replace a car engine and you need to make a call to the vehicle registration authority in your state/country to let them know the VIN/engine number combination is different.
... we'd all be making fun of how insecure M$ is, amirite?
Incompetence with security matters means you will get owned sooner or later, whatever OS you're running. There are plenty of microsoft tools out there to secure your shit, just as there is for Linux or any of the BSDs.
No, there are plenty of preventative measures you can take, built into Windows (most of them since NT). Log in as a non-privileged user, run the built in firewall, use browser security zones, and leave UAC on so you can elevate privileges as required.
The unfortunate fact, is that the average Windows user logs in as administrator and does everything with a privileged account... which will get you into strife regardless of O/S.
Any driver that came out for Windows XP until about 2006 (and maybe later, even) supported Windows 2000 just fine. So i'm not sure where the "lacked a lot of consumer hardware support" in your comment comes from. I ran Windows 2000 since released until about 2005, the only reason I went to XP was cleartype. I then went back to 2000 when i realized that the Nvidia driver had some sort of cleartype support built in in later drivers.
Windows 2000 was a much better OS than Windows XP (as well as 98/ME) in my book. At least with the introduction of Vista there were again driver model changes to improve stability and security (and it has) - XP was just Windows 2000 for dummies.
Now, i personally hate XP with a passion, but the last XP box i ran was 100% stable. Not sure how you can be 10x as stable when you're comparing to zero crashes in a period of years...
Heh. Would prefer they got rid of the filter. I just find it amusing that I've got about 100k sites in my LAN's proxy server, and i got that done in about 15 minutes work.
Actually, it was based on number of pages in the google index, divided by the number of pages in the filter. The lottery stats are easily calculated if you care to bother.
That is good advice. If you are only able to use the GNU tools, you'll be fucked when you come across a commercial unix such as Solaris, SCO, AIX or whatever, and they're not installed by default.
By all means, install them if you like, but don't rely on them, or you'll be a pretty useless unix admin.
Yeah, and its not generally the unix way. If i'm logged into a laggy remote connection, i don't care for 10 million characters per command line, if 6 will suffice. Documentation is what man pages are for. Ohwaitasec... man pages are bad, too. I forgot. "Info" is so much better (rolls eyes).
FreeBSD ZFS support is not really production ready yet. At least thats the impression I get from the regular mentions of issues on the FreeBSD mailing lists...
Heh. They may be simple and crude, but at least they work the unix way, and the command line switches aren't shit like "--fuck-me-this-is-a-lot-of-typing"
Not really trying to promote OpenSolaris - i'm more of a FreeBSD guy. However, the comparison here was to Linux, and having been a Solaris, BSD, SCO and Linux admin... Linux is second only to SCO in the "why the fuck did they do it this way" stakes.
There's far too much different for the sake of being different in the Linux environment - ranging from command line switches, through to command outputs, to non-adoption of freely available, well tested code (eg, not adopting DTrace).
By the way, Dtrace isn't kernel only - its also the basis of "instruments" in OS X - and "instruments" rocks - even for general purpose app development using Xcode.
Anyway.. meh. I don't particularly care if people use OpenSolaris or not. Just that there are plenty of reasons Linux pisses me off, yet people are always crapping on about how its the greatest thing since sliced bread. Its a decent OS sure, but it could be so much better if many of the people developing for it stopped reinventing the wheel for the sake of reinventing the wheel...
And yeah, never claimed solaris was quick. Its not - but it does scale, and you get a pretty decent level of consistency even when the load climbs. FreeBSD is similar in that regard. Linux is not.
I ran vista since 2007 with no problems. If you can actually maintain a computer properly and don't try running it on 7+ year old hardware, with no RAM its fine. Windows 7 is the same but a little more responsive due to the improved scheduler changes.
You probably can't. I just know that back in the 2.0 days I could fire up X, run a copy of Doom/Quake in a window, and doing other stuff wouldn't result in the OS lagging like a bitch, once you turned on DMA for your IDE controller with hdparm.
Even doing "simple stuff" on a modern linux box results in the GUI lagging.
FreeBSD doesn't do that (running the same desktop environment). Windows doesn't do that. OS X, even doing a lot more in terms of window composting, etc does not do that. None of them do to anywhere near the same extent, anyway.
I use to just put it down to shitty compiled versions of KDE or whatever on most Linux distributions (linked to some dodgy library or whatever) - but the fact that there's a scheduler out there that appears to fix it, and its a widespread problem (judging by the mailing lists) leads me to believe that in reality, the current scheduler must be pretty fucked for desktop use.
I've had FreeBSD boxes running with load of 10-12+ without noticing it (happened run top because background tasks were taking a while, and gone "oh, shit, what's going on"), get a semi-recent linux box up to a load of 4-5 and you certainly notice the responsiveness drop. Back in the 2.0 days I tested Linux with load up to 13+ before as well and it handled it just fine (I remember testing that when i figured the hdparm shit out back in the day).
All of this is anecdotal, with no "proof" or benchmarks, so take it with a grain of salt, but even back in 2000 or so, responsiveness under load was a primary motivation for me to start using FreeBSD a lot more in preference to Linux.
I invite you to test some of the other OS options out there and compare for yourself... throughput may win benchmark contests, but responsiveness is what makes a good desktop experience - which is con's point...
Never said it was level. If you know shit from clay and are competent, you can run Windows in a secure manner. If you're not competent, running Linux or whatever other OS will not help you.
Um. No. Well, depending on what you want to run, but windows 7 is excellent on a notebook, if you have one thats less than 3 years old and wasn't bought by someone who was a real scrooge with RAM. I recently installed it on a Dell Latitude D510 with 1gb of ram, and it was surprisingly usable. Sure it wasn't blisteringly fast, but that machine IS about 5 years old now...
Opensolaris simply won't give you the same hardware support.
Because its scheduler doesn't suck, its stable and usable under extreme load and it has a stable ABI. Also, its not Linux (i.e., unix reinvented and fucked up in various ways for no reason other than various components "not invented here" (eg, dtrace vs kerneltrap), and is more true to the traditional UNIX way of doing things, like FreeBSD.
Linux is great and all, but after using various other UNIX for a number of years, its just "different" in many ways for no good reason at all. Sure, if you've come from a windows background its probably a godsend, but if you're from a unix background, linux probably pisses you off in many ways due to the "different for no good reason" stuff everywhere...
... and if you RTFM on hardlink migration with the new Windows 7 version of the USMT, migrating that same 650 gig of data would have probably taken *6* minutes.
Anyone want to compare to linux upgrade times perhaps? Thought not.
Hate on windows if you like, but for fucks sake, pick actual valid arguments (closed nature, lack of cross platform compatibility, minimum resource requirements, etc) - straw-man articles like these just make the open source/anti-windows movement look like a pack of idiots.
Slashdot Mirror
replace a car engine and you need to make a call to the vehicle registration authority in your state/country to let them know the VIN/engine number combination is different.
Incompetence with security matters means you will get owned sooner or later, whatever OS you're running. There are plenty of microsoft tools out there to secure your shit, just as there is for Linux or any of the BSDs.
The unfortunate fact, is that the average Windows user logs in as administrator and does everything with a privileged account... which will get you into strife regardless of O/S.
Compiled a desktop environment (including all the supporting libraries) recently? They seem to have scaled in compile time along with CPU speed.
Windows 2000 was a much better OS than Windows XP (as well as 98/ME) in my book. At least with the introduction of Vista there were again driver model changes to improve stability and security (and it has) - XP was just Windows 2000 for dummies.
Now, i personally hate XP with a passion, but the last XP box i ran was 100% stable. Not sure how you can be 10x as stable when you're comparing to zero crashes in a period of years...
The single menu bar at the top is one thing apple got right (like AmigaOS, as well).
Given that you're working for "low grade morons", what does that make you?
Heh. Would prefer they got rid of the filter. I just find it amusing that I've got about 100k sites in my LAN's proxy server, and i got that done in about 15 minutes work.
"Mum and dad investors" have another name. Sheep.
Actually, it was based on number of pages in the google index, divided by the number of pages in the filter. The lottery stats are easily calculated if you care to bother.
My bet is that it will be situation normal whether they are split or not...
By all means, install them if you like, but don't rely on them, or you'll be a pretty useless unix admin.
Yeah, and its not generally the unix way. If i'm logged into a laggy remote connection, i don't care for 10 million characters per command line, if 6 will suffice. Documentation is what man pages are for. Ohwaitasec... man pages are bad, too. I forgot. "Info" is so much better (rolls eyes).
FreeBSD ZFS support is not really production ready yet. At least thats the impression I get from the regular mentions of issues on the FreeBSD mailing lists...
ZFS in FreeBSD is hardly production ready yet.
Heh. They may be simple and crude, but at least they work the unix way, and the command line switches aren't shit like "--fuck-me-this-is-a-lot-of-typing"
There's far too much different for the sake of being different in the Linux environment - ranging from command line switches, through to command outputs, to non-adoption of freely available, well tested code (eg, not adopting DTrace).
By the way, Dtrace isn't kernel only - its also the basis of "instruments" in OS X - and "instruments" rocks - even for general purpose app development using Xcode.
Anyway.. meh. I don't particularly care if people use OpenSolaris or not. Just that there are plenty of reasons Linux pisses me off, yet people are always crapping on about how its the greatest thing since sliced bread. Its a decent OS sure, but it could be so much better if many of the people developing for it stopped reinventing the wheel for the sake of reinventing the wheel...
And yeah, never claimed solaris was quick. Its not - but it does scale, and you get a pretty decent level of consistency even when the load climbs. FreeBSD is similar in that regard. Linux is not.
I ran vista since 2007 with no problems. If you can actually maintain a computer properly and don't try running it on 7+ year old hardware, with no RAM its fine. Windows 7 is the same but a little more responsive due to the improved scheduler changes.
Even doing "simple stuff" on a modern linux box results in the GUI lagging.
FreeBSD doesn't do that (running the same desktop environment). Windows doesn't do that. OS X, even doing a lot more in terms of window composting, etc does not do that. None of them do to anywhere near the same extent, anyway.
I use to just put it down to shitty compiled versions of KDE or whatever on most Linux distributions (linked to some dodgy library or whatever) - but the fact that there's a scheduler out there that appears to fix it, and its a widespread problem (judging by the mailing lists) leads me to believe that in reality, the current scheduler must be pretty fucked for desktop use.
I've had FreeBSD boxes running with load of 10-12+ without noticing it (happened run top because background tasks were taking a while, and gone "oh, shit, what's going on"), get a semi-recent linux box up to a load of 4-5 and you certainly notice the responsiveness drop. Back in the 2.0 days I tested Linux with load up to 13+ before as well and it handled it just fine (I remember testing that when i figured the hdparm shit out back in the day).
All of this is anecdotal, with no "proof" or benchmarks, so take it with a grain of salt, but even back in 2000 or so, responsiveness under load was a primary motivation for me to start using FreeBSD a lot more in preference to Linux.
I invite you to test some of the other OS options out there and compare for yourself... throughput may win benchmark contests, but responsiveness is what makes a good desktop experience - which is con's point...
Never said it was level. If you know shit from clay and are competent, you can run Windows in a secure manner. If you're not competent, running Linux or whatever other OS will not help you.
Take GNU out of the path and just use the sun tools...
Opensolaris simply won't give you the same hardware support.
Linux is great and all, but after using various other UNIX for a number of years, its just "different" in many ways for no good reason at all. Sure, if you've come from a windows background its probably a godsend, but if you're from a unix background, linux probably pisses you off in many ways due to the "different for no good reason" stuff everywhere...
Anyone want to compare to linux upgrade times perhaps? Thought not.
Hate on windows if you like, but for fucks sake, pick actual valid arguments (closed nature, lack of cross platform compatibility, minimum resource requirements, etc) - straw-man articles like these just make the open source/anti-windows movement look like a pack of idiots.