No, the client doesn't actually. They could take their servers down, and we could still trade files. I think the servers that they have up only give you the news on the front page when you start the program up. The actual searching of files uses supernodes (if you have broadband, kazaa, morpheus, etc will enable your machine as a supernode, pretty much indexes what people have shared, and my computer will be one of the machines that does the search when someone searches for something).
this is bullshit. It MAY work for about 5 minutes (provided that the temporary cached nodes are actually still active).
Something Microsoft like to hide from ppl, like a feudal lord
I call it exercising their rights. Im sorry, but software is in no way related to land or property. (remember, it's an infinite resource).
So, tell me. Is it Karl Marx or Saddam we are fighting?
im not fighting anyone. Whatever is the most efficient, will make me the most money at the least expense. That's the beauty of NOT being religious about an operating system.
Linux has safety measures for the system against those "bad" programs. It is called GCC and it warns the programmer of bad code pretty damn fast at over 50,000 lines per second on an Athlon. Microsoft wrote a pretty bad application back in the late 1980's and it was called Microsoft Windows 1.0, built ontop of MS-DOS, Microsoft's "engineered" marvel, and from that bad, virus-susceptible code, spawned Windows 3.11 FWG, Windows NT 3.x, Windows 95, Windows NT 4.x, Windows 98, Windows ME, Windows 2000, and Windows XP(erimental). Congratulations on your latest $180+ purchase of yet another Microsoft operating that does that same as its ancestors...run virii verry well.
bad enough to be on 90% of the worlds computers, and supported by a company worth many billions of dollars.
The only leg you have to stand on is the "virus susceptible code" argument. Sure, outlook may be able to accept viruses, but I can't exactly read an html-enabled e-mail with Pine (or get the ease of use), now can I? Why would people want to go back to the stone age of computers. The e-mail clients of the 1970's bored and disgusted people.
I will only agree with you on 2 counts: win NT 3.X, and Win ME (these were complete disasters).
But so does Linux (wow, an update that can possibly corrupt my filesystem permanently. That's what i call a SUPERIOR OPERATING SYSTEM).
Boy, it must hurt to be you... Microsoft calls whatever it makes an innovation. Obviously whatever Bill Gates first engineered from his friend (MS-DOS [microsoft.com]) for $30,000 was engineered pretty damn well. Happy Hacking is when someone writes code that works. Sure, Microsoft mus have engineered IIS because it accepts every worm in existance. In your own words, saying Happy Hacking products 10x more bugs, you simply display your affection to microsoft. You know Linux is just one big party, free beer, free code, and you can wear whatever clothing you want, and you support Microsoft software; buy their software, intall it, and ponder all the engineering put into the blue screen of death. You are a proud individual...
sorry, I never said microsoft was any better at engineering than linux developers. Happy hacking, is the hunt and peck approach to writing entire, large scale, programs. You get such illustrious features as: Spaghetti code, Un-needed variables, and many times extremely inefficient procedures.
Linux is definitely not one big party. It's a flame-fest gathering for the socially challenged. Just because I don't like linux, doesn't mean I like microsoft any better. I would much rather line the pockets of a billionare, than further the advancement of an operating system, solely for the political advancement of a communist.
Yes, we must brag about our skills of utilizing the X protocol because our jobs require such knowledge. Network administrators and you name it require extensive knowledge of X protocol and securing it because many of our customers prefer to login to their office machines with a GUI instead of using just ssh and console commands. We know how are jobs depend on such knowledge and our "insecurity" revolves around money because, as you don't yet understand, it costs money to live in a house with a wife, three kids, a dog, a cage full of rabbits, chickens, and turkeys. Believe me kid, as you grow older, you must depend less on your parents. There is much more than Microsoft Windows and its large availability of games. People must EARN money to live. Our insecurity is shared by millions of people and their own professions. You dare imply we are a bunch of people that are addicted to computers, while someone else is addicted to cooking food, and a carpenter is addicted to building furniture from oak? It is shameful to even respond to your lies lest people see me as a fool to waste my time, but I set grounds for verbal strength that brings out the warrior of every man to fight another tribe's encroachment with their lazy, poor quality, most dispicable fruits of their labor [microsoft.com].
As a closing note to you, I must say that unlike Microsoft, everyone is allowed to participate in much of Linux' development. It is a pool of knowledge, bigger than anything Microsoft can develop and contribute. Our pool of knowledge is constructed in our free-time and is higher quality than Microsoft's "engineering" skills. No government, financial status or political status can impede Linux's development and that shall stand for every freedom-phille. We stress the software we contribute to. We don't run another operating system on our free eMail websites(hotmail.com) [hotmail.com] and say otherwise on our "engineered" software's ability to operate under like-conditions. You are the hypocrite because you know nothing inside of Microsoft's software development ring and have nothing to say other than "it's up" or "it's down". Linux and its supporting software is to be used at everyone's advantage!
your long and drawn out dribble shows me nothing more than how completly moronic you can be. I attempted to give you some constructive criticism, and you have folded under the pressure.
Nobody alone owns Linux, it is a team effort! You lie too much on topics that other people understand more than you. You'll make a great leader other than providing excellent insight.
I never said they did, but linus does still own the rights to the original linux kernel. I think YOU need to get your facts straight.
You seem to be taking my obvious opinions of linux, personally. This only proves your lack of experience doubled with your immaturity.
I like linux, I use linux, and I develop server applications on linux.
That is a very poor prediction. It will always be a prediction because you obviously can't make a hypothesis due to your arrogance. Linux, and its Unix relatives, is an application environment. Applications are given rules and they cannot break such rules. Rules broken is a bug, which in Linux' case of being 100% opensource, will be fixed with 24 hours of happy hacking. You are a simple Sam, so let me dumbdown Unix technology for you... Think of the Linux operating system as planet Earth. Think of your house as your environment. Think of your canned food in your cupboards as your programs. You want to run a program called "whoopass" so you reach into your cupboard, grab that can of "whoopass", and you open it. Understand? Well, that can of whoopass can only run in your house. People can smell that "whoopass" outside your house by getting on "top" of their roofs, noses in the wind, but "whoopass" can't hurt planet Earth, can't change gravity to 0, and can't go into your deskdrawer and throw your income tax return check into your trashcan. There you have it. Microsoft Windows is the opposite and lets programs do all the bad things to your computer. Said and done, Linux is a complex peice of material, just as complex as building a house of brick and mortar, on a foundation of cement slabs. It is stable
arrogance? your post is DRIPPING with it. Remember, Microsoft does have more than one operating system. I have been using WINXP for the last 3 weeks, and it does a pretty damn good job of protecting the system from horribly written applications.
Happy hacking? An operating system, like ANY large application, needs to be engineered. Happy hacking ususally means 10x more bugs and possible security issues. Something VERY BAD in an operating system.
The best way to protect yourself is to use common knowledge...don't run programs you don't know where they came from and if you do run such a program, don't run it suid root, and it is best to experiment by creating a "test" user and logging in as the "test" user to run the program. Otherwise, just like mother nature, some animals get into stuff you own and chew, break, deficate.
This could be said about ANY operating system, including windows. I stand firmly on my popularity view. If I were going to write a virus, I sure as hell wouldn't do it for linux (even if it IS possible). Writing it for windows would infect the most machines. I guarantee you, if linux ever reached the success and popularity of microsoft, you would see a lot more viruses written for it.
Does Microsoft Word and Microsoft Outlook Express count as 3rd party? Do you have shit between your ears?
no they don't, and no (otherwise I wouldn't be able to post).
That is a blatent lie. Microsoft Windows installation wizards are just as difficult to use as loging in as "root" user on Linux/X Windows and double clicking an installation script within Gnome's Naughtilus file browser.
When I said "Up and running", I was referring to the time it takes to get an application created (learning curve) on a Kde/Gnome as opposed to windows. Compare GTK+ widgets/c++ with visual basic. Most novice programmers would much rather use visual basic. (hence the 1000s of useless applications you see cluttering the internet, written in VB).
Another blatent lie. I learned how to program in C using GCC. To finish my collection of old DOS software, I purchased Borland Turbo C++ 3.0 and found that even the older legacy DOS Compilers' IDE is harder to use! I bought, tried, and sold Microsoft's MS-DOS QuickC software because it had verry few features and you just can't do things as fast as using commandline tools. I first learned howto program when I learned Microsoft FORTRAN for MS-DOS. I thought FORTRAN was limited because I had to pay $220 for Microsoft Macro Assembler v6.1 at Fry's Electronics just so I can do some advanced stuff like directly reading the keyboard flags at &h417, &h418, etc. When I migrated to Linux and GCC, and learned C of course, I thought it was awesome and easy to use even though I still didn't understand the concept and strengths of this Unix-like environment. Because I learned howto program in C, stricly ANSI compliant by the way, I later learned C++. I tried learning howto program in Visual C++ for Microsoft Windows, for a change, and found that their their IDE was so obfuscated that I stopped and said "fuck this shit. I officially hate Microsoft". All of Microsoft Windows Visual C++ was not portable to other operating systems. I needed a portable GUI Toolkit and discovered GTK+. I am an accomplished GTK+ programmer and to enhance my Unix programs in X11 I program directly in XLib. I have now become a verry good XLib programmer and also take good use of Xt and Xaw/Xaw3d to build business accounting programs to migrate business' from MS Windows to Linux. It is simpe because GTK+ is platform independent and is portable between different operating systems. C and C++ used to be portable, but Microsoft has tried its best to lock you into Microsoft Windows "_your_version_here_". "ToolKits" are Microsoft's enemy, as I learned. They lock you into their systems and products and sell you software that won't be supported by them in a few years. Do you know how many years it took me to forget my QuickBasic, Turbo Basic, and GWBasic programming knowledge? Disgusting of you to lash out at me so arrogantly...
There's that word....arrogant......so hypocritical.....
I never said the microsofts tools were good (in fact I loathe them. I think borland's tools are much better).
I think the whole second half of your post was just to stroke your own ego.
heh.
saying isn't the same as being, im afraid. Usually people that constantly say "im great at X" or "im the best at X", have vast amounts of insecurities.
You've had applications fail, sure. When was the last time the OS failed? When was the last time you got the blue screen of death on Linux, or a GPF, or a freeze? Windows is indeed more prone to failure than Linux, though it might be worth arguing that the applications available for Linux (which are mostly alpha quality) are more prone to failure than the applications available for Windows
operating system fail?
How about the serious bug in the the linux 2.4.15 kernel that caused FS corruption?
Bluescreens of death,GPF, and freezes are usually ALL caused by 3rd party apps and/or drivers.
I've had explorer.exe fail twice already today, and it's just lunchtime
I've had that happen too, only to find out I had spyware on my system.
I smiled here because I went through this exact same thing after installing Yellow Dog on my Macintosh Powerbook. And trying to start up MacOnLinux just gave me useless error messages. So I reformatted the drive and installed MacOS X, and never looked back. If you want to use an open-source unix on your desktop and you can stomach the fact that the GUI part of it is proprietary (but can be programmed with Apple's free development tools), just buy a Mac and OS X - the interface and user experience are far better than the comparatively clumsy and archaic KDE, Gnome, and the like (and you can use open-source tools alongside your critical commercial tools, such as Photoshop). If I want to set up a server, I'll use one of the BSDs. Linux just has no use for me.
I agree with you completely. In fact, if Max OSX was re-built for the X86 platform, I believe it could rival windows.
Excellent. But if I were to hold WinXP up to the same ease of use "standards" that Linux is held to, then I would have to say that WinXP is too hard to use. It's different from what I'm used to, and therefore it requires additional training, and therefore it's too hard to use.
true, but the average user will not go from linux to windows. If linux is ever going beat microsoft, developers should be taking these suggestions into consideration. (or at least looking at them, rather than passing them off as "evil microsoft ideas").
I think, in a way, many linux users don't want linux to ever beat microsoft. They will no longer be using something that's "elite" or "cool" because the average joe doesn't know how to use it. If they did, gui's and programs would be made with the end-user in mind, rather than the developer.
Do you see any Linux salespersons at the floor in Fry's Electronics? Do you see people flocking to the boxes of Suse or Mandrake because they heard it runs programs 54% faster than previous versions of...? The opinion of "Free Software sucks" is verry inaccurate. It sucked me in, it sucked you into this slashdot forum, but how much does it suck when you migrated from another operating system that requires up-to-date Anti-virus software to remain safe, steals your data and sends it back to microsoft.com or the FBI, and shows via benchmark that Quake3:Arena runs slower than Linux? That and a bag of chips my friend. RedHat Linux 7.2 costs $50 at retail, is ready to play games with the latest stable X Windows-4.1 and 3D openGL drivers(DRI), faster filesystem, buffered disk-access for faster data, excellent firewalling and network performance, and proven up-time for you, the.user of the system. You own Linux. Microsoft owns you.
The only reason you don't need antivirus software for linux, is because it isn't popular yet (the OS). A virus could be created (it could for ANY OS), but from an infection standpoint, it would be very minimal compared to windows.
Quake3 may run well on linux/X-windows, but it is an exception to the rule.
I predict that the popularity of an operating system is directly related to it's stability.
Think about this:
Microsoft is the most popular operating system (right now at least). Programmers with minimal experience can get something to run/maybe release a shareware application. It has memory leaks, crashes,etc. Eventually, with enough apps like this running on your system, it will crash and burn. Have You ever run a windows box with NO 3rd part apps installed? I have, and it's rock solid.
Linux, on the other hand, requires a little more skill to get an application up and running. (most beginning programmers are scared of GCC). This, in turn, leads to fewer programs with shitloads of problems.
You own Linux. Microsoft owns you
you don't really own linux, any more than windows. Linus still has control over the kernel.
In addition to the usual "Linux is too hard to install" rubbish, this was a common complaint, "The Linux command line is hard to learn and use." No, it simply is not. The Linux user-interface came in for further unwarranted bashing (no pun intended), "Linux GUIs are slow." Well, this really depends on the hardware you're running on, doesn't it? To put Linux on an old PC (which can no longer run the latest Microsoft OS) and then complain when the Linux GUI runs slowly is just not comparing apples with apples, no matter what way you look at it.
Linux may be easy to install, but driver support is horrendous. It took me a week to get my linux box up and running. (and that was after buying a special network card due to lack of support of my original).
Until developers start to "embrace and extend" some of microsoft's ideas, they will always be a step behind.
I suppose Linux support is just a much better value.MS support is expensive
Price for support shouldn't be an issue, when you are getting the operating system for free.
Remember, "OSS programers CAN make money...on support". It seems even this is looked down upon by the OSS community....maybe it is all about free beer....
That is not the issue! Did Napster hurt record sales? Probably not, many feel that it may have helped sales. The issue here is CONTROL. It's pretty evident that large publishers tend towards ever-increasing control of their copywritten works -- witness region-coding on DVDs, those new "un-rippable" audio CDs, and Microsoft Product Activation.
This is ENTIRELY different than napster. If interact was offering rom images of games online...maybe....
I also do believe that napster hurt record sales.
Re:The solution is obvious
on
Sony vs Modchips
·
· Score: -1, Flamebait
and, luckily for microsoft, no linux...yet)
I find this statement humorous. Why on earth would anyone want to install LINUX on an XBOX?
The program was called xolox,
I know the developper personally and he is very disappointed about the corporate feedback he got
This is NOT the name of the program you were trying to remember. This is a shameless plug for a dead gnutella client (im also tired of seeing plugs like this on the zeropaid boards).
There have been man more programs that could do this very thing, before xolox even started.
Download accelerator, limewire, bearshare, kazaa....just to name a few.
We have general purpose computers, but no general purpose "replicators" yet. And so, since food, and other goods/services, are still physically scarce, some people will want... no, need... to make information artificially scarce in order to inflate its value enough to exchange it for food.
even if we had general replicators, a certain amount of energy is needed to replicate an object.
Energy would become the new currency, and we would have capitalism all over again.
Yes, some people do download everything in sight, burn copies for friends, and so on. That only goes to make it more clear (and more urgent) that the labels must adapt or die.
If the majority of artists were solely producing their music on the internet, then I could safely say that the recording industry was obselete. But unfortunatly, record companies are manufacuring, promoting, and selling music, and people are getting it for free. They lose money because of this fact.
Would you then say, that since people are using "pirated" DSS cards, that it should be a sign that the service needs to be free? No matter what cost product X is, free looks better to almost anyone.
Copy-protected CD's are a silly waste of time (ooh, way to stick it to the consumer! Wait, it's already out on p2p services by the time the album is generally released), and these services are useless in their restrictiveness. They need a broad, low-priced ($.25-50/track, $7/album) method of distributing music digitally without it choking the end user to death in its restrictiveness. The actions they have taken so far only will alienate users.
Copy Protected CD's are the RIAA's way of keeping their investment. And who are you to determine the price of a CD?
Before napster came out, people had no intention of boycotting the RIAA.
They NEED to convince them that BUYING MUSIC that THEY LIKE is still the best thing to do. Treating users like criminals will only incite further such activity. Will they change? CAN they change? We will see.
Here is the problem. They do need to convince them that buying music is the best thing to do, but they SHOULDN'T have to COMPETE against people that are "pirating".
If you don't like the RIAA's music, DON'T FUCKING BUY IT. "sharing" it just proves my point. The RIAA is still needed.
If nothing else, FastTrack provided a proof-of-concept for a node/supernode p2p system. It's only a matter of time until an OSS equivalent is established.
I think the guys from bearshare and limewire are doing just that. I heard they are teaming up.
It's a shame they're trying to secure their future through legislation, litigation, and strawman services like this worthless thing (of course, done to show how internet users are evil THIEVES.) They will get their comeuppance soon enough.
according to you, recording companies are obselete. If this is the case, then why aren't people only sharing music that has been created indepedently?
Because your ramblings are only an excuse for getting free music (as in beer).
The recording industry should be able to do whatever the fuck they want with their own music. (copy-protected Cd's and such). If they are constantly cracked on the internet, it just proves further a need for the RIAA, whether would like to believe it or not.
Slashdot Mirror
No, the client doesn't actually. They could take their servers down, and we could still trade files. I think the servers that they have up only give you the news on the front page when you start the program up. The actual searching of files uses supernodes (if you have broadband, kazaa, morpheus, etc will enable your machine as a supernode, pretty much indexes what people have shared, and my computer will be one of the machines that does the search when someone searches for something).
this is bullshit. It MAY work for about 5 minutes (provided that the temporary cached nodes are actually still active).
Something Microsoft like to hide from ppl, like a feudal lord
I call it exercising their rights. Im sorry, but software is in no way related to land or property. (remember, it's an infinite resource).
So, tell me. Is it Karl Marx or Saddam we are fighting?
im not fighting anyone. Whatever is the most efficient, will make me the most money at the least expense. That's the beauty of NOT being religious about an operating system.
Linux has safety measures for the system against those "bad" programs. It is called GCC and it warns the programmer of bad code pretty damn fast at over 50,000 lines per second on an Athlon. Microsoft wrote a pretty bad application back in the late 1980's and it was called Microsoft Windows 1.0, built ontop of MS-DOS, Microsoft's "engineered" marvel, and from that bad, virus-susceptible code, spawned Windows 3.11 FWG, Windows NT 3.x, Windows 95, Windows NT 4.x, Windows 98, Windows ME, Windows 2000, and Windows XP(erimental). Congratulations on your latest $180+ purchase of yet another Microsoft operating that does that same as its ancestors...run virii verry well.
bad enough to be on 90% of the worlds computers, and supported by a company worth many billions of dollars.
The only leg you have to stand on is the "virus susceptible code" argument. Sure, outlook may be able to accept viruses, but I can't exactly read an html-enabled e-mail with Pine (or get the ease of use), now can I? Why would people want to go back to the stone age of computers. The e-mail clients of the 1970's bored and disgusted people.
I will only agree with you on 2 counts: win NT 3.X, and Win ME (these were complete disasters).
But so does Linux (wow, an update that can possibly corrupt my filesystem permanently. That's what i call a SUPERIOR OPERATING SYSTEM).
Boy, it must hurt to be you... Microsoft calls whatever it makes an innovation. Obviously whatever Bill Gates first engineered from his friend (MS-DOS [microsoft.com]) for $30,000 was engineered pretty damn well. Happy Hacking is when someone writes code that works. Sure, Microsoft mus have engineered IIS because it accepts every worm in existance. In your own words, saying Happy Hacking products 10x more bugs, you simply display your affection to microsoft. You know Linux is just one big party, free beer, free code, and you can wear whatever clothing you want, and you support Microsoft software; buy their software, intall it, and ponder all the engineering put into the blue screen of death. You are a proud individual...
sorry, I never said microsoft was any better at engineering than linux developers. Happy hacking, is the hunt and peck approach to writing entire, large scale, programs. You get such illustrious features as: Spaghetti code, Un-needed variables, and many times extremely inefficient procedures.
Linux is definitely not one big party. It's a flame-fest gathering for the socially challenged. Just because I don't like linux, doesn't mean I like microsoft any better. I would much rather line the pockets of a billionare, than further the advancement of an operating system, solely for the political advancement of a communist.
Yes, we must brag about our skills of utilizing the X protocol because our jobs require such knowledge. Network administrators and you name it require extensive knowledge of X protocol and securing it because many of our customers prefer to login to their office machines with a GUI instead of using just ssh and console commands. We know how are jobs depend on such knowledge and our "insecurity" revolves around money because, as you don't yet understand, it costs money to live in a house with a wife, three kids, a dog, a cage full of rabbits, chickens, and turkeys. Believe me kid, as you grow older, you must depend less on your parents. There is much more than Microsoft Windows and its large availability of games. People must EARN money to live. Our insecurity is shared by millions of people and their own professions. You dare imply we are a bunch of people that are addicted to computers, while someone else is addicted to cooking food, and a carpenter is addicted to building furniture from oak? It is shameful to even respond to your lies lest people see me as a fool to waste my time, but I set grounds for verbal strength that brings out the warrior of every man to fight another tribe's encroachment with their lazy, poor quality, most dispicable fruits of their labor [microsoft.com].
As a closing note to you, I must say that unlike Microsoft, everyone is allowed to participate in much of Linux' development. It is a pool of knowledge, bigger than anything Microsoft can develop and contribute. Our pool of knowledge is constructed in our free-time and is higher quality than Microsoft's "engineering" skills. No government, financial status or political status can impede Linux's development and that shall stand for every freedom-phille. We stress the software we contribute to. We don't run another operating system on our free eMail websites(hotmail.com) [hotmail.com] and say otherwise on our "engineered" software's ability to operate under like-conditions. You are the hypocrite because you know nothing inside of Microsoft's software development ring and have nothing to say other than "it's up" or "it's down". Linux and its supporting software is to be used at everyone's advantage!
your long and drawn out dribble shows me nothing more than how completly moronic you can be. I attempted to give you some constructive criticism, and you have folded under the pressure.
Nobody alone owns Linux, it is a team effort! You lie too much on topics that other people understand more than you. You'll make a great leader other than providing excellent insight.
I never said they did, but linus does still own the rights to the original linux kernel. I think YOU need to get your facts straight.
You seem to be taking my obvious opinions of linux, personally. This only proves your lack of experience doubled with your immaturity.
I like linux, I use linux, and I develop server applications on linux.
That is a very poor prediction. It will always be a prediction because you obviously can't make a hypothesis due to your arrogance. Linux, and its Unix relatives, is an application environment. Applications are given rules and they cannot break such rules. Rules broken is a bug, which in Linux' case of being 100% opensource, will be fixed with 24 hours of happy hacking. You are a simple Sam, so let me dumbdown Unix technology for you... Think of the Linux operating system as planet Earth. Think of your house as your environment. Think of your canned food in your cupboards as your programs. You want to run a program called "whoopass" so you reach into your cupboard, grab that can of "whoopass", and you open it. Understand? Well, that can of whoopass can only run in your house. People can smell that "whoopass" outside your house by getting on "top" of their roofs, noses in the wind, but "whoopass" can't hurt planet Earth, can't change gravity to 0, and can't go into your deskdrawer and throw your income tax return check into your trashcan. There you have it. Microsoft Windows is the opposite and lets programs do all the bad things to your computer. Said and done, Linux is a complex peice of material, just as complex as building a house of brick and mortar, on a foundation of cement slabs. It is stable
arrogance? your post is DRIPPING with it. Remember, Microsoft does have more than one operating system. I have been using WINXP for the last 3 weeks, and it does a pretty damn good job of protecting the system from horribly written applications.
Happy hacking? An operating system, like ANY large application, needs to be engineered. Happy hacking ususally means 10x more bugs and possible security issues. Something VERY BAD in an operating system.
The best way to protect yourself is to use common knowledge...don't run programs you don't know where they came from and if you do run such a program, don't run it suid root, and it is best to experiment by creating a "test" user and logging in as the "test" user to run the program. Otherwise, just like mother nature, some animals get into stuff you own and chew, break, deficate.
This could be said about ANY operating system, including windows. I stand firmly on my popularity view. If I were going to write a virus, I sure as hell wouldn't do it for linux (even if it IS possible). Writing it for windows would infect the most machines. I guarantee you, if linux ever reached the success and popularity of microsoft, you would see a lot more viruses written for it.
Does Microsoft Word and Microsoft Outlook Express count as 3rd party? Do you have shit between your ears?
no they don't, and no (otherwise I wouldn't be able to post).
That is a blatent lie. Microsoft Windows installation wizards are just as difficult to use as loging in as "root" user on Linux/X Windows and double clicking an installation script within Gnome's Naughtilus file browser.
When I said "Up and running", I was referring to the time it takes to get an application created (learning curve) on a Kde/Gnome as opposed to windows. Compare GTK+ widgets/c++ with visual basic. Most novice programmers would much rather use visual basic. (hence the 1000s of useless applications you see cluttering the internet, written in VB).
Another blatent lie. I learned how to program in C using GCC. To finish my collection of old DOS software, I purchased Borland Turbo C++ 3.0 and found that even the older legacy DOS Compilers' IDE is harder to use! I bought, tried, and sold Microsoft's MS-DOS QuickC software because it had verry few features and you just can't do things as fast as using commandline tools. I first learned howto program when I learned Microsoft FORTRAN for MS-DOS. I thought FORTRAN was limited because I had to pay $220 for Microsoft Macro Assembler v6.1 at Fry's Electronics just so I can do some advanced stuff like directly reading the keyboard flags at &h417, &h418, etc. When I migrated to Linux and GCC, and learned C of course, I thought it was awesome and easy to use even though I still didn't understand the concept and strengths of this Unix-like environment. Because I learned howto program in C, stricly ANSI compliant by the way, I later learned C++. I tried learning howto program in Visual C++ for Microsoft Windows, for a change, and found that their their IDE was so obfuscated that I stopped and said "fuck this shit. I officially hate Microsoft". All of Microsoft Windows Visual C++ was not portable to other operating systems. I needed a portable GUI Toolkit and discovered GTK+. I am an accomplished GTK+ programmer and to enhance my Unix programs in X11 I program directly in XLib. I have now become a verry good XLib programmer and also take good use of Xt and Xaw/Xaw3d to build business accounting programs to migrate business' from MS Windows to Linux. It is simpe because GTK+ is platform independent and is portable between different operating systems. C and C++ used to be portable, but Microsoft has tried its best to lock you into Microsoft Windows "_your_version_here_". "ToolKits" are Microsoft's enemy, as I learned. They lock you into their systems and products and sell you software that won't be supported by them in a few years. Do you know how many years it took me to forget my QuickBasic, Turbo Basic, and GWBasic programming knowledge? Disgusting of you to lash out at me so arrogantly...
There's that word....arrogant......so hypocritical.....
I never said the microsofts tools were good (in fact I loathe them. I think borland's tools are much better).
I think the whole second half of your post was just to stroke your own ego.
heh.
saying isn't the same as being, im afraid. Usually people that constantly say "im great at X" or "im the best at X", have vast amounts of insecurities.
You've had applications fail, sure. When was the last time the OS failed? When was the last time you got the blue screen of death on Linux, or a GPF, or a freeze? Windows is indeed more prone to failure than Linux, though it might be worth arguing that the applications available for Linux (which are mostly alpha quality) are more prone to failure than the applications available for Windows
operating system fail?
How about the serious bug in the the linux 2.4.15 kernel that caused FS corruption?
Bluescreens of death,GPF, and freezes are usually ALL caused by 3rd party apps and/or drivers.
I've had explorer.exe fail twice already today, and it's just lunchtime
I've had that happen too, only to find out I had spyware on my system.
I smiled here because I went through this exact same thing after installing Yellow Dog on my Macintosh Powerbook. And trying to start up MacOnLinux just gave me useless error messages. So I reformatted the drive and installed MacOS X, and never looked back. If you want to use an open-source unix on your desktop and you can stomach the fact that the GUI part of it is proprietary (but can be programmed with Apple's free development tools), just buy a Mac and OS X - the interface and user experience are far better than the comparatively clumsy and archaic KDE, Gnome, and the like (and you can use open-source tools alongside your critical commercial tools, such as Photoshop). If I want to set up a server, I'll use one of the BSDs. Linux just has no use for me.
I agree with you completely. In fact, if Max OSX was re-built for the X86 platform, I believe it could rival windows.
Excellent. But if I were to hold WinXP up to the same ease of use "standards" that Linux is held to, then I would have to say that WinXP is too hard to use. It's different from what I'm used to, and therefore it requires additional training, and therefore it's too hard to use.
true, but the average user will not go from linux to windows. If linux is ever going beat microsoft, developers should be taking these suggestions into consideration. (or at least looking at them, rather than passing them off as "evil microsoft ideas").
I think, in a way, many linux users don't want linux to ever beat microsoft. They will no longer be using something that's "elite" or "cool" because the average joe doesn't know how to use it. If they did, gui's and programs would be made with the end-user in mind, rather than the developer.
Do you see any Linux salespersons at the floor in Fry's Electronics? Do you see people flocking to the boxes of Suse or Mandrake because they heard it runs programs 54% faster than previous versions of ...? The opinion of "Free Software sucks" is verry inaccurate. It sucked me in, it sucked you into this slashdot forum, but how much does it suck when you migrated from another operating system that requires up-to-date Anti-virus software to remain safe, steals your data and sends it back to microsoft.com or the FBI, and shows via benchmark that Quake3:Arena runs slower than Linux? That and a bag of chips my friend. RedHat Linux 7.2 costs $50 at retail, is ready to play games with the latest stable X Windows-4.1 and 3D openGL drivers(DRI), faster filesystem, buffered disk-access for faster data, excellent firewalling and network performance, and proven up-time for you, the .user of the system. You own Linux. Microsoft owns you.
The only reason you don't need antivirus software for linux, is because it isn't popular yet (the OS). A virus could be created (it could for ANY OS), but from an infection standpoint, it would be very minimal compared to windows.
Quake3 may run well on linux/X-windows, but it is an exception to the rule.
I predict that the popularity of an operating system is directly related to it's stability.
Think about this:
Microsoft is the most popular operating system (right now at least). Programmers with minimal experience can get something to run/maybe release a shareware application. It has memory leaks, crashes,etc. Eventually, with enough apps like this running on your system, it will crash and burn. Have You ever run a windows box with NO 3rd part apps installed? I have, and it's rock solid.
Linux, on the other hand, requires a little more skill to get an application up and running. (most beginning programmers are scared of GCC). This, in turn, leads to fewer programs with shitloads of problems.
You own Linux. Microsoft owns you
you don't really own linux, any more than windows. Linus still has control over the kernel.
In addition to the usual "Linux is too hard to install" rubbish, this was a common complaint, "The Linux command line is hard to learn and use." No, it simply is not. The Linux user-interface came in for further unwarranted bashing (no pun intended), "Linux GUIs are slow." Well, this really depends on the hardware you're running on, doesn't it? To put Linux on an old PC (which can no longer run the latest Microsoft OS) and then complain when the Linux GUI runs slowly is just not comparing apples with apples, no matter what way you look at it.
Linux may be easy to install, but driver support is horrendous. It took me a week to get my linux box up and running. (and that was after buying a special network card due to lack of support of my original).
Until developers start to "embrace and extend" some of microsoft's ideas, they will always be a step behind.
I suppose Linux support is just a much better value.MS support is expensive
Price for support shouldn't be an issue, when you are getting the operating system for free.
Remember, "OSS programers CAN make money...on support". It seems even this is looked down upon by the OSS community....maybe it is all about free beer....
That is not the issue! Did Napster hurt record sales? Probably not, many feel that it may have helped sales. The issue here is CONTROL. It's pretty evident that large publishers tend towards ever-increasing control of their copywritten works -- witness region-coding on DVDs, those new "un-rippable" audio CDs, and Microsoft Product Activation.
This is ENTIRELY different than napster. If interact was offering rom images of games online...maybe....
I also do believe that napster hurt record sales.
and, luckily for microsoft, no linux...yet)
I find this statement humorous. Why on earth would anyone want to install LINUX on an XBOX?
so I can play X-eyes?
The program was called xolox,
I know the developper personally and he is very disappointed about the corporate feedback he got
This is NOT the name of the program you were trying to remember. This is a shameless plug for a dead gnutella client (im also tired of seeing plugs like this on the zeropaid boards).
There have been man more programs that could do this very thing, before xolox even started.
Download accelerator, limewire, bearshare, kazaa....just to name a few.
I think it would be easier to get an snes emulator for your CE machine.
Are you the guy who sold the Sun? :)
But seriously, solar energy is SO abundant, it's like water in terms of value. Lots of other stars too...
thats assuming we can utilize solar energy 100% by then.
Why can't capitalism mean wealth for all, or at least wealth for most?
Because capitalism relies on the true fact of human nature: many people are lazy.
If you actually try in a capitalistic society, you will usually get something in return (money,etc.).
If you don't, you will get exactly what you put in.....NOTHING.
We have general purpose computers, but no general purpose "replicators" yet. And so, since food, and other goods/services, are still physically scarce, some people will want... no, need... to make information artificially scarce in order to inflate its value enough to exchange it for food.
even if we had general replicators, a certain amount of energy is needed to replicate an object.
Energy would become the new currency, and we would have capitalism all over again.
the open-source movement has ended up creating an OS far superior and cheaper to that of the biggest software peddler in history.
This is a matter of interpretation. Until an average user can use and or install an OSS operating system, it is in no way superior.
Only a dum ass would say something like that.
I got BSC in Comp Sci and I do not use shit windows product.
Get a life man.
you must be a troll.
Or a person who obviously get their "bang for their buck" with a BSC in Computer Science.
and NOT OPEN UNEXPECTED ATTACHMENTS FROM PEOPLE OUTSIDE THE COMPANY
doesn't always work, the bad trans virus (I think this is one of them) will infect your system through a flaw in outlook, by just viewing the message.
How very clever of you. Too bad the 800,000 people passing these worms around don't know as well as you which attachments to open, and which not to.
if those same 800,000 people were using linux, they would STILL have spread the worm.
Yes, some people do download everything in sight, burn copies for friends, and so on. That only goes to make it more clear (and more urgent) that the labels must adapt or die.
If the majority of artists were solely producing their music on the internet, then I could safely say that the recording industry was obselete. But unfortunatly, record companies are manufacuring, promoting, and selling music, and people are getting it for free. They lose money because of this fact.
Would you then say, that since people are using "pirated" DSS cards, that it should be a sign that the service needs to be free? No matter what cost product X is, free looks better to almost anyone.
Copy-protected CD's are a silly waste of time (ooh, way to stick it to the consumer! Wait, it's already out on p2p services by the time the album is generally released), and these services are useless in their restrictiveness. They need a broad, low-priced ($.25-50/track, $7/album) method of distributing music digitally without it choking the end user to death in its restrictiveness. The actions they have taken so far only will alienate users.
Copy Protected CD's are the RIAA's way of keeping their investment. And who are you to determine the price of a CD?
Before napster came out, people had no intention of boycotting the RIAA.
They NEED to convince them that BUYING MUSIC that THEY LIKE is still the best thing to do. Treating users like criminals will only incite further such activity. Will they change? CAN they change? We will see.
Here is the problem. They do need to convince them that buying music is the best thing to do, but they SHOULDN'T have to COMPETE against people that are "pirating".
If you don't like the RIAA's music, DON'T FUCKING BUY IT. "sharing" it just proves my point. The RIAA is still needed.
If nothing else, FastTrack provided a proof-of-concept for a node/supernode p2p system. It's only a matter of time until an OSS equivalent is established.
I think the guys from bearshare and limewire are doing just that. I heard they are teaming up.
It's a shame they're trying to secure their future through legislation, litigation, and strawman services like this worthless thing (of course, done to show how internet users are evil THIEVES.) They will get their comeuppance soon enough.
according to you, recording companies are obselete. If this is the case, then why aren't people only sharing music that has been created indepedently?
Because your ramblings are only an excuse for getting free music (as in beer).
The recording industry should be able to do whatever the fuck they want with their own music. (copy-protected Cd's and such). If they are constantly cracked on the internet, it just proves further a need for the RIAA, whether would like to believe it or not.
Don't worry, to force people to use their service, they'll make other ways illegal
why? because they don't want to compete with services that are stealing their music?