face it, IBM innovates and adapts in a way that MS and Yahoo can't even comprehend.
Look at the Yahoo homepage, immediately there are banner ads, and heavy use of both Flash and JavaScript. With Google, you get a simple, fast loading homepage with only a few links, a search box and the Google logo. If you prefer a "portal" look, iGoogle is much better then Yahoo because A) You choose what you want on there B) No flash C) No banner ads D) customized look. Also, look at how much Yahoo has innovated in the last oh 8 years, 0. Google on the other hand added, maps, satellite imagery, iGoogle, Google News, Froogle, online video, a code search, medical records search, a decent translator program, oh not to mention you can work on documents and spreadsheets. And what as Yahoo added new that Google didn't have first? More banner ads? Oh, and there is also the Yahoo toolbar that just about everything installed in Windows wants you to add, that is just plain annoying (yes Google has one but not every program on Windows wants to install it for you).
The thing though with Red Hat (and Fedora) are losing distro marketshare to Ubuntu and other Debian-based distros. RPM and YUM are miles behind DEB and APT though RPM is improving. I don't think that Red Hat will suddenly go bankrupt, but I think that after the MS collapse it will be Canonical at number 1, Novell and Red Hat tied for number 2 and then Apple for number 3 (Apple cannot survive if it doesn't keep the "better underdog" spot) and then various other Linux businesses such as TurboLinux, Xandros, etc.
Its just another step removed. For example when you start up Firefox the first time it asks you if you want it to be the default browser so this just simplifies it and asks that during the install rather then the first run.
For "normal" users OS X is very secure, why? Because when you see why most spyware gets downloaded it is either via A) Active X and drive-by-downloads or B) various freeware programs. With OS X, because it doesn't have IE Active X and drive-by-downloads are eliminated and most mac freeware is virus/adware free.
And the information you carry in your Address Book, Calender and Notes are *that* valuable to warrant more expensive hardware with encryption? Seriously, myself and most people I know have people's names and numbers in the address book and meetings in the calender and really the worst thing that could happen is that they use that info to do a phishing attack to get more information. For you and a handful of other people this might be useful but for the 99% of us that don't, it just adds more bloat/price to an already bloated/expensive platform (mobile phones/PDAs)
Chances are, it is more risky to connect to an unencrypted network at a local coffee shop and check your e-mail on your PDA then it is to leave it without a password. I know on my computers the information stored on it is useless to a thief but some e-mails (stored on a remote server) has more confidential information then what is stored on the device (and just about all webmail require you to use a password). So really, for me and most other people, a 1337 H@X0R with Wireshark will do more damage then some guy who steals your PDA/Laptop.
And honestly, a lot of them could be right in that it wasn't worth protecting. For example, what percentage of documents are really needed to be secret for a company's existence? My guess is about
No, but it sure can add reason. Judges are human too (though sometimes it seems they aren't often enough and other times they are human too often), and if someone can give a good enough reason why they thought they needed to break the law, a judge could acquit them because of the reason.
How long until the government mandates that these must have HRM on them (Human Rights Management) which would make it impossible to do certain "illegal" things. For example if it doesn't think you are 21 you can't pick up a beer bottle or a wine glass, it wouldn't let you pull a trigger of a gun, nor wield a knife defensively. Now, this technology is still 25-75 years off before it could actually be used, but could it be that in 150 years you would have to have your normal arms either amputated or modified to support Human Rights Management?
This is a great time to flood congresses inboxes with letters asking them to convect these people, though I would wait until the FBI investigation comes to an end first...
So if what MediaDefender is doing is legal, then because Apple is "not allowing me my fair use rights" when you download songs from iTunes that gives me a right to A) hack iTunes and put bogus songs on there that will spread a virus and kill iPods B) perform a massive DoS attack on Apple and C) tell iTunes to take down the "copyrighted" content that you have added in the first place and ask for a log of users to sue. Would that work if I did it? No, but it seems like the law doesn't apply to a corrupt congress and *AA.
There is no "gap" between Windows and Linux for general use. Windows has more specialty applications that Linux lacks but that is only because it has been around in desktop use (for most people who use Linux we aren't talking about Linus here....) for longer then Linux has. All Linux is lacking is good support pre-installed by most manufacturers, with the EEE, the XO and now this, it seems like Linux can start being installed on more things. The gap is closing with every new computer maker who installs Linux on new computers.
Honestly neither McCain, Obama, or Clinton is going to be good for F/OSS. None of them are programmers, none of them know much about computers, Obama doesn't proclaim to use Linux, McCain isn't a Gnome (or KDE) fanatic and Clinton's favorite text editor is probably Notepad. Just because Obama wants to use some F/OSS guys in development of his website that doesn't mean that he is for F/OSS any more then any of the candidates are. And no, if Obama uses Linux in his servers and it runs on Apache that doesn't make that the "preferred" choice for the F/OSS community, because, really we have no choice unless a third-party member can win which I doubt they can...
But wasn't that kinda like what happened at Apple...
Steve : We've heard feedback from people who said that they don't want to hear a fan in a computer
Apple Guy But on the Apple III we need to have at least a fan, or air vents...
Steve : No! We will just make a huge heatsink! No fans, no air vents!
Apple Guy But...
Steve : NO BUTS!!!! The Apple III will ship with no air vents and no fans and that is final!!!!
5 months later....
Customer : Ummm... My Apple III is displaying random data and the disks seem to be melted....
Apple Tech : Just pick up the Apple III about 1 inch off the ground and drop it.
HDs though, go bad quickly. For me not a single flash chip has ever catastrophically failed like many HDs I have had. Also, do you really want to carry a hard drive in your cell phone? And flash chips are much, much, faster then most hard drives. And really, HD speeds are one of the biggest bottlenecks in high-speed computers, RAM is cheap enough to get 1 GB for less then $50, CPUs are multi-core, Linux has a fast and usable OS, USB is fast enough for most devices, so all we need is faster HD read/writes and we have a much faster computer, problem is, the way to speed up a HD is only via either A) RAID 0 which costs reliability or B) increase RPMs which add price and chances are, decrease reliability over time. So as of now, the only way to get large amounts of space, without spending a fortune and having it be reliable (no moving parts) and fast is with Flash chips and SSDs.
No, because Nintendo, Sony, EA, even MS realize that reviews help people buy games much as how music videos help people choose which music to buy. Because there is more competition, unlike in the record business, the companies usually are more sane. For example, Nintendo will most likely never go after someone downloading ROMs like the *AA will for people downloading songs, even though proportionally Nintendo loses more money per ROM download then the *AA loses per music download (A song costs $.99 or less usually while a game costs $5 for a NES game on the Wii).
There are a few problems, A) IE is proprietary and throughout its history has been plagued by many security flaws B) IE (and even Firefox) are not fully standards compliant, whereas WebKit is mostly compliant C) WebKit may render things faster then IE and Gecko and the more competition we have to make the fastest layout engine the better.
Well, for Safari, I can see that Firefox isn't very "Mac like" in the fact that it lets you have tons of options to configure and more then like 3 buttons. And as for MS they want to keep people tied to the Windows platform and not move on to Linux or a Mac so they are going to try to make an incompatible browser so anything that uses Active X needs to be run on Windows and if that is a major website, that could kill any move to move to better platforms.