Compared to Windows 2000 it might have been a downgrade (and some people I know still think it is), but compared to Windows ME? The only Windows at that time that could compete with XP was 98SE, and that was because 98SE had more drivers available and less hardware requirements. But still XP had some major improvements like real multi user support, including switching users.
Does Vista carry any improvements except eye candy? I heard that security was supposed to be better. Is that the case?
Just recently I went to a LAN. I took my Warcraft 3 install with me (installed under Debian in Wine) and just copied the folder to everyones machine. I was surprised to find that one had Vist on it, and thought it wouldn't work.
But not only Warcraft 3, but all other games we tried that night didn't cause any problems with Vista. We had all kinds of games, old and new.
The point is that even with XP many games made for 9x don't work anymore. Same with Dos and Windows 9x. So with old games your success rate with Wine and Dosbox should be higher than with Vista of course. Not only games, but also many apps. This makes Wine so important for legacy apps and I am very happy to have it.
Point being that serious (not casual) gamers like to play current games. And those games run under Vista. You also need recent graphics hardware that has better support under Windows. The question to debate would be if current games run better under Vista or XP.
No seriously, by now there are sooo many programs for KDE for every possible use. I just checked for a gui program for creating bibtex files: kbibtex was the first one I stumbled over. KDE 4 will run under OSX as well as Windows. Personally I also dislike the MS Office / OpenOffice.org approach to Office tasks. OpenOffice.org might be great for people coming from MS Office, but I rather like the KOffice way of doing stuff. Though there are a couple features I am still missing.
The user also doesn't care about the os their programs and their guis are running on. They only care about what they are looking at while using the programs they want to use. So I think it is rather KDE vs. Gnome vs. Luna vs. (whatever Apple calls their desktop) vs. "that new thing in Vista.
Now seriously. Microsoft always says that Windows is not a monopoly, but a standard and that the PC is so successful, because there is just one standard: Microsoft Windows. And now they want to establish two standards for documents, where it makes *much* less sense to have more than one?
What you are writing about is how it *should* work.
But many people are happy doing the same stuff over and over again and feel secure in it. They are into informal company politics and will fight you to the death if you as much as threaten the "status quo" in that respect.
You will come across those people at some point in your live. Maybe even in that very company. Maybe not in the IT department, because you have many young people there.
The summary is a bit misleading. What is weighting down most Windows systems today ist Adware. Some would consider this malware.
Since a lot of the software for Linux is free and a distro tries to "sell" more units (have more downloads or be more popular) by having loads and loads of software Linux distros usually also come with tons of software installed the the user may never use.
There is also tons of quality freeware available for Windows (I only buy games or tax software, since everything else is for free, even if I work on a Windows box). If Microsoft would allow the sale of derivative works of Windows as "distros" with an easy installer there would also be many distributors selling custom versions of Windows with extra software installed that wouldn't be malware, but quality freeware (or software they bought cheaper in bulk quantities).
Actually Linux ist Linux, but this is only interesting to people that build computers or that need to solve hardware issues. What the enduser finally will see is either KDE, Gnome or Xfce. Ubuntu only uses Gnome (for KDE there is Kubuntu) with the Ubuntu theme. So for the user, or the majority of people, they will support Ubuntu/"the brownish Gnome thingy"/"the brown operating system"
What is the difference between using anyBSD desktop and Linux desktop if you use default KDE? KDE4 even started to support Windows, so we will see a day when the end user won't be able to see a difference in BSD/Linux/Windows. They will only see their "K"-Desktop. And, of course, the theme you installed for them. So better stay with the theme if you don't want your users to cry out that you changed the damn operating system again.
Could be that he made an error and included stuff that wasn't his to decide over. The entitiy that owns those parts of the code can do whatever they wish with their code. Like SCO, when they tried to argue that some of their code went into the Linux kernel. In the end I guess none of their code went into the kernel.
What they should do is identify the parts that were not his parts.
They can't be held liable, because they can't support a different product than the one they sold. If you break your car yourself, why should the carmaker be held liable.
BUT: Apple knew that a lot of people used a specific hack on the phone to "unlock" it. And while testing they found out that their upgrade would "brick" those phones. They could have changed the upgrade so it wouldn't "brick" the unlocked phones, but they chose not to. Now they were even able to "unbrick" those phones.
To me this looks more like a plan. Apple wanted to communicate to their users: "Only use our products as we intended or we will simply break them." And now that the users got the message they play good cop and "unbrick" them for the users, so that the now "good" users will keep on purchasing Apple products, but will never try to use them in any way other than the intended one again.
Many people define hackers as people that use products in other ways than the producers intended (and/or find more/new ways to use a certai product by playing around with it). It used to be that the overwhelming majority on/. was made up of a crowd of exactly those people. And they have every right to be furious at Apple. After all Apple uses a lot of code in their products that was written by those hackers.
I guess now many people on/. just "do as Jobs says".
So let's give the sprinters some freakin' bikes, cause they get only out of it what they put into it. Looks like you are the one that is clueless here.
Well, actually I use Debian, but I happen to believe in diversity as a way to fight large automated attacks. Let the fileformats be standarized, but the implementations diverse. If 60% use Windows, 10% Apple and the rest goes Amiga and different flavours of Linux I think the internet would be a much safer place against those automated massive attacks.
Being so unpopular, that even malware writers didn't bother used to be the key to Mac security for so long. That advantage now sits with Desktop Ubuntu. There won't be a question for an administrator's password.
Maybe one System is more secure than the other, maybe one company manages to get patches out the door faster than the other (though I do like the fact that I don't have to rely on one single company for the delivery of patches), but nobody is immune to zero day attacks.
I don't fly frequently, but when I do I always check out what connectors they have available. I have never seen anything that could possibly by a power connector. Maybe first class, since I don't fly that way.
Lost stuff on ReiserFS (when it was supposed to be stable for a long time) and ext3 crapped out on one of my friends servers so bad we had to ditch the whole thing about 1 1/2 years ago.
XFS was the only thing that I never had a problem with. How old is that thing? Has BSD ever changed their default filesystem?
Slashdot Mirror
Compared to Windows 2000 it might have been a downgrade (and some people I know still think it is), but compared to Windows ME? The only Windows at that time that could compete with XP was 98SE, and that was because 98SE had more drivers available and less hardware requirements. But still XP had some major improvements like real multi user support, including switching users.
Does Vista carry any improvements except eye candy? I heard that security was supposed to be better. Is that the case?
This is a good one, and becomes truer every year. In that sence every year is the year of desktop Linux.
Not only the conservatives can make a point on principle. Is that the same thing with Ron Paul.
And what about the Green party? In 2000 with Al Gore IIRC, they had the same thing. And what we got was W.
Just recently I went to a LAN. I took my Warcraft 3 install with me (installed under Debian in Wine) and just copied the folder to everyones machine. I was surprised to find that one had Vist on it, and thought it wouldn't work.
But not only Warcraft 3, but all other games we tried that night didn't cause any problems with Vista. We had all kinds of games, old and new.
The point is that even with XP many games made for 9x don't work anymore. Same with Dos and Windows 9x. So with old games your success rate with Wine and Dosbox should be higher than with Vista of course. Not only games, but also many apps. This makes Wine so important for legacy apps and I am very happy to have it.
Point being that serious (not casual) gamers like to play current games. And those games run under Vista. You also need recent graphics hardware that has better support under Windows. The question to debate would be if current games run better under Vista or XP.
No seriously, by now there are sooo many programs for KDE for every possible use. I just checked for a gui program for creating bibtex files: kbibtex was the first one I stumbled over. KDE 4 will run under OSX as well as Windows. Personally I also dislike the MS Office / OpenOffice.org approach to Office tasks. OpenOffice.org might be great for people coming from MS Office, but I rather like the KOffice way of doing stuff. Though there are a couple features I am still missing.
The user also doesn't care about the os their programs and their guis are running on. They only care about what they are looking at while using the programs they want to use. So I think it is rather KDE vs. Gnome vs. Luna vs. (whatever Apple calls their desktop) vs. "that new thing in Vista.
... that there are so many to choose from.
Now seriously. Microsoft always says that Windows is not a monopoly, but a standard and that the PC is so successful, because there is just one standard: Microsoft Windows. And now they want to establish two standards for documents, where it makes *much* less sense to have more than one?
2008 will be the year of desktop Linux.
What you are writing about is how it *should* work.
But many people are happy doing the same stuff over and over again and feel secure in it. They are into informal company politics and will fight you to the death if you as much as threaten the "status quo" in that respect.
You will come across those people at some point in your live. Maybe even in that very company. Maybe not in the IT department, because you have many young people there.
The summary is a bit misleading. What is weighting down most Windows systems today ist Adware. Some would consider this malware.
Since a lot of the software for Linux is free and a distro tries to "sell" more units (have more downloads or be more popular) by having loads and loads of software Linux distros usually also come with tons of software installed the the user may never use.
There is also tons of quality freeware available for Windows (I only buy games or tax software, since everything else is for free, even if I work on a Windows box). If Microsoft would allow the sale of derivative works of Windows as "distros" with an easy installer there would also be many distributors selling custom versions of Windows with extra software installed that wouldn't be malware, but quality freeware (or software they bought cheaper in bulk quantities).
Windows XP SP3 will be out later this year, so we can expect XP to "still be chugging along merrily" for quite some time.
Actually Linux ist Linux, but this is only interesting to people that build computers or that need to solve hardware issues. What the enduser finally will see is either KDE, Gnome or Xfce. Ubuntu only uses Gnome (for KDE there is Kubuntu) with the Ubuntu theme. So for the user, or the majority of people, they will support Ubuntu/"the brownish Gnome thingy"/"the brown operating system"
What is the difference between using anyBSD desktop and Linux desktop if you use default KDE? KDE4 even started to support Windows, so we will see a day when the end user won't be able to see a difference in BSD/Linux/Windows. They will only see their "K"-Desktop. And, of course, the theme you installed for them. So better stay with the theme if you don't want your users to cry out that you changed the damn operating system again.
Could be that he made an error and included stuff that wasn't his to decide over. The entitiy that owns those parts of the code can do whatever they wish with their code. Like SCO, when they tried to argue that some of their code went into the Linux kernel. In the end I guess none of their code went into the kernel.
What they should do is identify the parts that were not his parts.
Seems like they are finally waking up to the competition, though it doesn't look like Linux, but more like XP. :-(
Didn't this happen before with Win98 -> WinME -> WinXP ?
Except that WinME is now called Vista
The article includes two screenshots with gold stats:
214748g / 2s / 89c
214748g / 36s / 46c
Maybe the guy that wrote the article got the numbers wrong.
They can't be held liable, because they can't support a different product than the one they sold. If you break your car yourself, why should the carmaker be held liable.
/. was made up of a crowd of exactly those people. And they have every right to be furious at Apple. After all Apple uses a lot of code in their products that was written by those hackers.
/. just "do as Jobs says".
BUT: Apple knew that a lot of people used a specific hack on the phone to "unlock" it. And while testing they found out that their upgrade would "brick" those phones.
They could have changed the upgrade so it wouldn't "brick" the unlocked phones, but they chose not to. Now they were even able to "unbrick" those phones.
To me this looks more like a plan. Apple wanted to communicate to their users: "Only use our products as we intended or we will simply break them." And now that the users got the message they play good cop and "unbrick" them for the users, so that the now "good" users will keep on purchasing Apple products, but will never try to use them in any way other than the intended one again.
Many people define hackers as people that use products in other ways than the producers intended (and/or find more/new ways to use a certai product by playing around with it). It used to be that the overwhelming majority on
I guess now many people on
I guess Trolltech believes that this is true. And they can pay expensive lawyers.
Ahm, Reagan?
(Iran-Contra, Grenada, spending)
Wait for a couple years. I bet Bush will be remembered as the guy guided by god and not by opinion polls. And Jeb will succeed him in 2016 or 2020.
So let's give the sprinters some freakin' bikes, cause they get only out of it what they put into it. Looks like you are the one that is clueless here.
First thing that came to my mind was that dreadful island. I listened to the audio book and it was very scary at some points.
Well, actually I use Debian, but I happen to believe in diversity as a way to fight large automated attacks. Let the fileformats be standarized, but the implementations diverse. If 60% use Windows, 10% Apple and the rest goes Amiga and different flavours of Linux I think the internet would be a much safer place against those automated massive attacks.
Popularity.
Being so unpopular, that even malware writers didn't bother used to be the key to Mac security for so long. That advantage now sits with Desktop Ubuntu. There won't be a question for an administrator's password.
Maybe one System is more secure than the other, maybe one company manages to get patches out the door faster than the other (though I do like the fact that I don't have to rely on one single company for the delivery of patches), but nobody is immune to zero day attacks.
Popularity grows, so it becomes an interesting target.
For the people that went Mac for security reasons. Welcome to Ubuntu, comes preinstalled here:
http://dell.com/ubuntu
I don't fly frequently, but when I do I always check out what connectors they have available. I have never seen anything that could possibly by a power connector. Maybe first class, since I don't fly that way.
This could only have been meant to be funny.
Modding it Interesting is probabely also a joke by the moderators.
(I know that fusion produces helium, atom by atom)
Funny, same thing here.
Lost stuff on ReiserFS (when it was supposed to be stable for a long time) and ext3 crapped out on one of my friends servers so bad we had to ditch the whole thing about 1 1/2 years ago.
XFS was the only thing that I never had a problem with. How old is that thing? Has BSD ever changed their default filesystem?