Perhaps comparing all the security vulnerabilities for all software that could possibly run on Windows to this list would be SLIGHTLY more fair.
As it stands now you are comparing all open source applications to the Windows Oerating System.
So good job on attempting to call the Slashdot community on hyprocracy, unfortunatly you seem to be very confused about what Linux is and unable to make a valid comparison.
After installing Mandrake 9.0 and 9.1 on my box at home, I was amazed that 9.0 told me I had a Winmodem and gave me a URL to find out how to make it work
Great, I'll just dial into my ISP to view that url and learn how to make my modem work.:)
The fact that SCO has still refused to show its proof is pretty good evidence to me that they don't have any.
Not really, although everyone assumes this. It is (remotly) possible that they do have legit evidence. The reason they do not want to show it may be because their intention is to extort as much money (licensing fees) as possible out of people, not give the Linux community a chance to fix the problem and remove any offending code.
Assuming SCO as a company lasts long enough for this to go to trial, watch for them to try to have a gag order placed on the evidence. It will come out in the trial, but they will want it kept secret from the public.
Earlier than that my friend, IBM's mainframe operating systems were open source to an extent. Granted the number of computers in the world was barely past the triple digit mark, but many institutions and corporations (including mine, PSU) were early contributors to MVS and HASP (Which today are known as z/OS and JES2). The day that IBM switched to OCO (object code only) method of distributing their OS, rather than distributing the source, was a day that pissed off many a mainframe sysprog.
Don't think that Berkley and MIT invented open source, it can be easily argued that IBM actually did. It just took them a long time to come full circle back to it:)
The FSF is a corporation. I think their contributions are more important to the community than IBM's because without the FSF there would be no community to begin with.
Huh, maybe I'm all backwards on this then. My understanding from our HPC guys is that Apple hardware is not up to par with that they do. Were the Apple's picked due to processing speed, or software considerations?
No, I don't mean scientific computing. I mean high performance computing. SP clusters, Linux clusters, weather modeling, the stuff that large universities do. No offense but where I am we run significantly larger clusters than SARA has ever seen.
GCC is a great compiler, I use it daily. Better than Intel and IBM for performance (expecially FORTRAN) it is NOT. It was designed as a cross compiler and in that it shines. But it is not all things to all people.
I certainly did not flame GCC and all the people who work on it, come back down off your high horse. All I did was list some reasons why IBM may not have used GCC, one of which is that most of the HPC people I know and work with have tested it and found it to be unacceptable for what they do.
That said, I certainly can see a day when GCC IS the best performing compiler, hands down. I believe open source will eventually overtake most commercial applications due to the momentium it currently has. However it would be silly of me to say that MySQL is better than Oracle, when it clearly is not (yet).
Unless raw CPU isn't your only deciding factor (frankly once you get over 1 GHz I really don't care, I'm not sequencing DNA here:) ). For me I know it is a technically inferior processor, but being able to run OSX was worth the minor trade off in raw CPU speed I got by getting a G4.
I know everyone wants to know why they did not just contribute to GCC, but seriously people, I imagine they have their reasons.
Perhaps they wanted something done in a timly manner without waiting for the GCC people to accept their patches. Perhaps they felt a more elegant solution could be achieved by building their own compiler from scratch. Maybe they think GCC is a piece of crap (which for high performance computing, it is).
Just because IBM support open source does not mean they are obligated to do everything for the sole purpose of advancing the movement.
IBM has contributed more to the open source community than I would venture to guess any other corporation on earth. (think of the code, projects, money, support, etc). I would not be so quick to blast them for not doing everything under an open source license. Encourage yes, but let's be civil about this. IBM is not just blowing smoke about OSS, they have put their money, time, and products where their mouth is.
Why anyone would say DCOM is more graspable than J2EE is IUnknown
I would say that only because DCOM is nothing more than a watered down DCE/RPC with all the Kerberos security removed (in fact, it is wire compatible).
However not many people bothered to learn DCE/RPC so that puts me in a sad minority.
The rearranged the entire menu, that does not constitute "cosmetic" changes. Cosmetic changes are what they did to window borders. In the business, we refer to this kind of change as a "functional" change vs a "cosmetic".
It did not bother me, (1) I don't use windows and (2) I constantly switch between OS X, Gnome, and fluxbox so obviously I can deal with change. However many users cannot, and the change in the start menu confused them and caused some problems. Remember who windows is being designed for and marketed towards.
To bring this back on topic, wouldn't you say the differences between the start menus in XP and 9x are greater than the differences between GNOME and KDE's menus?
Actually it is used correctly in this case. We know where openlindows.com is (hint, the name is also a location. Or uniform resource locator as we say in the biz), the author is lamenting its ties to a proprietary software company. As in "the name openlindows.com has such potential, why were you born into the family of my enemy".
So one point for you for knowing the correct usage of wherefore, minus one point for not noticing that it was actually used correctly here.
You currently have zero points. Would you like to play again (y/n) ?
Listen, this is very simple. Yes, she got third degree burns, but she did not, and this is very important, did NOT get 'charring'. That is what all the grandparent poster said.
Water does not cause 'charring'. That simply cannot happen.
No, their arguement hinges on the fact that no Spanish person would confuse "Nova" with "No Va". Similar to how (and this is their example) an English speaking person would not confuse "Notable" with "No Table". It is an urban myth, get over it.
It always amuses me to see someone react angrily when something they have been passing off as fact to appear smarter is shown to them to be a myth:)
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps comparing all the security vulnerabilities for all software that could possibly run on Windows to this list would be SLIGHTLY more fair.
As it stands now you are comparing all open source applications to the Windows Oerating System.
So good job on attempting to call the Slashdot community on hyprocracy, unfortunatly you seem to be very confused about what Linux is and unable to make a valid comparison.
Finkployd
Except for when it comes to Linux on the mainframe, Marist is well known in that community.
Finkployd
Or, just install Mandrake 9.1 like I said and you have the files already there.
:)
Oh I know, I was just making a +1 funny
Finkployd
After installing Mandrake 9.0 and 9.1 on my box at home, I was amazed that 9.0 told me I had a Winmodem and gave me a URL to find out how to make it work
:)
Great, I'll just dial into my ISP to view that url and learn how to make my modem work.
Finkployd
The fact that SCO has still refused to show its proof is pretty good evidence to me that they don't have any.
Not really, although everyone assumes this. It is (remotly) possible that they do have legit evidence. The reason they do not want to show it may be because their intention is to extort as much money (licensing fees) as possible out of people, not give the Linux community a chance to fix the problem and remove any offending code.
Assuming SCO as a company lasts long enough for this to go to trial, watch for them to try to have a gag order placed on the evidence. It will come out in the trial, but they will want it kept secret from the public.
Finkployd
Earlier than that my friend, IBM's mainframe operating systems were open source to an extent. Granted the number of computers in the world was barely past the triple digit mark, but many institutions and corporations (including mine, PSU) were early contributors to MVS and HASP (Which today are known as z/OS and JES2). The day that IBM switched to OCO (object code only) method of distributing their OS, rather than distributing the source, was a day that pissed off many a mainframe sysprog.
:)
Don't think that Berkley and MIT invented open source, it can be easily argued that IBM actually did. It just took them a long time to come full circle back to it
Finkployd
The FSF is a corporation. I think their contributions are more important to the community than IBM's because without the FSF there would be no community to begin with.
True, I had forgotten the FSF was a corporation.
Finkployd
Huh, maybe I'm all backwards on this then. My understanding from our HPC guys is that Apple hardware is not up to par with that they do. Were the Apple's picked due to processing speed, or software considerations?
Finkployd
No, I don't mean scientific computing. I mean high performance computing. SP clusters, Linux clusters, weather modeling, the stuff that large universities do. No offense but where I am we run significantly larger clusters than SARA has ever seen.
GCC is a great compiler, I use it daily. Better than Intel and IBM for performance (expecially FORTRAN) it is NOT. It was designed as a cross compiler and in that it shines. But it is not all things to all people.
I certainly did not flame GCC and all the people who work on it, come back down off your high horse. All I did was list some reasons why IBM may not have used GCC, one of which is that most of the HPC people I know and work with have tested it and found it to be unacceptable for what they do.
That said, I certainly can see a day when GCC IS the best performing compiler, hands down. I believe open source will eventually overtake most commercial applications due to the momentium it currently has. However it would be silly of me to say that MySQL is better than Oracle, when it clearly is not (yet).
Finkployd
Anyone else have a wilder guess?
Sunspots
Finkployd
Unless raw CPU isn't your only deciding factor (frankly once you get over 1 GHz I really don't care, I'm not sequencing DNA here :) ). For me I know it is a technically inferior processor, but being able to run OSX was worth the minor trade off in raw CPU speed I got by getting a G4.
But hey, to each his own.
Finkployd
I know everyone wants to know why they did not just contribute to GCC, but seriously people, I imagine they have their reasons.
Perhaps they wanted something done in a timly manner without waiting for the GCC people to accept their patches. Perhaps they felt a more elegant solution could be achieved by building their own compiler from scratch. Maybe they think GCC is a piece of crap (which for high performance computing, it is).
Just because IBM support open source does not mean they are obligated to do everything for the sole purpose of advancing the movement.
Finkployd
IBM has contributed more to the open source community than I would venture to guess any other corporation on earth. (think of the code, projects, money, support, etc). I would not be so quick to blast them for not doing everything under an open source license. Encourage yes, but let's be civil about this. IBM is not just blowing smoke about OSS, they have put their money, time, and products where their mouth is.
Finkployd
Why anyone would say DCOM is more graspable than J2EE is IUnknown
I would say that only because DCOM is nothing more than a watered down DCE/RPC with all the Kerberos security removed (in fact, it is wire compatible).
However not many people bothered to learn DCE/RPC so that puts me in a sad minority.
Finkployd
The rearranged the entire menu, that does not constitute "cosmetic" changes. Cosmetic changes are what they did to window borders. In the business, we refer to this kind of change as a "functional" change vs a "cosmetic".
It did not bother me, (1) I don't use windows and (2) I constantly switch between OS X, Gnome, and fluxbox so obviously I can deal with change. However many users cannot, and the change in the start menu confused them and caused some problems. Remember who windows is being designed for and marketed towards.
To bring this back on topic, wouldn't you say the differences between the start menus in XP and 9x are greater than the differences between GNOME and KDE's menus?
Finkployd
Obviously you have never compared the start menus of 9x and XP
Finkployd
Obviously you have never compared the start menus of 9x and XP.
Finkployd
Why are you talking like that?
Finkployd
I didn't want to get greedy, there are only so many points to go around.
Finkployd
vi /etc/apt/sources.list
It saddens me to think that I too consider those to be two actual words.
(one point for me for correctly using to, too, and two in one sentance)
Finkployd
Actually it is used correctly in this case. We know where openlindows.com is (hint, the name is also a location. Or uniform resource locator as we say in the biz), the author is lamenting its ties to a proprietary software company. As in "the name openlindows.com has such potential, why were you born into the family of my enemy".
So one point for you for knowing the correct usage of wherefore, minus one point for not noticing that it was actually used correctly here.
You currently have zero points. Would you like to play again (y/n) ?
Finkployd
One might say is was build with the "Unix philosophy" :) It does one thing, does it very well, and is only as complicated as it needs to be to do it.
Finkployd
Listen, this is very simple. Yes, she got third degree burns, but she did not, and this is very important, did NOT get 'charring'. That is what all the grandparent poster said.
Water does not cause 'charring'. That simply cannot happen.
Finkployd
No, their arguement hinges on the fact that no Spanish person would confuse "Nova" with "No Va". Similar to how (and this is their example) an English speaking person would not confuse "Notable" with "No Table". It is an urban myth, get over it.
:)
It always amuses me to see someone react angrily when something they have been passing off as fact to appear smarter is shown to them to be a myth
Finkployd
FAHORGANGRADS!
Coach Z, I told you to leave like an hour ago.
Finkployd