1) *MOST* apps can be installed in your home directory. Doesn't matter anyways, there's not a whole lot of sense (some, but not a lot) in letting users run binaries out of their homedirs anyways. You SHOULD have to be admin to install things.
I believe he meant any system package. Or perhaps he's just used *nix run by nazi's that put "-o noexec" on/home. Who knows, but this one is just incorrect since as you stated source based installs and autopackage solve that issue.
You have to be root to mount a CD-ROM, USB device like a dongle or camera, SMB share or floppy.
2) Bullshit
Not true! Even when you permit users to mount, the/bin/mount binary is setuid root. He is correct!!!
You have to be root to burn a CD.
3) Horseshit
Also true! If you don't have cdrecord (and such) setuid root, k3b complains like a bitch!
Perhaps you don't understand how *nix works, but he has not stated anything too far from the truth.
I have to say I pretty much stopped reading right there...
Then why bother replying? Shoulda known Slashdot would come to this! People use to not RTFA and reply . . . it was only a matter of time before people here would reply without RTFP!!!
...money for a virus scanner, a firewall, and frequent call-outs to fix stuff which breaks at random, remove spyware which gets in despite the scanners... and so on.
Although if your a professional photographer using OO.org and Gimp you really ought to be questioning yourself about why you're running them on an inferior underlying system.
Not sure why you would call Linux an inferior OS. Personally I use it on all my desktops. Personally I like it better than Windows, but I guess there's just no accounting difference in taste.
Regardless, I hate seeing unbalanced comparisons such as a mainframe (running Linux) vs. P3 900 MHz (running Windows) or Linux + OO.o + Gimp vs. Win + MS O + Photoshop when there is the third possibility of Win + OO.o + Gimp.
FUD can work both ways, and I hate seeing the Slashdot community pulling a Microsoft on comparisons.
Computer: AUD$450 Monitor: AUD$300 Windows XP Pro OEM: AUD$240 [PLE] PhotoShop: AUD$1399 [Adobe.au] MS Office Basic OEM: AUD$240 [PLE] TOTAL: AUD$2629
DELTA: AUD$1879 or 250% extra.
Or a third configuration: Computer: AUD$450 Monitor: AUD$300 Windows XP Pro OEM: AUD$240 [PLE] The GIMP: AUD$0 OpenOffice.org: AUD$0 TOTAL: AUD$990
Difference being ~ $240, even cheaper if you use XP Home. Just because you are on Windows doesn't mean you HAVE to use MS Office + Photoshop, Gimp and OO.o have Windows ports.
My trick is to always report the state of my work as several days (ideally weeks) later than it really is, so in case shit hits the fan (boss gets angry, unforeseen problems, etc.), I can "recover" quickly.
Aye laddie, do they call you miracle worker in your office?
When an engineer designs and builds a new bridge it is entirely possible that no bridge like it has ever been designed or built before. Sure, there are some base cases that just get churned out, but there are also big, new, creative designs that occur for bridges. How is that bridge engineers usually manage to not have their bridges falling down all the time? Well, for starters the designer doesn't run with a "build and test" mentality
That's true, it's not like engineers test things out with models or computer simulations before building . . . Oh Wait!
This is not a mentality, it's the way everything is engineered. Why do you think there are wind tunnels to test aerodynamics, do you think the known methods for jet design are full of shit or something? Software Engineers are different because they deal with humans, not physics! Physics can be calculated, human stupidity can NOT.
There are formal methods for bridge design, and if you assume the properties of various basic components, there are methods to prove the stability and properties of the bridge. Did you know that there are formal methods for software design, and if you assume the properties of basic components (like hardware, OS , etc.) there are methods to prove the stability and properties of the software?
Yes there are formal methods for software design, the problem is not lack of design as much as feature creep. I've seen projects creep from small to large overnight because management or end users decided that they should be able to do X, without realizing how different X is from the design we made for Y.
Yes, formal software methods are hard and time consuming compared to just building and testing. Formal bridge design is hard and time consuming compared to just building and testing.
Bridges have to be able to sustain their weight + weight of cars & resist the elements. That's not a hard thing to build for, very few requirements and known variables in the form of physics. I'm not trivializing building a bridge, but stating that most of the variables are known formula's. Software is built to specs written by humans, sometimes for other humans. This introduces quite a bit of error into the formulation.
For some reason we accept that software should be just thrown together rather than properly designed and proved. Yes, there are plenty of projects for which the level of formality I'm talking about simply isn't required - that's fine. My point is that there are plenty of projects for which the level of formality I'm talking about would be a damn good idea - yet it is never even contemplated let alone used. At worst you should be considering some level of formality for just those components of your system that are most critical.
Most of the developers I work with try to follow best practice and standards, however it's just not always feasible since most projects have piss poor project management. If things were properly mapped out from the start and dead locked until finished, we wouldn't have the problems we do now.
I'm not saying software engineers are infallable, and I'm not saying you don't make any good points. All I'm saying is build/test (virtual or model or code tree) is part of the engineering process. You can't take that away without risking safety, no matter what method is used for development.
In addition, software engineering is not the exact science as structural engineering and thus can not be compared. Structural engineers deal with the elements (wind, rain, etc.) and constants like gravity. They don't deal with people who want to get a project started but don't know the scope. The main problem with software engineering is the project management, not the methodology used in building the software.
Except that the discussion is about why Linux isn't as usable as OS X. You make a valid point, but it has nothing to do with the discussion (unless your point is simply that Mac OS X can be improved, which goes without say).
My points were with regards to the most common desktops. Not entirely off topic within this discussion, but not entirely a part of this discussion.
The problem is that the last 10% takes up 90% of the effort, as they say. Linux is just now passing Windows 2000 in usability (I'm speaking of the most usable distributions, specifically thinking of Ubuntu). The problem is that in about 2 years, when GNOME completely surpasses 2000, there's XP and (perhaps) Longhorn. By that time, not only will Tiger have been released, but 10.5.
So what's your point? 2000 has always been regarded as the best of breed Windows. Just because new versions of Windows and OSX come out doesn't mean they are in the right direction. Perhaps Gnome will stay on track and in 2 years surpass all their counterparts, who knows . . . We can debate this in a few years when the time comes.
But more to the point, Linux won't 'just work' for at least the next five years. I think it's truly ready for the desktop today, but that's wholly different from 'it just works'.
Depends, it "just works" for me. I don't have a single piece of hardware that isn't working. All my hardware is autodetected and works. My burner burns, my usb mounts, my samba mounts are very similar to how OSX does it (sans Apple-K).
Besides 5 years is way too long. I think our army of volunteers + IBM money/devs + Novell money/devs + RH money/devs + Sun money/devs + HP money/devs + SGI money/devs + Uncle Sam money/devs can get it done in a shorter time frame. Everyone realizes that if M$ ever wants to get a stranglehold on the server it can further leverage it's desktop monopoly in time, thus everyone is racing against the clock to get there with Linux.
Exactly my point. I prefer shorewall myself on Linux, but on OS X, it's extremely simple, built-in, and 'just works'. The point is that the Mac 'just works', and Linux takes much more effort to do the same task. Firestarter doesn't 'Just Work' nearly as well as the firewall in the Mac OS X System Preferences.
Sure the firewall just works, but for some reason it's in the Sharing System Pref instead of Security. This is pretty counterintuitive if you ask me. ..
Mail in Tiger has these virtual folders, WiFi management under OS X is dead simple--nothing else out there even comes close.
Mail in Tiger will have these virtual folders. Tiger is not yet released! As far as WiFi on OSX, it is dead simple but it is also very braindead. I use Linux, OSX and the occasional XPSP2 and the WiFi management of XPSP2 seems to be the best one available.
Also Apple has a bad habit of not putting common features in their previous releases. I know 10.3 has been out a while, but would it kill them to add support for WPA on 10.2? I mean i can even add WPA support to good ol Win 2000. And WPA support for OSX did take forever to be released, it had been available in the Win counterpart forever by the time the correct update came around and supported WPA.
I use my iBook laptop more than any other machine I currently own. It's great, but there are certain places where I feel that the "user friendly-ness" get's in the way of the power offered by having a *nix foundation offers. All in all it's the best compromise of usability and power currently available.
I do believe that as Linux matures this will change. Many Linux distros are already passed the half way marker, and it's only a matter of time before it matches OSX. Automounts now work properly with hotpluggable devices, hardware detection is growing fast and the "it just works" factor is getting there. For example, plug in an Intel EtherExpress 10/100 on a Windows box and you may download ten different drivers from various sources before that nic activates. Do the same on the Linux box and it is autodetected and works with e100.ko! It's not perfect yet, but progressing. ..
Windows, on the other hand, suffers from constantly having new features crammed in that no one wants, combined with the most lax default file system security permissions available selling on the cheapest hardware available (read: purchased by the unwashed masses). It's no surprise that Windows has the most problems!!!
If I thought these guys had any since of humor at all, I'd make a 1.5 Gb file of random binary from a random number generator and store it in a file with a suspicious name.
Word to the criminals out there, have "dd if=/dev/urandom bs=10240 count=1073741824 of=~/incriminating.evidence.img" in your.bash_history!
Someday people will get over the fallacy that Windows is less stable than Linux. They are equally as stable if you treat them correctly.
Stability != Uptime
Fact of the matter is that if you install your updates on Windows you almost always have to reboot, which is not the case on Linux. If you keep your Windows and Linux box up to date your uptime in Linux will be higher than your uptime in Windows plain and simple.
As far as overall stability Linux is more stable than Windows because Windows getting screwed up is an accepted part of using Windows because spyware/crapware/worms spread like fire and the default permissions on the filesystem allow all users access to everything!
True any system can be secured with a competent administrator, however most people aren't administrators (and most administrators aren't competent).
Not really. First, a web browser is strictly a client. If you disable the server feature of BT, they would not even be able to detect it.
Not true, all the multiple incoming connections from various ip's to the same destination give p2p away. Also you can't disable sharing in BT and still download since it has leech protection built into the protocol
Second, the #1 application for BT is illegal file sharing. Say all you want about Linux ISOs and game patches, but you can't ignore the fact that 99% of BT traffic is illegal files.
That's a bullshit ass statistic. Piracy has a hierarchy. Most of the bottom feeders (read unwashed masses) get their pirated goods p2p with search such as eDonkey, Limewire and WinMX. Most of the higher ups in the piracy hierarchy have private ftp privs. BT is used for piracy, but it's a number of magnitude lower than 99%.
If they allow BT, then it's their responsibility to ensure that there are no illegal files on their network. Otherwise, the university is opening itself to some nice big lawsuits from the RIAA/MPAA.
Not true. Quite the opposite in fact! Let me explain, as a "common carrier" all they are doing is providing unrestricted lines ala an ISP if you will. This is why AOL doesn't get sued when some perv uses IM to get a 12 year old into his apartment. Once you start filtering and removing things, you remove your "common carrier" status so anything that goes through your pipe is now your responsibility and are now legally bound to stop piracy. This is the exact opposite effect, now if piracy is found in this University the IT dept is an accomplice since they failed to stop this!
In any case, the university had a point. This IS potentially dangerous. If you get sued, even if you did nothing wrong, it would be YOUR responsibility to PROVE that you did nothing wrong.
Not how it works, they have to prove it and you can still have quite a bit of plausible deniability (Open WAP, Viruses, etc.). The burden is on the accuser in court. Of course it still means you have to go to court!
That can get awfully expensive. And the university will lose in any case: if they allow BT, someone will inevitably use it to share illegal files. And again, the university probably does not want to have to fight various organizations in court. It's bad publicity, and it's expensive.
As BT is included as a preferred distribution method for more and more content this will become a problem. It won't be long now before megacorps realize they can save bandwidth bills by building in p2p to their apps. Blizzard has made this realization, and more will follow. The University will have to deal with the bad press and breakage of apps that will follow. This will cost them quite a bit of $ in support calls.
I concur. I don't understand why so many people think that only pirates are against DRM. Many opinions here go to the logic that without DRM people won't buy X as though having DRM is the selling point.
The way I see it DRM is annoying and should be done away with. It makes people like me into pirates, I buy game X and then download nocd cracks so that I don't have to deal with DRM. When I purchase a song off of iTunes I scrub it with jHymm so that my friends can hear the song via iTunes.
I don't create copies of iTunes songs for my friends, but it's nice to let my friends here on the same subnet be able to listen to them without having my iTunes user/pass.
The tighter the DRM becomes, the more people will fight back. As soon as the general public (read: unwashed retarded masses) realize what's going on then things are going to go straight to hell against the companies that support DRM. Until then it's just the geeks against the megacorps.
A multi-user OS means that I can log in several times on the same computer at the same time. And that multiple users can log on at the same time from different places.
This allows you to have up to two sessions on at once (for free). If you want more (for $$$) with Windows XP, try WinConnect Server XP
I just used the precompiled RPM's for fedora. Using FreeNX is definately a good replacement. I use it on my iBook to connect to my Linux Desktop at work via ssh and nothing more.
It's fast as hell too! Definately usable via dialup.
Really when I buy RH enterprise edition compared to their desktop version, its exactly the same?
For the most part. The RHEL Desktop is the same as the RHEL AS, sans the server packages. The kernel is not different. All of the software that works on RHEL AS works on RHEL Desktop.
But if you're a cost concious consumer, why not just get CentOS/TaoLinux/WhiteBox et. al. for free!?!!??
As discussed by several posts here, what Google does isn't caching as it changes content. They take out images, change formatting and sometimes provide out-of-date cached pages (which obviously are different from current pages).
Please show examples! The Google cache, ime, only adds a header that states this is not Google's stuff. It leaves everything else the same, including pulling images from the live server. I've never seen it change formatting or remove images, and unless you can show proof with such accusations you are full of shit.
As far as the out of date pages, once again if you publish something there is nothing wrong with keeping it. It's not like they made the shit up, it was actually on your site, just a bit out of date. If you have a problem with this, opt out! Do you think the library will toss Book Blah Edition 1 when Book Blah Edition 2 comes out? That's not a legal requirement anywhere. Nothing you have said shows how Google is operating an illegal cache, aside from the fact that you don't feel good about it.
If they did an extra step and "improved" the content with mouse-over keyword ads and links to competitors of the copyright owner, I assume that'd be OK too?
If they did that, it wouldn't be a cache because they are making changes to the site. Then they are using their dominance as a web search engine to levy their ads against companys. That would be anticompetitive and probably illegal. Then you'd have a case and I'd be with ya, but right now you're just bitching without reason.
Nice to hear that, but why would anyone care about your convenience.
Because when no laws are being broken, and a free service helps the internet community it is a "Good Thing (tm)".
HOW ABOUT TESTING? Just set up a dozen workstations, log a bunch of people on to them in the old system, perform your automatic upgrade, log those people back in and see if it works. If it doesn't, fix it. When you have a 95% success rate, or 99% if you're picky, roll the upgrade out.
8 Years ago there were no automatic upgrades. Most of this stuff is fairly new. The sysadmin was stating that even though he knows the trade a hell of alot better know, there weren't all the tools available back then and would still require logging in to each machine.
No, it would only be legal if the Google cache reflected only the most recent state of a Web page at any given time. For example, when you ask Google to show you a cached page, it would have to interrogate the server to see if the page has changed. If it has, it has to flush its cache and fetch the most up-to-date content.
If I make a flyer and give it out to a ton of people, then I make a new flyer to distribute it does not become illegal to have my old flyer because it doesn't reflect the latest changes. When you publish online, you are publishing. Never forget that fact, don't fool yourself. When you publish something there are certain rights you grant with that publishing, in the case of http you explicitly grant caching since every implementation of a graphical web browser does that. If you don't want that, don't use http or require authentication for your users.
The Internet Archive is also blatantly illegal, obviously. But again, nobody has stopped it because nobody has wanted to yet. Pretty much anybody could at any time.
Not true. The Internet Archive is no different than a library, and in fact archives are protected by law in accordance with 17 USC 108. Opening up the html from them shows the legal requirement to have a a legend stating that the work may be protected by copyright. No laws broken there.
All those instances of "The page has changed, but here's Google's cache or an Internet Archive page showing what it used to look like" would have to go away.
Just because they serve an annoyance for you doesn't make them illegal. Google cache and Internet Archive have helped me out immensely and it's copyright ignorant folks like you that make the internet a shitty place.
Cool, lucky for you. What USB Ethernet adapter did you use, one of the Linksys ones? I tried two different adapters, but no go. The TiVos were all delivered with OS version 4.0.x.
Slashdot Mirror
You have to be root to install almost anything.
/home. Who knows, but this one is just incorrect since as you stated source based installs and autopackage solve that issue.
/bin/mount binary is setuid root. He is correct!!!
1) *MOST* apps can be installed in your home directory. Doesn't matter anyways, there's not a whole lot of sense (some, but not a lot) in letting users run binaries out of their homedirs anyways. You SHOULD have to be admin to install things.
I believe he meant any system package. Or perhaps he's just used *nix run by nazi's that put "-o noexec" on
You have to be root to mount a CD-ROM, USB device like a dongle or camera, SMB share or floppy.
2) Bullshit
Not true! Even when you permit users to mount, the
You have to be root to burn a CD.
3) Horseshit
Also true! If you don't have cdrecord (and such) setuid root, k3b complains like a bitch!
Perhaps you don't understand how *nix works, but he has not stated anything too far from the truth.
Is it possible to buy a modern PC/laptop with Linux preinstalled? I followed some of the links from Linspire ... Via C3 processors? Gimme a break!
http://www.linare.com/linare-linux-notebook.php
Not the latest and greatest, but at comes with an Athlon XP-M 1800+ CPU. I have one of these and must say it is pretty zippy. Not bad for the price.
I have to say I pretty much stopped reading right there...
Then why bother replying? Shoulda known Slashdot would come to this! People use to not RTFA and reply . . . it was only a matter of time before people here would reply without RTFP!!!
AVG Virus Scanner = Free
ZoneAlarm Standard = Free
SpyBot/Ad-Aware = Free
Dropping into console to edit
For the uneducated user, there's Windows . . . For everything else there's *nix.
His argument was for Gimp not linux.
Then his line items should have been as follows:
PhotoShop: AUD$1399 [Adobe.au]
vs.
The GIMP: AUD$0
DELTA: AUD$1399 or infinitely more!
Although if your a professional photographer using OO.org and Gimp you really ought to be questioning yourself about why you're running them on an inferior underlying system.
Not sure why you would call Linux an inferior OS. Personally I use it on all my desktops. Personally I like it better than Windows, but I guess there's just no accounting difference in taste.
Regardless, I hate seeing unbalanced comparisons such as a mainframe (running Linux) vs. P3 900 MHz (running Windows) or Linux + OO.o + Gimp vs. Win + MS O + Photoshop when there is the third possibility of Win + OO.o + Gimp.
FUD can work both ways, and I hate seeing the Slashdot community pulling a Microsoft on comparisons.
Computer (AMD 2400, 1GB RAM, 200GB HDD): AUD$450
19" CRT monitor: AUD$300
Linux: AUD$0
The GIMP: AUD$0
OpenOffice.org: AUD$0
TOTAL: AUD$750 vs
Computer: AUD$450
Monitor: AUD$300
Windows XP Pro OEM: AUD$240 [PLE]
PhotoShop: AUD$1399 [Adobe.au]
MS Office Basic OEM: AUD$240 [PLE]
TOTAL: AUD$2629
DELTA: AUD$1879 or 250% extra.
Or a third configuration:
Computer: AUD$450
Monitor: AUD$300
Windows XP Pro OEM: AUD$240 [PLE]
The GIMP: AUD$0
OpenOffice.org: AUD$0
TOTAL: AUD$990
Difference being ~ $240, even cheaper if you use XP Home. Just because you are on Windows doesn't mean you HAVE to use MS Office + Photoshop, Gimp and OO.o have Windows ports.
My trick is to always report the state of my work as several days (ideally weeks) later than it really is, so in case shit hits the fan (boss gets angry, unforeseen problems, etc.), I can "recover" quickly.
Aye laddie, do they call you miracle worker in your office?
When an engineer designs and builds a new bridge it is entirely possible that no bridge like it has ever been designed or built before. Sure, there are some base cases that just get churned out, but there are also big, new, creative designs that occur for bridges. How is that bridge engineers usually manage to not have their bridges falling down all the time? Well, for starters the designer doesn't run with a "build and test" mentality
That's true, it's not like engineers test things out with models or computer simulations before building . . . Oh Wait!
This is not a mentality, it's the way everything is engineered. Why do you think there are wind tunnels to test aerodynamics, do you think the known methods for jet design are full of shit or something? Software Engineers are different because they deal with humans, not physics! Physics can be calculated, human stupidity can NOT.
There are formal methods for bridge design, and if you assume the properties of various basic components, there are methods to prove the stability and properties of the bridge. Did you know that there are formal methods for software design, and if you assume the properties of basic components (like hardware, OS , etc.) there are methods to prove the stability and properties of the software?
Yes there are formal methods for software design, the problem is not lack of design as much as feature creep. I've seen projects creep from small to large overnight because management or end users decided that they should be able to do X, without realizing how different X is from the design we made for Y.
Yes, formal software methods are hard and time consuming compared to just building and testing. Formal bridge design is hard and time consuming compared to just building and testing.
Bridges have to be able to sustain their weight + weight of cars & resist the elements. That's not a hard thing to build for, very few requirements and known variables in the form of physics. I'm not trivializing building a bridge, but stating that most of the variables are known formula's. Software is built to specs written by humans, sometimes for other humans. This introduces quite a bit of error into the formulation.
For some reason we accept that software should be just thrown together rather than properly designed and proved. Yes, there are plenty of projects for which the level of formality I'm talking about simply isn't required - that's fine. My point is that there are plenty of projects for which the level of formality I'm talking about would be a damn good idea - yet it is never even contemplated let alone used. At worst you should be considering some level of formality for just those components of your system that are most critical.
Most of the developers I work with try to follow best practice and standards, however it's just not always feasible since most projects have piss poor project management. If things were properly mapped out from the start and dead locked until finished, we wouldn't have the problems we do now.
I'm not saying software engineers are infallable, and I'm not saying you don't make any good points. All I'm saying is build/test (virtual or model or code tree) is part of the engineering process. You can't take that away without risking safety, no matter what method is used for development.
In addition, software engineering is not the exact science as structural engineering and thus can not be compared. Structural engineers deal with the elements (wind, rain, etc.) and constants like gravity. They don't deal with people who want to get a project started but don't know the scope. The main problem with software engineering is the project management, not the methodology used in building the software.
Except that the discussion is about why Linux isn't as usable as OS X. You make a valid point, but it has nothing to do with the discussion (unless your point is simply that Mac OS X can be improved, which goes without say).
My points were with regards to the most common desktops. Not entirely off topic within this discussion, but not entirely a part of this discussion.
The problem is that the last 10% takes up 90% of the effort, as they say. Linux is just now passing Windows 2000 in usability (I'm speaking of the most usable distributions, specifically thinking of Ubuntu). The problem is that in about 2 years, when GNOME completely surpasses 2000, there's XP and (perhaps) Longhorn. By that time, not only will Tiger have been released, but 10.5.
So what's your point? 2000 has always been regarded as the best of breed Windows. Just because new versions of Windows and OSX come out doesn't mean they are in the right direction. Perhaps Gnome will stay on track and in 2 years surpass all their counterparts, who knows . . . We can debate this in a few years when the time comes.
But more to the point, Linux won't 'just work' for at least the next five years. I think it's truly ready for the desktop today, but that's wholly different from 'it just works'.
Depends, it "just works" for me. I don't have a single piece of hardware that isn't working. All my hardware is autodetected and works. My burner burns, my usb mounts, my samba mounts are very similar to how OSX does it (sans Apple-K).
Besides 5 years is way too long. I think our army of volunteers + IBM money/devs + Novell money/devs + RH money/devs + Sun money/devs + HP money/devs + SGI money/devs + Uncle Sam money/devs can get it done in a shorter time frame. Everyone realizes that if M$ ever wants to get a stranglehold on the server it can further leverage it's desktop monopoly in time, thus everyone is racing against the clock to get there with Linux.
Exactly my point. I prefer shorewall myself on Linux, but on OS X, it's extremely simple, built-in, and 'just works'. The point is that the Mac 'just works', and Linux takes much more effort to do the same task. Firestarter doesn't 'Just Work' nearly as well as the firewall in the Mac OS X System Preferences.
.
.
Sure the firewall just works, but for some reason it's in the Sharing System Pref instead of Security. This is pretty counterintuitive if you ask me. .
Mail in Tiger has these virtual folders, WiFi management under OS X is dead simple--nothing else out there even comes close.
Mail in Tiger will have these virtual folders. Tiger is not yet released! As far as WiFi on OSX, it is dead simple but it is also very braindead. I use Linux, OSX and the occasional XPSP2 and the WiFi management of XPSP2 seems to be the best one available.
Also Apple has a bad habit of not putting common features in their previous releases. I know 10.3 has been out a while, but would it kill them to add support for WPA on 10.2? I mean i can even add WPA support to good ol Win 2000. And WPA support for OSX did take forever to be released, it had been available in the Win counterpart forever by the time the correct update came around and supported WPA.
I use my iBook laptop more than any other machine I currently own. It's great, but there are certain places where I feel that the "user friendly-ness" get's in the way of the power offered by having a *nix foundation offers. All in all it's the best compromise of usability and power currently available.
I do believe that as Linux matures this will change. Many Linux distros are already passed the half way marker, and it's only a matter of time before it matches OSX. Automounts now work properly with hotpluggable devices, hardware detection is growing fast and the "it just works" factor is getting there. For example, plug in an Intel EtherExpress 10/100 on a Windows box and you may download ten different drivers from various sources before that nic activates. Do the same on the Linux box and it is autodetected and works with e100.ko! It's not perfect yet, but progressing. .
Windows, on the other hand, suffers from constantly having new features crammed in that no one wants, combined with the most lax default file system security permissions available selling on the cheapest hardware available (read: purchased by the unwashed masses). It's no surprise that Windows has the most problems!!!
Ever hear of Longhorn?
I think you mis-read that part of the post. Most likely it went more like this:
If I thought these guys had any since of humor at all, I'd make a 1.5 Gb file of random binary from a random number generator and store it in a file with a suspicious name.
.bash_history!
Word to the criminals out there, have "dd if=/dev/urandom bs=10240 count=1073741824 of=~/incriminating.evidence.img" in your
Someday people will get over the fallacy that Windows is less stable than Linux. They are equally as stable if you treat them correctly.
Stability != Uptime
Fact of the matter is that if you install your updates on Windows you almost always have to reboot, which is not the case on Linux. If you keep your Windows and Linux box up to date your uptime in Linux will be higher than your uptime in Windows plain and simple.
As far as overall stability Linux is more stable than Windows because Windows getting screwed up is an accepted part of using Windows because spyware/crapware/worms spread like fire and the default permissions on the filesystem allow all users access to everything!
True any system can be secured with a competent administrator, however most people aren't administrators (and most administrators aren't competent).
Not really. First, a web browser is strictly a client. If you disable the server feature of BT, they would not even be able to detect it.
Not true, all the multiple incoming connections from various ip's to the same destination give p2p away. Also you can't disable sharing in BT and still download since it has leech protection built into the protocol
Second, the #1 application for BT is illegal file sharing. Say all you want about Linux ISOs and game patches, but you can't ignore the fact that 99% of BT traffic is illegal files.
That's a bullshit ass statistic. Piracy has a hierarchy. Most of the bottom feeders (read unwashed masses) get their pirated goods p2p with search such as eDonkey, Limewire and WinMX. Most of the higher ups in the piracy hierarchy have private ftp privs. BT is used for piracy, but it's a number of magnitude lower than 99%.
If they allow BT, then it's their responsibility to ensure that there are no illegal files on their network. Otherwise, the university is opening itself to some nice big lawsuits from the RIAA/MPAA.
Not true. Quite the opposite in fact! Let me explain, as a "common carrier" all they are doing is providing unrestricted lines ala an ISP if you will. This is why AOL doesn't get sued when some perv uses IM to get a 12 year old into his apartment. Once you start filtering and removing things, you remove your "common carrier" status so anything that goes through your pipe is now your responsibility and are now legally bound to stop piracy. This is the exact opposite effect, now if piracy is found in this University the IT dept is an accomplice since they failed to stop this!
In any case, the university had a point. This IS potentially dangerous. If you get sued, even if you did nothing wrong, it would be YOUR responsibility to PROVE that you did nothing wrong.
Not how it works, they have to prove it and you can still have quite a bit of plausible deniability (Open WAP, Viruses, etc.). The burden is on the accuser in court. Of course it still means you have to go to court!
That can get awfully expensive. And the university will lose in any case: if they allow BT, someone will inevitably use it to share illegal files. And again, the university probably does not want to have to fight various organizations in court. It's bad publicity, and it's expensive.
As BT is included as a preferred distribution method for more and more content this will become a problem. It won't be long now before megacorps realize they can save bandwidth bills by building in p2p to their apps. Blizzard has made this realization, and more will follow. The University will have to deal with the bad press and breakage of apps that will follow. This will cost them quite a bit of $ in support calls.
1- Set on vibrate
2- Insert into anus
3- Wait for phone call from Steve Jobs
You forgot the last two steps!!!
4- ???
5- Profit!
Not as long as I have any alternative.
I concur. I don't understand why so many people think that only pirates are against DRM. Many opinions here go to the logic that without DRM people won't buy X as though having DRM is the selling point.
The way I see it DRM is annoying and should be done away with. It makes people like me into pirates, I buy game X and then download nocd cracks so that I don't have to deal with DRM. When I purchase a song off of iTunes I scrub it with jHymm so that my friends can hear the song via iTunes.
I don't create copies of iTunes songs for my friends, but it's nice to let my friends here on the same subnet be able to listen to them without having my iTunes user/pass.
The tighter the DRM becomes, the more people will fight back. As soon as the general public (read: unwashed retarded masses) realize what's going on then things are going to go straight to hell against the companies that support DRM. Until then it's just the geeks against the megacorps.
Well said. Now, watch for flamebait about "curry" and Indians stealing jobs from Americans.
Just remember the dying words of Uncle Sandeep
"With great curry comes great responsibility!"
A multi-user OS means that I can log in several times on the same computer at the same time. And that multiple users can log on at the same time from different places.
This allows you to have up to two sessions on at once (for free). If you want more (for $$$) with Windows XP, try WinConnect Server XP
There is a great tutorial available here:
e nx/
http://fedoranews.org/contributors/rick_stout/fre
I just used the precompiled RPM's for fedora. Using FreeNX is definately a good replacement. I use it on my iBook to connect to my Linux Desktop at work via ssh and nothing more.
It's fast as hell too! Definately usable via dialup.
Really when I buy RH enterprise edition compared to their desktop version, its exactly the same?
For the most part. The RHEL Desktop is the same as the RHEL AS, sans the server packages. The kernel is not different. All of the software that works on RHEL AS works on RHEL Desktop.
But if you're a cost concious consumer, why not just get CentOS/TaoLinux/WhiteBox et. al. for free!?!!??
As discussed by several posts here, what Google does isn't caching as it changes content.
They take out images, change formatting and sometimes provide out-of-date cached pages (which obviously are different from current pages).
Please show examples! The Google cache, ime, only adds a header that states this is not Google's stuff. It leaves everything else the same, including pulling images from the live server. I've never seen it change formatting or remove images, and unless you can show proof with such accusations you are full of shit.
As far as the out of date pages, once again if you publish something there is nothing wrong with keeping it. It's not like they made the shit up, it was actually on your site, just a bit out of date. If you have a problem with this, opt out! Do you think the library will toss Book Blah Edition 1 when Book Blah Edition 2 comes out? That's not a legal requirement anywhere. Nothing you have said shows how Google is operating an illegal cache, aside from the fact that you don't feel good about it.
If they did an extra step and "improved" the content with mouse-over keyword ads and links to competitors of the copyright owner, I assume that'd be OK too?
If they did that, it wouldn't be a cache because they are making changes to the site. Then they are using their dominance as a web search engine to levy their ads against companys. That would be anticompetitive and probably illegal. Then you'd have a case and I'd be with ya, but right now you're just bitching without reason.
Nice to hear that, but why would anyone care about your convenience.
Because when no laws are being broken, and a free service helps the internet community it is a "Good Thing (tm)".
HOW ABOUT TESTING? Just set up a dozen workstations, log a bunch of people on to them in the old system, perform your automatic upgrade, log those people back in and see if it works. If it doesn't, fix it. When you have a 95% success rate, or 99% if you're picky, roll the upgrade out.
8 Years ago there were no automatic upgrades. Most of this stuff is fairly new. The sysadmin was stating that even though he knows the trade a hell of alot better know, there weren't all the tools available back then and would still require logging in to each machine.
No, it would only be legal if the Google cache reflected only the most recent state of a Web page at any given time. For example, when you ask Google to show you a cached page, it would have to interrogate the server to see if the page has changed. If it has, it has to flush its cache and fetch the most up-to-date content.
If I make a flyer and give it out to a ton of people, then I make a new flyer to distribute it does not become illegal to have my old flyer because it doesn't reflect the latest changes. When you publish online, you are publishing. Never forget that fact, don't fool yourself. When you publish something there are certain rights you grant with that publishing, in the case of http you explicitly grant caching since every implementation of a graphical web browser does that. If you don't want that, don't use http or require authentication for your users.
The Internet Archive is also blatantly illegal, obviously. But again, nobody has stopped it because nobody has wanted to yet. Pretty much anybody could at any time.
Not true. The Internet Archive is no different than a library, and in fact archives are protected by law in accordance with 17 USC 108. Opening up the html from them shows the legal requirement to have a a legend stating that the work may be protected by copyright. No laws broken there.
All those instances of "The page has changed, but here's Google's cache or an Internet Archive page showing what it used to look like" would have to go away.
Just because they serve an annoyance for you doesn't make them illegal. Google cache and Internet Archive have helped me out immensely and it's copyright ignorant folks like you that make the internet a shitty place.
Actually, a fairly reasonable visual tradeoff could be to display all extended characters in a different color.
I'm color blind you insensitive clod . . .
Cool, lucky for you. What USB Ethernet adapter did you use, one of the Linksys ones? I tried two different adapters, but no go. The TiVos were all delivered with OS version 4.0.x.
.
I used a cheap Hawking USB NIC (UF100) I had lying around from my old laptop that didn't come with integrated Ethernet. My laptop now ran wireless anyways. .