As a result it no longer sucks as IE 9 is ok, and IE 10 is quite competitive with Goole, Apple, and Mozilla as one of the most standard compliant browsers ever.
IE9 was competitive when it came out as well. Some time soon IE10 will have a feature freeze and nothing much will happen until IE11.
You should be able to get a pair of sennheisers that fit around your ear. It's could be worth paying extra at that price range and what ever is on special that closed and around the ear would work. I have the 280s and they are pretty good for isolation.
Atari and Majesco tried that, using the free ScummVM engine to run one of its old games, but the game ended up recalled [slashdot.org] because Nintendo didn't want any copylefted software on its platform.
In a world of closed source being unethical it would be grossly unethical and poor business to block this.
Besides, if a game has a freely licensed engine, how can the publisher deter people from casually unlawfully copying the data?
Its unethical to use DRM as well according to Stallman. This would be a change from data casually being shared today. You would combat like they do today.
GPLing games leaves most of the old business model intact as you can still charge for content per person.
You can open-source the code for engine and sell the data, you can find heaps of examples of this. Opensource game engines that are cooperatively made with everyone involved making their own game on top of it could save devs a significant amount of money if they can agree on how to spit the work.
Assuming major fragmentation does not occur, there would be a high enough market share so the divers would receive similar support to Windows has today. There would be roughly 50 times the market share to fight over, encouraging working with OS and game devs, proper testing and bug fixing.
Having XFCE and ubuntu earlier today granted me with some artifacts tween the gimp and firefox which built up until the screen was complete garbage, and its been a number of years, possibally since windows 98 days since I have seen that on the MS side
In a open source only world GPU companies would be forced to provide working open source drivers if they wanted remain in business.
the legal they use in the is "convey": To “convey” a work means any kind of propagation that enables other parties to make or receive copies. Mere interaction with a user through a computer network, with no transfer of a copy, is not conveying. http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html
A company carrying out work on the code and keeping it for them selves (same party), does not convey the code and does not run into any GPL clauses. If they they are legally two parties then as long as the second party can be trusted (you cant legally enforce it, as per the license) to not further convey the source, i think your fine as well.
How do you persuade a company legal team that GPLv3 is not poison and let the techies use GPLv3-licenced software ?
Get them to read the license. It only covers conveying of the source code as far as i can see. If you want to use it in a product you want to sell then they have every reason to get worried about it.
If you wanted to sell ad ons, you should sell them to Windows server users. I can't see how GPL would get in the way of internal use, you never distribute anything.
Write your medical condition on bracelet. I guess you can fit more info on a website but still. Do they not have them everywhere? http://www.medicalert.org/shop/shopHome.htm
Depending on the source they can adjust power output depending on the required power. On a sunny day you don't need to burn as much fossil fuels and when its raining you burn the normal amount but overall less hydrocarbons are burnt.
You can both consume power from the grid and produce it. The extra they make during the day that someone else uses is what they use at night.
Its a PR stunt though, if a bunch of companies got together and funded a massive solar farm it would have the same result and probably be more efficient.
This is slashdot. I prefer to ask myself if he raised a valid point or not.
Your not supporting any of his points, you are no longer talking about security. The main point he has is if you stick the same stuff on your linux servers or desktops (does not say which) as windows ones they end up as insecure as windows.
The Munich rollout started in 2003, and was "complete" in 2011 (75% of total desktops migrated).
maintain not migrate, but you do say to why the example is not too relevant.
One of my metrics for easy is not having to mess around the samba code to try to understand why it isn't working as advertised.
Ill give you that as an issue but samba Samba is a "free software re-implementation of the SMB/CIFS networking protocol". Not a vaid example to extend to extend to all linux Network code, where you would replace it with something involving NFS in a non window environment.
You replied aggressively to someone without even having a vague idea of what you're talking about >>> And that the tools available are businesss oriented, and not nerd-oriented.
I guess you are not aggressive. You come off as a well practiced windows admin who has picked up linux from the internet in the past 5 or so years or no the right person to make these argument. Go back and look at the original post and ask your self how much expertise he had or if he was trolling.
Somewere along this thread, the extrapolation that linux is somewhat more secure than windows was made, without presenting any kind of proof.
I guess he's taking about something that is closer to the default install with relaxed security policies than a properly locked down desktop network but that's a valid assumption that linux is more secure. There are too many metric that anyone can use to make this a simple thing to argue. I think its generally accepted that linux has less threats that user can run into on the internet and is unlikely if infected to have the infection spread though the network.
Windows networks as a whole are easier to maintain (desktop-wise) than *nix-based ones.
Like you ask for proof above, prove it, This is subjective. Cost wise you need less linux admins to windows ones, see the Munich linux roll out. Or is this easy as in you don't need a lot of skill to do tasks that are specific for window admin. Whats the metric for easy?
Given that my work envolves maintaining heterogeneous infrastructures (bsd/linux/windows/osx/etc) on corporate networks, covering both server and desktop integration, i'd say I have a pretty good idea.
I guess i take that back then but your argument is what? That windows GUI admin has far greater discoverablity than a bunch of commands and config files when it comes someone who has not fully read and remembered the documentation. No(t) arguing with this. Or that you should use windows server tools to configure admin windows desktop networks. I did not mean to imply that you could do this with linux, i though you mean the equivalent *nix network.
My understand that the article was arguing a network of linux desktops and admin would be more secure than a windows one. The article seems to mean that windows desktops are security hole.
Shure you can. On linux or on any other unix operating system. But can you do it in under a minute,
No idea, i have no training. I would expect that for a proper setup linux network doing it for the 20th time or so you could get it down to script or a couple of lines that you could ssh in remotely to a single server to do. Since I dont know i cant argue this with you.
All of the info GP provides is arguably true but he then makes conclusions that far exceed the scope of the info. The there are exploits in third party cross platforms on window so since those are available on linux therefore linux is insecure is a hypothesis not a proven conclusion.
Linux servers/users are just as likely as Windows users to be running their OS & software without being fully patched.
There is no proof of this so he bangs is after a superficial argument. This mostly irreverent and has the poor proof that like windows linux users don't have to update their systems. As everyone else here is saying if your admin is not up to it then any argument about OS security is irrelevant.
add and remove privileges (there will be an external audit and the guys need to be able to login into the accounting machines from 9am to 5pm, but only thursdays and fridays for a month).
I don't know the best way to do this but I (no admin training) could get something this working on linux. Don't try to argue that windows has better networking admin than *NIX without researching (do you know you could have done in linux?), i would guess that some *NIX probably did something like it first and probably can still do the equivalent better but in a *NIX way. This irrelevant to the argument though.
You should be using a car analogy. This is just improperly generalized and therefore misrepresents the situation.
Those five people are trying to beat me up one a time spread over months/years and no one is wanting to beat you up or if they are their too scared to try.
The security problems are from everything else you want to run on Linux. Linux as, a complete platform, ends up just as exploitable as any Windows installation. Or do you not recall the hacking of Kernel.org and Linux.com?
Linux servers/users are just as likely as Windows users to be running their OS & software without being fully patched.
Seriously are you a registered shrill? so much vague FUD.
While some of what you say is true they are used way out of context to imply things they really don't prove. So most Linux insecurities are from third party apps* but the only example you provide is a privilege escalation exploit. *This is still a theoretical argument.
No its not exponential, you just are doubling it. Only if you chose to represent it as 2^x does it look exponential.(2*2^x=2^x+1) The inverse exponential is what you should be using to calculate your linear multiplier in bits.
Slashdot Mirror
So would have embedded H264 video* but that's not a royalty free web standard.
*I think
Releasing an iPad app with a video that doesn't play in the iPad is a really bad sign. Did they even tested it?
Of course they knew it would not work. There is no 'free' way to do this as far as i know.
Its using webM.
As a result it no longer sucks as IE 9 is ok, and IE 10 is quite competitive with Goole, Apple, and Mozilla as one of the most standard compliant browsers ever.
IE9 was competitive when it came out as well. Some time soon IE10 will have a feature freeze and nothing much will happen until IE11.
You should be able to get a pair of sennheisers that fit around your ear.
It's could be worth paying extra at that price range and what ever is on special that closed and around the ear would work.
I have the 280s and they are pretty good for isolation.
Looks like its 10 years old and written by someone not much older at the time. Should a assume that the content on the page is of similar quality?
Can you expand on how you get to communism? and how you skipped over socialism?
My generalized and simplified rebuttal is both pure capitalism and communism produce crap results when used as goals for economics and society.
Atari and Majesco tried that, using the free ScummVM engine to run one of its old games, but the game ended up recalled [slashdot.org] because Nintendo didn't want any copylefted software on its platform.
In a world of closed source being unethical it would be grossly unethical and poor business to block this.
Besides, if a game has a freely licensed engine, how can the publisher deter people from casually unlawfully copying the data?
Its unethical to use DRM as well according to Stallman. This would be a change from data casually being shared today. You would combat like they do today.
GPLing games leaves most of the old business model intact as you can still charge for content per person.
You can open-source the code for engine and sell the data, you can find heaps of examples of this.
Opensource game engines that are cooperatively made with everyone involved making their own game on top of it could save devs a significant amount of money if they can agree on how to spit the work.
Assuming major fragmentation does not occur, there would be a high enough market share so the divers would receive similar support to Windows has today.
There would be roughly 50 times the market share to fight over, encouraging working with OS and game devs, proper testing and bug fixing.
Having XFCE and ubuntu earlier today granted me with some artifacts tween the gimp and firefox which built up until the screen was complete garbage, and its been a number of years, possibally since windows 98 days since I have seen that on the MS side
In a open source only world GPU companies would be forced to provide working open source drivers if they wanted remain in business.
the legal they use in the is "convey":
To “convey” a work means any kind of propagation that enables other parties to make or receive copies. Mere interaction with a user through a computer network, with no transfer of a copy, is not conveying.
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html
A company carrying out work on the code and keeping it for them selves (same party), does not convey the code and does not run into any GPL clauses. If they they are legally two parties then as long as the second party can be trusted (you cant legally enforce it, as per the license) to not further convey the source, i think your fine as well.
How do you persuade a company legal team that GPLv3 is not poison and let the techies use GPLv3-licenced software ?
Get them to read the license. It only covers conveying of the source code as far as i can see. If you want to use it in a product you want to sell then they have every reason to get worried about it.
If you wanted to sell ad ons, you should sell them to Windows server users.
I can't see how GPL would get in the way of internal use, you never distribute anything.
Yes but this would be and (open) standard and no one would make any money from it.
You would just go to an official website and get some pdf to print.
It could also have problems with poor generating and reading software implementations.
Yep, someone figured out a better solution back in 1956 and had the decency not to try to extort money from it.
Write your medical condition on bracelet. I guess you can fit more info on a website but still.
Do they not have them everywhere?
http://www.medicalert.org/shop/shopHome.htm
Depending on the source they can adjust power output depending on the required power.
On a sunny day you don't need to burn as much fossil fuels and when its raining you burn the normal amount but overall less hydrocarbons are burnt.
No its renewable energy subsidized by PR budgets. While it does not fix anything at least some money is invested in renewable sources.
As a net 0, No.
You can both consume power from the grid and produce it. The extra they make during the day that someone else uses is what they use at night.
Its a PR stunt though, if a bunch of companies got together and funded a massive solar farm it would have the same result and probably be more efficient.
This is slashdot. I prefer to ask myself if he raised a valid point or not.
Your not supporting any of his points, you are no longer talking about security. The main point he has is if you stick the same stuff on your linux servers or desktops (does not say which) as windows ones they end up as insecure as windows.
The Munich rollout started in 2003, and was "complete" in 2011 (75% of total desktops migrated).
maintain not migrate, but you do say to why the example is not too relevant.
One of my metrics for easy is not having to mess around the samba code to try to understand why it isn't working as advertised.
Ill give you that as an issue but samba Samba is a "free software re-implementation of the SMB/CIFS networking protocol". Not a vaid example to extend to extend to all linux Network code, where you would replace it with something involving NFS in a non window environment.
You replied aggressively to someone without even having a vague idea of what you're talking about >>> And that the tools available are businesss oriented, and not nerd-oriented.
I guess you are not aggressive. You come off as a well practiced windows admin who has picked up linux from the internet in the past 5 or so years or no the right person to make these argument. Go back and look at the original post and ask your self how much expertise he had or if he was trolling.
Somewere along this thread, the extrapolation that linux is somewhat more secure than windows was made, without presenting any kind of proof.
I guess he's taking about something that is closer to the default install with relaxed security policies than a properly locked down desktop network but that's a valid assumption that linux is more secure. There are too many metric that anyone can use to make this a simple thing to argue. I think its generally accepted that linux has less threats that user can run into on the internet and is unlikely if infected to have the infection spread though the network.
Windows networks as a whole are easier to maintain (desktop-wise) than *nix-based ones.
Like you ask for proof above, prove it, This is subjective. Cost wise you need less linux admins to windows ones, see the Munich linux roll out. Or is this easy as in you don't need a lot of skill to do tasks that are specific for window admin. Whats the metric for easy?
Given that my work envolves maintaining heterogeneous infrastructures (bsd/linux/windows/osx/etc) on corporate networks, covering both server and desktop integration, i'd say I have a pretty good idea.
I guess i take that back then but your argument is what?
That windows GUI admin has far greater discoverablity than a bunch of commands and config files when it comes someone who has not fully read and remembered the documentation. No(t) arguing with this.
Or that you should use windows server tools to configure admin windows desktop networks. I did not mean to imply that you could do this with linux, i though you mean the equivalent *nix network.
My understand that the article was arguing a network of linux desktops and admin would be more secure than a windows one. The article seems to mean that windows desktops are security hole.
Shure you can. On linux or on any other unix operating system. But can you do it in under a minute,
No idea, i have no training. I would expect that for a proper setup linux network doing it for the 20th time or so you could get it down to script or a couple of lines that you could ssh in remotely to a single server to do. Since I dont know i cant argue this with you.
All of the info GP provides is arguably true but he then makes conclusions that far exceed the scope of the info. The there are exploits in third party cross platforms on window so since those are available on linux therefore linux is insecure is a hypothesis not a proven conclusion.
Linux servers/users are just as likely as Windows users to be running their OS & software without being fully patched.
There is no proof of this so he bangs is after a superficial argument. This mostly irreverent and has the poor proof that like windows linux users don't have to update their systems. As everyone else here is saying if your admin is not up to it then any argument about OS security is irrelevant.
add and remove privileges (there will be an external audit and the guys need to be able to login into the accounting machines from 9am to 5pm, but only thursdays and fridays for a month).
I don't know the best way to do this but I (no admin training) could get something this working on linux. Don't try to argue that windows has better networking admin than *NIX without researching (do you know you could have done in linux?), i would guess that some *NIX probably did something like it first and probably can still do the equivalent better but in a *NIX way. This irrelevant to the argument though.
You should be using a car analogy. This is just improperly generalized and therefore misrepresents the situation.
Those five people are trying to beat me up one a time spread over months/years and no one is wanting to beat you up or if they are their too scared to try.
The security problems are from everything else you want to run on Linux.
Linux as, a complete platform, ends up just as exploitable as any Windows installation.
Or do you not recall the hacking of Kernel.org and Linux.com?
Linux servers/users are just as likely as Windows users to be running their OS & software without being fully patched.
Seriously are you a registered shrill? so much vague FUD.
While some of what you say is true they are used way out of context to imply things they really don't prove.
So most Linux insecurities are from third party apps* but the only example you provide is a privilege escalation exploit.
*This is still a theoretical argument.
No its not exponential, you just are doubling it. Only if you chose to represent it as 2^x does it look exponential.(2*2^x=2^x+1)
The inverse exponential is what you should be using to calculate your linear multiplier in bits.