UNREALISTIC. Windows does not have these same vulns.
So, like the fellow that found the Linux vulnerabilities, obviously you've examined the Windows source code to ensure that Windows didn't have them, thus allowing you to make a definitive statement such as the one above.
Yes, yes I know most of you hate Windows, if not Microsoft as a whole, but is it necessary to remind people of this every article?
I think that independent of hating/not hating MS/Windows, there is some real irony here that is worth recognizing. When MS publishes a detailed and quite serious specification about how to secure your computer, but ensures that, unless you take special steps, some of them highly technical (like blocking phone-home IP addresses at your router), they themselves have unfettered access to your computer.
that would make perfect sense if 1) windows wasn't clearly the better desktop environment, and 2) linux wasn't more suited to virtualizing in a terminal.
imagine if you could run linux software on windows without having to run a virtualized kernel!
Well, (1) is a matter of opinion, and I won't argue that point because at some point beyond the absolute basics it's a religious preference.
As to (2), that may be true (I can't speak to that with any authority) but why wouldn't I just run a critical Linux workflow natively in Linux? And the same applies to your concluding statement.
The thing is this: I'm not necessarily preaching conversion to Linux. If you like Windows or need Windows or perhaps even think you need Windows, do as suits you best. I'm personally happy with Linux; it does everything I need and does it well so I'll just keep doing what I'm doing.
If you're a professional, you're already using software that's far better than Audacity or Goldwav.
As a former audio professional, I don't agree 100%, nor do I disagree 100%. I came from the analog world into the digital world, and Audacity really does a surprising amount. Now, if you're mixing down 48 tracks maybe you need something else. But if you've got a final or near final stereo mix that can maybe use some tweaking or processing, Audacity will do it without skipping a beat (no pun intended).
And for amateurs it's a dream come true. So many musicians are on tight budgets and Audacity will work for them.
I did professional audio for quite a few years, and Audacity is just fine for quite a range of work. Very intuitive and easy to use, and lots of capability --- for free.
GNU/Linux is free software and runs in VirtualBox, which is also free software. What software would you end up having to buy in order to run your GNU/Linux workflow on a Windows PC?
So make the reverse argument and say, Windows runs in VirtualBox, so just run that on your Linux system if there's Windows stuff that is critical.
The answer is the same no matter which direction you go... why bother? If I have Linux critical stuff I'll just run it on Linux and save the extra bother. Likewise for Windows critical stuff. Run it on Windows.
All it takes is one piece of software that a user views as critical that doesn't have the same functionality available in Linux and the whole deal is shot as far as they're concerned.
What you say is correct, but it can also work in the other direction. I've got things on my Linux system that would be a lot of work and jumping through hoops and buying many items of software, in order to have the same things on a Windows box. And these things are critical to my own workflow.
I'll admit that my case is hardly the typical case over the entire population of computer users, but it may be at least somewhat typical for Linux users.
Windows doesn't "win" because of the type of economic argument you quoted. Windows "wins" because it has had massive semi-monopolistic promotion and a high degree of lock-in.
But anywhere else I've worked - nothing. Just tossed in sink or swim.
I had a similar experience; I went from being a top technical person into management (not given a choice either) and let's face it, I was a terrible manager, absolutely clueless. There was no training, you were just "supposed" to know what to do.
I started taking classes on my own. A couple of years later (I didn't get fired; my being a horse-manure manager didn't matter to the higher-ups) I had about 30 undergrad and grad level credits. I asked for professional training (seminars etc.) and at least the company allowed that (through indifference more than merit, but still).
Finally, I had a clue and started doing a better job. But the people I managed suffered during the interim, and there was nothing at all that was right about that.
What's the harm in reducing emissions? If we're not causing it then cutting emissions can't hurt. If we are causing it, then cutting emissions will help. Seems like a win-win to me.
You just proved that sometimes sensible things actually get posted on/. Thank you. The approach you suggest ought to satisfy most anyone... but of course it won't.
Likewise, the need to improve climate models is not a valid excuse for altogether rejecting their predictions.
I agree completely, and the goal is to continuously improve the models so that the predictions become more accurate and provide a better basis on which to base corrective action. As the poster below points out, poor models leave us at the mercy of everyone; we may need to plan for the worst-case scenario, because we can't rule it out, yet the opposition can easily build a case against it by saying the models are unreliable. But the option of just doing nothing until the models are proven to everyone's satisfaction doesn't seem very good.
The problem here is "because something is complex, we cant model it" is a new and improved kind of terminally stupid.
Yes, we can model complex systems, however that doesn't mean it's an easy task by any means, or that correct model predictions can be assumed. I spent years modeling and simulating the power grid, which is arguably less complex than climate, and that modeling was always a matter of constant tuning, refinement, and working toward making the models accord with known results so that we would have at least some confidence about predictions.
By all means we need to model climate and climate change and attempt to make rational predictions. We should be able to continuously refine our models and get better and better results. But the purpose of such modeling, similar to what we did with the power grid, is to make predictions that have reasonable credibility so that appropriate corrective actions can be taken.
What I describe is honest science and engineering, which should be completely independent of politics and generating headlines or supporting viewpoints, whether "denier" or "supporter."
It's like that dictum, "Don't tell me what I want to hear, tell me what I need to hear."
To define things better, let's say that a fair shot a "making it" means a chance to reach at least an income within a standard deviation of "average middle class" which I suppose would in turn require further definition and would be location/country dependent.
Or we can just say that people in poverty should have a fair shot at pulling themselves out of poverty. People need to have hope.
Reaching the top 1% is indeed unrealistic in the vast majority of cases.
I think I would be happy/satisfied if, unlike the way it is today, everyone simply had a fair shot at making good. Just that, a fair chance. Then it really would be on "you" to succeed or fail.
Unfortunately the studies cited by other posters about lack of upward mobility indicate that we have a long way to go to achieve this seemingly basic goal. Not free stuff for everyone, not robbing the rich to give to the poor, just --- a fair chance.
Bad things tend to happen when enough people feel that they have no hope.
I am trying to argue that while it's correct to insist that pedestrians toe the line, a major factor, namely drivers who could care less about pedestrians, is being ignored, not through lack of laws but through lack of enforcement.
The white "walk" symbol is on (at most major intersections) for only seven seconds, several of which are lost waiting for drivers to run the yellow/red, because as I said, I risk my life trying to cross right away when the light changes in my favor. After seven seconds blinking red comes on and you're not allowed to start to cross (and I don't). Kind of makes it difficult as you've only got a few seconds to truly start a safe crossing.
I live in Honolulu and walk everywhere. Honolulu has terrible stats for pedestrian-car accidents, so the solution obviously seems to be to crack down on--- pedestrians.
I obey the laws carefully, I don't text while crossing, etc., but I still need to be vigilant because running red lights and ignoring crosswalks is a huge problem. I don't dare step off the curb when the walk light first comes on, at least at most intersections, because there is always someone running the light.
Pedestrians ought to obey the laws. They ought not to text while crossing. But ignoring a major problem on the part of motorists--- running lights and ignoring crosswalks--- isn't the way to reduce fatalities.
Corrupt the user data, OTOH, and you might lose your credentials to log in to the bank, pay your electric, work remotely for your employer, etc., cost you weeks trying to rebuild your life.
What you say is completely correct, and yet anyone whose life is so dependent on their computer really needs to have layered backups that are not on the computer in question, with a very high preference for some sort of off-site location.
I realize that most people don't do this, but they may one day come to regret it. Secure multi-generation backups are really the best defense. While it's good to see MS step up their game here, there has to be a significant degree of user responsibility.
It isn't optionally put on the phone, it is put there by Google and requires rooting the phone to get rid of it.
And to the person who said I should stop complaining about smartphones, I was making an observation. There's a difference. If it came across as a complaint, then I could have expressed it better.
Yes, of course there are small companies that draw/. hate, but my point was to emphasize the hate for very successful companies. I could have been more precise about that.
I don't know the answer to your question, but it's interesting that the companies/.ers love to hate (myself included to some degree) are incredible financial successes.
With power and money, does abuse inevitably follow? We rail at all three of these tech giants, often with very good reason, but they do whatever they want, because they can, and what customers have to say doesn't generally matter very much.
Slashdot Mirror
UNREALISTIC. Windows does not have these same vulns.
So, like the fellow that found the Linux vulnerabilities, obviously you've examined the Windows source code to ensure that Windows didn't have them, thus allowing you to make a definitive statement such as the one above.
Oh, wait ....
Yes, yes I know most of you hate Windows, if not Microsoft as a whole, but is it necessary to remind people of this every article?
I think that independent of hating/not hating MS/Windows, there is some real irony here that is worth recognizing. When MS publishes a detailed and quite serious specification about how to secure your computer, but ensures that, unless you take special steps, some of them highly technical (like blocking phone-home IP addresses at your router), they themselves have unfettered access to your computer.
Linux is one of the least secure operating systems ... Microsoft is usually quickest to issue patches now.
Hey, our favorite AC is back, posting "facts" that are just as believable as ever before!
Keep up the good work, braddah. We miss you when you're not around.
that would make perfect sense if 1) windows wasn't clearly the better desktop environment, and 2) linux wasn't more suited to virtualizing in a terminal.
imagine if you could run linux software on windows without having to run a virtualized kernel!
Well, (1) is a matter of opinion, and I won't argue that point because at some point beyond the absolute basics it's a religious preference.
As to (2), that may be true (I can't speak to that with any authority) but why wouldn't I just run a critical Linux workflow natively in Linux? And the same applies to your concluding statement.
The thing is this: I'm not necessarily preaching conversion to Linux. If you like Windows or need Windows or perhaps even think you need Windows, do as suits you best. I'm personally happy with Linux; it does everything I need and does it well so I'll just keep doing what I'm doing.
The difference is that a Windows PC is more likely than a GNU/Linux PC to already have a Windows license.
Which supports my "why bother" statement; if you have something critical, run it natively, whether Windows or Linux.
If you're a professional, you're already using software that's far better than Audacity or Goldwav.
As a former audio professional, I don't agree 100%, nor do I disagree 100%. I came from the analog world into the digital world, and Audacity really does a surprising amount. Now, if you're mixing down 48 tracks maybe you need something else. But if you've got a final or near final stereo mix that can maybe use some tweaking or processing, Audacity will do it without skipping a beat (no pun intended).
And for amateurs it's a dream come true. So many musicians are on tight budgets and Audacity will work for them.
I did professional audio for quite a few years, and Audacity is just fine for quite a range of work. Very intuitive and easy to use, and lots of capability --- for free.
GNU/Linux is free software and runs in VirtualBox, which is also free software. What software would you end up having to buy in order to run your GNU/Linux workflow on a Windows PC?
So make the reverse argument and say, Windows runs in VirtualBox, so just run that on your Linux system if there's Windows stuff that is critical.
The answer is the same no matter which direction you go ... why bother? If I have Linux critical stuff I'll just run it on Linux and save the extra bother. Likewise for Windows critical stuff. Run it on Windows.
Ehh, maybe it is. I don't exactly go to eastern Europe to often, so I don't exactly know.
Didn't know Siberia had moved to Eastern Europe. I learn a lot on /.
All it takes is one piece of software that a user views as critical that doesn't have the same functionality available in Linux and the whole deal is shot as far as they're concerned.
What you say is correct, but it can also work in the other direction. I've got things on my Linux system that would be a lot of work and jumping through hoops and buying many items of software, in order to have the same things on a Windows box. And these things are critical to my own workflow.
I'll admit that my case is hardly the typical case over the entire population of computer users, but it may be at least somewhat typical for Linux users.
Windows doesn't "win" because of the type of economic argument you quoted. Windows "wins" because it has had massive semi-monopolistic promotion and a high degree of lock-in.
But anywhere else I've worked - nothing. Just tossed in sink or swim.
I had a similar experience; I went from being a top technical person into management (not given a choice either) and let's face it, I was a terrible manager, absolutely clueless. There was no training, you were just "supposed" to know what to do.
I started taking classes on my own. A couple of years later (I didn't get fired; my being a horse-manure manager didn't matter to the higher-ups) I had about 30 undergrad and grad level credits. I asked for professional training (seminars etc.) and at least the company allowed that (through indifference more than merit, but still).
Finally, I had a clue and started doing a better job. But the people I managed suffered during the interim, and there was nothing at all that was right about that.
What's the harm in reducing emissions? If we're not causing it then cutting emissions can't hurt. If we are causing it, then cutting emissions will help. Seems like a win-win to me.
You just proved that sometimes sensible things actually get posted on /. Thank you. The approach you suggest ought to satisfy most anyone ... but of course it won't.
Likewise, the need to improve climate models is not a valid excuse for altogether rejecting their predictions.
I agree completely, and the goal is to continuously improve the models so that the predictions become more accurate and provide a better basis on which to base corrective action. As the poster below points out, poor models leave us at the mercy of everyone; we may need to plan for the worst-case scenario, because we can't rule it out, yet the opposition can easily build a case against it by saying the models are unreliable. But the option of just doing nothing until the models are proven to everyone's satisfaction doesn't seem very good.
The problem here is "because something is complex, we cant model it" is a new and improved kind of terminally stupid.
Yes, we can model complex systems, however that doesn't mean it's an easy task by any means, or that correct model predictions can be assumed. I spent years modeling and simulating the power grid, which is arguably less complex than climate, and that modeling was always a matter of constant tuning, refinement, and working toward making the models accord with known results so that we would have at least some confidence about predictions.
By all means we need to model climate and climate change and attempt to make rational predictions. We should be able to continuously refine our models and get better and better results. But the purpose of such modeling, similar to what we did with the power grid, is to make predictions that have reasonable credibility so that appropriate corrective actions can be taken.
What I describe is honest science and engineering, which should be completely independent of politics and generating headlines or supporting viewpoints, whether "denier" or "supporter."
It's like that dictum, "Don't tell me what I want to hear, tell me what I need to hear."
To define things better, let's say that a fair shot a "making it" means a chance to reach at least an income within a standard deviation of "average middle class" which I suppose would in turn require further definition and would be location/country dependent.
Or we can just say that people in poverty should have a fair shot at pulling themselves out of poverty. People need to have hope.
Reaching the top 1% is indeed unrealistic in the vast majority of cases.
Emacs calc is the ultimate :) Actually it is.
I think I would be happy/satisfied if, unlike the way it is today, everyone simply had a fair shot at making good. Just that, a fair chance. Then it really would be on "you" to succeed or fail.
Unfortunately the studies cited by other posters about lack of upward mobility indicate that we have a long way to go to achieve this seemingly basic goal. Not free stuff for everyone, not robbing the rich to give to the poor, just --- a fair chance.
Bad things tend to happen when enough people feel that they have no hope.
What are you trying to argue here, anyway?
I am trying to argue that while it's correct to insist that pedestrians toe the line, a major factor, namely drivers who could care less about pedestrians, is being ignored, not through lack of laws but through lack of enforcement.
The white "walk" symbol is on (at most major intersections) for only seven seconds, several of which are lost waiting for drivers to run the yellow/red, because as I said, I risk my life trying to cross right away when the light changes in my favor. After seven seconds blinking red comes on and you're not allowed to start to cross (and I don't). Kind of makes it difficult as you've only got a few seconds to truly start a safe crossing.
I live in Honolulu and walk everywhere. Honolulu has terrible stats for pedestrian-car accidents, so the solution obviously seems to be to crack down on--- pedestrians.
I obey the laws carefully, I don't text while crossing, etc., but I still need to be vigilant because running red lights and ignoring crosswalks is a huge problem. I don't dare step off the curb when the walk light first comes on, at least at most intersections, because there is always someone running the light.
Pedestrians ought to obey the laws. They ought not to text while crossing. But ignoring a major problem on the part of motorists--- running lights and ignoring crosswalks--- isn't the way to reduce fatalities.
Corrupt the user data, OTOH, and you might lose your credentials to log in to the bank, pay your electric, work remotely for your employer, etc., cost you weeks trying to rebuild your life.
What you say is completely correct, and yet anyone whose life is so dependent on their computer really needs to have layered backups that are not on the computer in question, with a very high preference for some sort of off-site location.
I realize that most people don't do this, but they may one day come to regret it. Secure multi-generation backups are really the best defense. While it's good to see MS step up their game here, there has to be a significant degree of user responsibility.
It isn't optionally put on the phone, it is put there by Google and requires rooting the phone to get rid of it.
And to the person who said I should stop complaining about smartphones, I was making an observation. There's a difference. If it came across as a complaint, then I could have expressed it better.
Yes, of course there are small companies that draw /. hate, but my point was to emphasize the hate for very successful companies. I could have been more precise about that.
Outlook - Still waiting for someone to come out with a viable alternative.
I keep promoting Gnus/BBDB for this role, and for some reason my idea doesn't get much traction :)
I don't know the answer to your question, but it's interesting that the companies /.ers love to hate (myself included to some degree) are incredible financial successes.
With power and money, does abuse inevitably follow? We rail at all three of these tech giants, often with very good reason, but they do whatever they want, because they can, and what customers have to say doesn't generally matter very much.
I suppose this feature might be of intense interest to some, of casual interest to others, but many, such as myself, ask, "This is on my phone why?
Making phone calls on a phone has long ago become a secondary, even a tertiary, feature.