They're both XML, right? How can one take that much longer to parse?
Well, for one thing, if one stored the formatting and type face information on an as-needed basis, while the other stored it on a per-character basis, which would you expect to be quicker to parse?
(Yes, it's a facetious example, but you get the idea)
Honest question - why do you, like so many others, assume that anyone who defends MS (or $otherHatedCompany) is a shill? Is it so hard to accept that other people have different opinions, and see things differently to the majority here?
I'm not condoning or defending this particular study (although I have to admit, to me it smacks of "Company rubbishes competitor, talks up own product - film at 11"), I'm just getting a little weary of seeing all the calls of troll, shill and astroturfer levelled at anyone with an opinion that differs from that of the collective.
(And before anyone says it, yes, that goes for both sides, Linux zealots and MS weenies alike)
I'm going to be in the market for a laptop soon, and had been considering a Dell. Looks like that might change now.
Does anyone know of a manufacturer of reasonably-priced, reasonably powerful laptops available in the UK who doesn't feel the need to install lots of unnecessary cruft on them?
All I really want is the laptop, OS, and drivers. I'll add everything else myself, thanks.
Many people are going to upgrade from XP to Vista and a lot of those people have notebooks.
And the vast majority of them are going to "upgrade" by buying a new notebook. Most end users simply do not buy Windows; they buy a computer, and use whatever OS (Windows) comes with it.
If Vista doesn't run on laptops, then Microsoft will be cut out more than 50% of all new computer sales.
I guarantee that Vista will run on the laptops that ship with it.
I do not guarantee that Vista will run on any random laptop currently in use, just as I don't guarantee that any given Linux distro will run on any given laptop.
But plenty of companies do make money off of GPLed code. Using the same logic as the OP, anyone who's contributed to that code is essentially working for those companies for free.
You are propagating the bs stance that the record companies want us to swallow hook line and sinker: Because it's so easy, EVERYONE will obviously be a criminal, how could they not when it's so easy?
Do you have trouble walking past a candy rack at the variety store without slipping one in your pocket? No? Why not?
And you appear to be propagating the BS stance that copyright infringement is no different to theft.
Here in the UK, there is no "fair use" clause in our copyright law. There are specific exceptions for quoting for criticism, reference, etc, but nothing for eg format shifting. Time shifting is allowed for broadcasts, but it specifically excludes creating a "home library" of recorded broadcasts.
Technically, I am infringing copyright law by having ripped my CDs to mp3. Giving a friend a copy would definitely be infringing.
Yet, no-one cares. "Everyone" does it. This is for two reasons:
1) no-one really sees it as being wrong; most people *know* it is, but it's a back-of-the-mind kind of thing 2) it's so bloody easy, and not *really* wrong, why not do it?
So no, something being easy doesn't mean everyone will do it. The perception of "wrongness" has to be lowered too. Just like with speeding, where the majority of motorists see nothing wrong, and in fact complain loudly at increased efforts to enforce limits and catch transgressors.
there are many other programs that exist or could be written implementing the same functionality [emphasis mine]
While I agree with you broadly, that "or could be written" is the real kicker. If viable alternatives don't exist or aren't widely adopted (eg Opera is a viable alternative to Firefox, but relatively few people use it), you're still going to have a huge proportion of users vulnerable.
If a viable alternative does exist, then there's cost of switching to take into account - training users, getting someone to install it on the PCs, etc.
If a viable alternative does not exist, then you're SOL until and unless some writes one, which for a sufficiently complex application may well be never.
Monocultures of any kind, open or closed, are bad. That includes monocultures of formats, if it's a flaw in the format that's causing the problem.
Don't really have that option with Word.
Well, that's not entirely true - OpenOffice's Word support is pretty good...
Are you absolutely certain about WMP? I ask because my daughter (who most certainly does not get admin rights to my machine!) uses it sometimes to watch DVDs. Perhaps some aspects of WMP need admin rights, but most certainly not all of them do.
My mother and brother can't handle using Firefox instead of IE; I really can't see them coping with Linux rather than Windows. (My father, on the other hand, is perfectly happy with FF, as is my fiancée now that she's stuck with it for a while)
Is there a particular reason an alternate, less susceptible OS wouldn't suffice?
Blah blah only a matter of time blah blah no OS can save your machine from a rogue user with the root password blah blah.
Seriously, the vast majority of viruses and other malware are user-initiated; true worms (that exploit holes in server/daemon processes) are very rare. Linux will save you from the former only as long as it's obscure. Security through obscurity, and all that...
How will that help? So I download and install a program, and it tries to access the network. Windows pops up a dialogue warning about it, asking whether or not I should grant it permission.
So I click "yes", as obviously, it can't fetch the weather report/news headlines/stock ticker/whatever without it.
Oops, it was a trojan, and now I'm part of a zombie network.
How is the principle of least authority supposed to prevent that sort of thing?
In other words, how is it supposed to be determine what is legitimate network access (or whatever) and what is not, other than by asking the user? (And as it was the user who installed it in the first place, how on earth would that help?)
The NT line of Windows has always had privilege separation; however, third-party developers (and occasionally MS themselves) have made it very difficult to actually use it successfully. Most business apps that I've used work fine as a normal user; almost no games or other home apps do.
As you say though, priv separation won't help when users get used to typing in the admin password when prompted. It might catch unexpected software installs, but it won't catch any trojans whatsoever.
I'm sorry, I wasn't clear - Creative are moaning that when they first started talking to Apple about Apple's infringement of their patent, Apple didn't mention the patents that they are now counter-suing about.
That is what I was referring to - that Apple had no obligation to do so.
Obviously if someone is infringing on a patent you hold, you have to take action yourself, but that doesn't necessarily constitute warning them about it. You could just go straight into suing them, as Apple have essnetially done here (which is hardly a warning).
But this is the exact same thing as Beta, MD, Memory Sticks, and UMD -- all of which failed to get any support outside of Sony products.
That's not entirely true. There are third-party memory sticks available (iirc Scandisk do some, amongst others) and there were definitely third-party MD player/recorders available a few years ago (it's been that long since I cared about them; I have an iRiver now).
However, you would be correct in saying that generally, Sony formats get negligible take-up by third parties.
as the programming community behind Linux would increase proportionally, these problems would be solved faster
I ask again - what can the OS do to prevent a user with the root password from screwing up the system? Someone has to be able to install software and perform system updates. Unless you mandate that all software must be signed with one of a small number of trusted keys, how do you propose to prevent someone from writing trojans and tricking people into installing them?
since users are encouraged not to run as root, it would be harder to infect the system
And all email-borne viruses require the user to execute an attachment. Almost all these days hide inside of zip files, so that's two steps (open zip file, run contained executable). I've even seen password protected zips, with the password in the email.
Yes, users are encouraged not to run as root, but that's nothing more than a speed bump to someone who knows the root password. The ability to screw the system over is only an su or sudo away, and even now there are a number of GUI utilities that will popup a dialogue box asking for your root password when required.
All of that is irrelevant, however. As long as a user can execute an app or script as themselves, they can infect their own profile and still zombify their machine, at least for as long as they are logged in.
While it is true that most end users use their computer the same way ragardless of what OS they are using, the very fact that KDE is very in-your-face about running as root helps.
Yes it helps; I didn't say "lolololol sux0rz, Lunix is just as insecure as Windoze!!!1!11!". I said that the single biggest reason for the huge number of infected PCs is the users sat in front of them. Take the same users and sit them in front of machines running $moreSecureOS, wait, and those machines will also be compromised.
I am specifically not talking about security flaws. I am talking about the damage that can be done with a little social engineering and a user with the admin/root password. Linux cannot save you from that.
I know you're joking, but to me, 1gig really is nothing; I no longer own or use any machine with less than 2gig of RAM.
At work we needed more than a gig to run the various servers, IDEs, etc that we are currently developing against/with, while at home I was dropping a wad of cash on an upgrade and frankly, the price difference between 1 gig and 2 was negligible compared to the total cost.
I appreciate that round these parts it's cool to get $strippedDownOS running on $decadeOldHardware, but some of us just can't be doing with that sort of thing anymore.
Slashdot Mirror
They're both XML, right? How can one take that much longer to parse?
Well, for one thing, if one stored the formatting and type face information on an as-needed basis, while the other stored it on a per-character basis, which would you expect to be quicker to parse?
(Yes, it's a facetious example, but you get the idea)
Honest question - why do you, like so many others, assume that anyone who defends MS (or $otherHatedCompany) is a shill? Is it so hard to accept that other people have different opinions, and see things differently to the majority here?
I'm not condoning or defending this particular study (although I have to admit, to me it smacks of "Company rubbishes competitor, talks up own product - film at 11"), I'm just getting a little weary of seeing all the calls of troll, shill and astroturfer levelled at anyone with an opinion that differs from that of the collective.
(And before anyone says it, yes, that goes for both sides, Linux zealots and MS weenies alike)
I'm going to be in the market for a laptop soon, and had been considering a Dell. Looks like that might change now.
Does anyone know of a manufacturer of reasonably-priced, reasonably powerful laptops available in the UK who doesn't feel the need to install lots of unnecessary cruft on them?
All I really want is the laptop, OS, and drivers. I'll add everything else myself, thanks.
In the space of about 2 months, I've seen (new!) RAM die in 5 different PCs (only one of which was mine, fortunately).
In contrast, I've seen maybe 2 hard drive failures in 9 years of owning a PC.
Hence he said "However, your burden of proof of having the contract is high" - you do have to be able to prove that the contract existed.
Many people are going to upgrade from XP to Vista and a lot of those people have notebooks.
And the vast majority of them are going to "upgrade" by buying a new notebook. Most end users simply do not buy Windows; they buy a computer, and use whatever OS (Windows) comes with it.
Just as some C programmers are terrible and write bloated, exploit-ridden programs.
So what? It's possible to write shit code in any language.
If Vista doesn't run on laptops, then Microsoft will be cut out more than 50% of all new computer sales.
I guarantee that Vista will run on the laptops that ship with it.
I do not guarantee that Vista will run on any random laptop currently in use, just as I don't guarantee that any given Linux distro will run on any given laptop.
But plenty of companies do make money off of GPLed code. Using the same logic as the OP, anyone who's contributed to that code is essentially working for those companies for free.
You pay MS if you wish to continue using the tool after the trial period expires.
So what?
No-one is going to be forced to pay anything.
You are propagating the bs stance that the record companies want us to swallow hook line and sinker: Because it's so easy, EVERYONE will obviously be a criminal, how could they not when it's so easy?
Do you have trouble walking past a candy rack at the variety store without slipping one in your pocket? No? Why not?
And you appear to be propagating the BS stance that copyright infringement is no different to theft.
Here in the UK, there is no "fair use" clause in our copyright law. There are specific exceptions for quoting for criticism, reference, etc, but nothing for eg format shifting. Time shifting is allowed for broadcasts, but it specifically excludes creating a "home library" of recorded broadcasts.
Technically, I am infringing copyright law by having ripped my CDs to mp3. Giving a friend a copy would definitely be infringing.
Yet, no-one cares. "Everyone" does it. This is for two reasons:
1) no-one really sees it as being wrong; most people *know* it is, but it's a back-of-the-mind kind of thing
2) it's so bloody easy, and not *really* wrong, why not do it?
So no, something being easy doesn't mean everyone will do it. The perception of "wrongness" has to be lowered too. Just like with speeding, where the majority of motorists see nothing wrong, and in fact complain loudly at increased efforts to enforce limits and catch transgressors.
there are many other programs that exist or could be written implementing the same functionality [emphasis mine]
While I agree with you broadly, that "or could be written" is the real kicker. If viable alternatives don't exist or aren't widely adopted (eg Opera is a viable alternative to Firefox, but relatively few people use it), you're still going to have a huge proportion of users vulnerable.
If a viable alternative does exist, then there's cost of switching to take into account - training users, getting someone to install it on the PCs, etc.
If a viable alternative does not exist, then you're SOL until and unless some writes one, which for a sufficiently complex application may well be never.
Monocultures of any kind, open or closed, are bad. That includes monocultures of formats, if it's a flaw in the format that's causing the problem.
Don't really have that option with Word.
Well, that's not entirely true - OpenOffice's Word support is pretty good...
Who said that? Is someone there?!
The longer answer would be nice - you know, back up that assertion with some corroborated facts.
Are you absolutely certain about WMP? I ask because my daughter (who most certainly does not get admin rights to my machine!) uses it sometimes to watch DVDs. Perhaps some aspects of WMP need admin rights, but most certainly not all of them do.
My mother and brother can't handle using Firefox instead of IE; I really can't see them coping with Linux rather than Windows. (My father, on the other hand, is perfectly happy with FF, as is my fiancée now that she's stuck with it for a while)
Is there a particular reason an alternate, less susceptible OS wouldn't suffice?
Blah blah only a matter of time blah blah no OS can save your machine from a rogue user with the root password blah blah.
Seriously, the vast majority of viruses and other malware are user-initiated; true worms (that exploit holes in server/daemon processes) are very rare. Linux will save you from the former only as long as it's obscure. Security through obscurity, and all that...
(Cue over-rated and troll mods)
If you're worried about dying as a result of a terrorist attack, you must be absolutely petrified of dying in a road traffic accident.
How will that help? So I download and install a program, and it tries to access the network. Windows pops up a dialogue warning about it, asking whether or not I should grant it permission.
So I click "yes", as obviously, it can't fetch the weather report/news headlines/stock ticker/whatever without it.
Oops, it was a trojan, and now I'm part of a zombie network.
How is the principle of least authority supposed to prevent that sort of thing?
In other words, how is it supposed to be determine what is legitimate network access (or whatever) and what is not, other than by asking the user? (And as it was the user who installed it in the first place, how on earth would that help?)
The NT line of Windows has always had privilege separation; however, third-party developers (and occasionally MS themselves) have made it very difficult to actually use it successfully. Most business apps that I've used work fine as a normal user; almost no games or other home apps do.
As you say though, priv separation won't help when users get used to typing in the admin password when prompted. It might catch unexpected software installs, but it won't catch any trojans whatsoever.
I'm sorry, I wasn't clear - Creative are moaning that when they first started talking to Apple about Apple's infringement of their patent, Apple didn't mention the patents that they are now counter-suing about.
That is what I was referring to - that Apple had no obligation to do so.
Obviously if someone is infringing on a patent you hold, you have to take action yourself, but that doesn't necessarily constitute warning them about it. You could just go straight into suing them, as Apple have essnetially done here (which is hardly a warning).
But this is the exact same thing as Beta, MD, Memory Sticks, and UMD -- all of which failed to get any support outside of Sony products.
That's not entirely true. There are third-party memory sticks available (iirc Scandisk do some, amongst others) and there were definitely third-party MD player/recorders available a few years ago (it's been that long since I cared about them; I have an iRiver now).
However, you would be correct in saying that generally, Sony formats get negligible take-up by third parties.
Since when is it the patent holder's responsibility to warn others that they are infringing on their patents?
Believe me, I speak from experience - VISA can be a real killer. You should see my credit card balance...
as the programming community behind Linux would increase proportionally, these problems would be solved faster
I ask again - what can the OS do to prevent a user with the root password from screwing up the system? Someone has to be able to install software and perform system updates. Unless you mandate that all software must be signed with one of a small number of trusted keys, how do you propose to prevent someone from writing trojans and tricking people into installing them?
since users are encouraged not to run as root, it would be harder to infect the system
And all email-borne viruses require the user to execute an attachment. Almost all these days hide inside of zip files, so that's two steps (open zip file, run contained executable). I've even seen password protected zips, with the password in the email.
Yes, users are encouraged not to run as root, but that's nothing more than a speed bump to someone who knows the root password. The ability to screw the system over is only an su or sudo away, and even now there are a number of GUI utilities that will popup a dialogue box asking for your root password when required.
All of that is irrelevant, however. As long as a user can execute an app or script as themselves, they can infect their own profile and still zombify their machine, at least for as long as they are logged in.
While it is true that most end users use their computer the same way ragardless of what OS they are using, the very fact that KDE is very in-your-face about running as root helps.
Yes it helps; I didn't say "lolololol sux0rz, Lunix is just as insecure as Windoze!!!1!11!". I said that the single biggest reason for the huge number of infected PCs is the users sat in front of them. Take the same users and sit them in front of machines running $moreSecureOS, wait, and those machines will also be compromised.
I am specifically not talking about security flaws. I am talking about the damage that can be done with a little social engineering and a user with the admin/root password. Linux cannot save you from that.
I know you're joking, but to me, 1gig really is nothing; I no longer own or use any machine with less than 2gig of RAM.
At work we needed more than a gig to run the various servers, IDEs, etc that we are currently developing against/with, while at home I was dropping a wad of cash on an upgrade and frankly, the price difference between 1 gig and 2 was negligible compared to the total cost.
I appreciate that round these parts it's cool to get $strippedDownOS running on $decadeOldHardware, but some of us just can't be doing with that sort of thing anymore.