>Say...you don't have the name of the IE ad-blocking tool handy, do you?
I'm not aware of an IE ad-blocking plugin, but you can use a proxy for this purpose, and it will work with all the browsers configured to use it. JunkBusters maintains a page that offers two products, both free: Guidescope ("easy"), and the Internet JunkBuster.
If you're interested in an even more powerful solution, you could leverage the free Squid Caching Proxy to block offenders.
Sigh. I'm so tired of this urban legend. Al Gore never claimed to invent the Internet. As much as I disagree with much of that man's politics, it irritates me when people harp on something that's simply untrue.
It's FUD, and as with all FUD, it detracts from reasonable and serious discussion and debate.
Ah, but you're assuming an Ignorant Zealot type of Gentoo Admin. I've deployed Gentoo production before, and your hypothetical would have run one of two ways:
Boss: Proteus, I want this new webserver machine up and running ASAP. Proteus: Ok, Boss, let me just boot from this deployment CD and clone the standard Gentoo set. I should have us ready to go in a couple of hours.
OR
Boss: Proteus, I want this new webserver machine up and running ASAP. Proteus: Ok, Boss, I'll build it with a stage-3 Gentoo and use only binary ebuilds; it'll be up in a couple of hours, and I'll schedule the rebuild-from-source during maintenance windows.
Obviously, I preferred the former, but the latter worked fine.
All things considered, though, I much prefer Debian for corporate production installs.
According to the w3schools site, As of Feb2006, market share is approximately:
Windows : 89.8% Linux.. : 03.4% Mac.... : 03.6%
Most notably, the overall share of Mac and Linux have grown steadily while Windows has shrunk at about the same rate. I agree that I doubt MS decided not to support EFI based solely on the new Intel Mac strategy, but marketshare analyses are not the way to point it out.
The point comes down to this: MS would benefit by allowing Mac hardware to boot Windows. A copy sold is a copy sold. Besides, MS already sells a Mac version of Virtual PC with a Windows license for hardly more than just a copy of Windows itself, so it's clear that they have no issue with people running Windows on Mac hardware.
I'm more willing to bet that EFI support is just one more vaporware feature that MS ran out of time to implement for Vista. Every time I hear of yet another Vista feature being axed, I have to wonder if anyone will care about Vista when its released -- what will it actually do for us?
You shouldn't really have to call in a programming team every time someone needs a trivial database. People are fairly capable at defining up tables, fields, connect them together in a visual SQL editor and produce simple forms and reports.
And there are a number of Enterprise solutions that do this. WebFocus, for example. For smaller organizations, I've seen many excellent case studies for FileMaker -- it's the same category of application as Access, but scales better and has a much saner design environment.
I'm getting really tired of comments like "OSS isn't pre-packaged, so it's hard to get working" and "you need to be a developer to get OSS to work". These comments are symptomatic of an idea that adoption of OSS must be all-or-nothing.
Let's take a look at Higher Education, since that's the topic at hand. Let's assume that the OS of choice, here, is Windows -- and for desktops, it probably will continue to be for some time, as you need affordable on-site Help Desk staff and such isn't widely available yet.
OpenOffice.org - the free alternative to MS-Office. Yes, there are some shortcomings; however, for the vast majority of people the functionality is beyond acceptable. It is available with a pre-packaged installer, and there are even education-targeted ISO's available with which to burn installation media. Anyone who can install MS-Office can get OOo up and running.
Nvu - WYSIWYG editor for the web (HTML and CSS). Useful for students and teachers alike to produce and maintain simple web pages. In most cases, Nvu has enough functionality to replace FrontPage, GoLive, and similar. Where those products have necessary functionality, buy and install them -- they coexist reasonably well. Nvu is pre-packaged and easy to install.
Inkscape - Vector graphics application. Lightweight replacement for simple uses of Illustrator and similar. Professionals won't find it complete enough, most likely. However, many users of Illustrator simply don't need most of its power. Inkscape is an ideal replacement. Two-step install on Windows: install GTK (pre-packaged and easy to do), install Inkscape (also pre-packaged and easy). For more discerning users, use Illustrator. Both Illustrator and Inkscape can work with industry-standard graphics formats including SVG.
The GIMP / GIMPShop - Graphics editing. Yet another pre-packaged, easy-to-install OSS package that can replace many common uses of Photoshop. Again, professionals may require the power of Photoshop, but many users require only a subset available in The GIMP (in fact, most users won't even put the GIMP through its whole feature set). GIMPShop allows for a more comfortable transition for users already familiar with Photoshop basics.
The point of all this is that OSS is extremely useful, and you don't have to use OSS in every single place. Often, the OSS equivalent of a non-free application will be sufficient: sometimes, it won't. But to think that all of OSS requires programmers to get working is inane: all of the above are currently in use by barely-computer-literate teachers in K-12 education and in higher ed. They installed them and use them on their own.
OSS has become so diverse that you can't pick on it as a whole, now. You have to evaluate individual applications and address their problems compared to the problems of the non-free counterparts. Anything else is just FUD.
For a long time now, you've been slowly eroding the rights of legitimate music owners in the name of "ending piracy". I respect the fact that there are individuals who avoid paying for music through illegal copying and/or downloading, and that such actions cause your members damage. However, of late your preponderance for taking away the freedoms of your members' customers while ignoring the effect this has on your sales (which you conveniently ascribe to "piracy") has made you seem a bit insane.
This morning I read about your statement that, in your opinion, I cannot legally transfer the music on CD to a portable player so that I may enjoy it in places where carrying CDs and CD players would be impractical, nor can I use a backup copy of a CD in order to protect the original from damage. I can only assume, by this statement, that you have a drug-abuse problem that has progressed to the point of destroying your capacity for rational thought.
I not be purchasing music -- on CD or in any other format -- from RIAA-member publishers until you seek the treatment you so desparately need.
That's simply false, unless for some stupid reason you're using an antiquated filesystem. There is full support for file-system level ACLs in Linux. For example, XFS supports POSIX ACLs, and the SuSE folks include instructions on implementing POSIX ACLs in Linux (pdf) on a couple of different filesystems in their administration guide.
It's not like this is particularly new, either. It's just that you aren't forced to use ACLs, and by default they are configured to be overridden by the traditional mode bits (which, by the way, are surprisingly more powerful in the hands of an expert than many people realize).
Let's try to discuss actual shortfalls in Linux, rather than making them up out of ignorance, hm?
Believe me it's much less hassle to have 2 machines.:)
Most of what I develop doesn't present the challenges you describe. Either I'm working on something for 1 OS or for another, and I have the luxury of one project at a time.
It's just not worth it to buy the second machine, and given that both Linux and OSX can read common file systems, and that the tools I use are usually cross-platform, keeping configs in reasonable sync is not that hard -- I just keep my configs in a CVS repository on the shared paritition, and have a 'cvs update' in my login scripts (and a tricky 'cvs commit' just for configs in my shutdown scripts).
Yeah, the FBI sucks -- trying to investigate threats against minorities before someone gets hurt. Who do they think they are? They have a lot of nerve asking for help from a public library.
They didn't ask for help, they demanded the ability to deprive the library of its computers without having met the burden of proof that those computers were relevant to the investigation. The library will have to live without those computers for a while.
By requiring that the FBI get a warrant, the librarian basically said "prove to a judge that you actually have a good reason to take these from me." The attitude was -- and should be -- "I am perfectly willing to assist you, as long as you can prove you aren't abusing my trust."
Searching or seizing someone's personal property is encroaching upon their rights; there are times when it is jusitified for police to do so, but it's perfectly reasonable to expect that a judge be convinced that the police have justification before they encroach on one's rights.
Without the ability to demand these checks and balances, the FBI could demand my PC on a whim, just because they don't like me. All they'd have to do is claim that they suspect my PC was involved in a crime, and they deprive me of my PC idefinately. By requiring that they get a warrant first (which takes hardly any time, so all the "before someone got hurt" arguments are just ignorant), I make sure that a judge agrees that there is reasonable suspicion.
BTW, there are exceptions to the warrant requirement, subject to review. If there was, for example, clear and present danger that could likely be averted by the search or seizure, they can search first and get the warrant afterward. It's rarely used because you have to be really sure that it's justified, or the sanctions can be very severe.
aside from the whole dual booting fad, why would someone go pay good money for a mac, only to install RadHat?
Dual-booting fad? Yes, because there couldn't possibly be a legitimate reason to have multiple OSes available on a machine (and without the overhead of something like VMware [which, sadly, doesn't yet have an OSX version]).
I have a Powerbook that dual-boots Ubuntu and OSX. Why? I like OSX: it fits me well for my day-to-day use -- I have access to the UNIX tools I need, and I have (IMO) the best Desktop GUI around. I also develop software with OSX as a target. However, I do have to test the things I create on Linux, and sometimes I develop exclusively for Linux. It makes sense for me to have a Linux machine available to work on and test such projects. Unforutnately, VMware doesn't have a version that supports OSX as either guest or host, and VirtualPC only hosts Windows.
If I want OSX for some things and Linux for others, I have two options: dual-boot or buy a second box.
Why would I pay good money for a second machine when I can make the one I have dual-boot for free?
is there a program that can encrypt/decrypt an entire (relatively) small drive with some sort of key system or something?
TrueCrypt is a Free/OpenSource project for Windows and Linux that allows you to encrypt removable devices (and create files as encrypted volumes) easily, and with your choice of open and well-tested algorithms (including AES).
I use this with great success, and would recommend it for Enterprise use in a heartbeat. I have no association with the project, I'm just a thrilled user.
Nothing about apt-get precludes it from enterprise use. Enterprise Windows installs almost always turn off Windows Update and use SMS or a third-party tool for patch management. Apt-get is easy to configure in the same way.
Simply set up a repository server locally (similar to an SMS server). Use apt-get to upgrade on a test machine and regress it (just like Windows patches). Then, move the tested updates to the local apt repository.
Configure your client machines to point to the local repository. Poof. Easier and more reliable than SMS, with about the same effor to set up.
it's not clear before you install that this is going on, it was slipped into a regular update, etc.
Meh. It's well-known that the iTMS is a network application, and is included with the iTunes product. If you download the application from the Apple iTunes download site, that very page describes the Mini Store functionality (with that description and a tiny bit of common sense, it's fairly obvious that some data needs to be sent to a remote server).
And, aside from all of that, they key point: the Apple privacy policy and the iTunes 6 EULA together explain what kind of data is collected and how it is used.
Should it have been a clear opt-in? Maybe. Or maybe the ability to easily disable a feature that obviously only works if you send information is enough.
I'm a total privacy nut, but three things here. First, this is optional functionality that is easy and straightforward to disable. Second, it's sending the name of the song you have selected to a server in order to make a recommendation. There is no evidence that this is being aggregated, but mention of Apple's practices in this regard are communicated in the privacy policy (which is linked on the download page, btw).
Was Apple being a great corporate citizen and acting in an exemplary fashion? No. Were they being evil? Certainly not. Are people overreacting to something that is *really* not a big deal? Absolutely.
BMW is hardly for the "super rich". I recently bought a used VW Jetta for my wife, and it cost about $9000. A BMW in the same approximate class, with similar features, age, and milage cost $11500 (though it does cost more to insure).
A used vehicle for $11500 hardly puts things in the realm of "super rich".
Even if you compare prices for new vehicles, the perception of BMW as a "rich man's car" is odd. A new 3-series (which, I know from experience, *can* fit 5 rather rotund adults comfortably) can be had for around $33500. A Buick LaCrosse (considered a 'mid-range' vehicle) is $34000. No one trumps up on Slashdot claiming that Buick is only for rich people.
Now, this may put it out of the reach of "working stiffs" like me, but it by no means requires significant wealth to attain.
Besides, new technology is often released to the wealthier folks first so that the R&D gets recouped by early adoption. That initial chunk of sales drives the ability to gear up for the investments that allow economies of scale which bring the tech to a more reasonable price range.
If a company can only profit from environmental tech by selling the first couple batches to the wealthy, so be it: at least the tech gets developed rather than shelved because "it's too expensive for the general public."
Of all the comments I've read on this thread, I see a great many complaining that MS is getting unfairly chided for bundling software. I've even seen a thread about Linux distros "doing the same thing". Has everyone lost the capacity for rational analysis?
MS is not being sued over "bundling" software; that is, they have not run afoul of the law for including applications with Windows. They are being sued because the applications they include are impossible to uninstall without damaging your system, and MS is losing because that technique is anticompetitive.
If a user cannot replace the included software (like WMP and IE, for example) with competitive software, then MS is being anti-competitive. Sure, you can install Firefox and RealPlayer if you want, but you can't safely and reasonably get rid of WMP and IE. Attempting to do so without great care and a reasonable level of technical knowledge is likely to damage the OS. That behavior is unacceptable, and MS is finally being taken to task for it.
Linux distros already allow you to easily replace software with competing software wihout causing damage, so that comparison is simply insane.
All that said, I would agree that a better ruling would have been "change Windows so that you can uninstall stuff that's not core to the OS without breaking things". However, I think "make a version of Windows that doesn't have these things" is a reasonable compromise, and is actually better for MS than it could have been.
To be fair, they didn't claim an innovation. They said it was a breakthrough in their interface. In otherwords, they have finally figured out how to do this in a manageable way under Linux. Not the best choice of words, but not an inaccurate thing to say. Think of 'a breakthrough' as lexically scoped.;-)
Re:Autorun? What the heck?
on
KDE 3.5 Released
·
· Score: 2, Informative
You are confusing AutoRun and Media Insert Notification (MiN). MiN simply detects that removable media has been inserted and notifies the MiN manager (in this case, the KDE window manager). The individual MiN manager then has a choice about how to react. In general, this is a pretty good idea because it lets the user choose what to do, or do nothing. Advanced users can configure most MiN managers to just ignore notices, so everyone wins. No malicious code is executed unless you choose to instruct your system to do something stupid with the notification (like automatically execute the first EXE it finds or some crap).
AutoRun is MS's addition to MiN. Windows' MiN manager will pop up a choice for certain media types (which is OK), but if AutoRun is on and the removable media contains an AUTORUN.INF file in its toplevel directy, Windows blithely executes the instructions therein. That's how the Sony BMG rootkit propagated.
As to the implication that it's not a particularly novel feature, I have to agree: MiN has been in most modern OSes for some time. It is, however, a commonly-requested feature, and I think KDE has done well to include it in a way that satisfies their customers[1] and is still admin- and security-professional friendly.
[1]: they are customers, even if they aren't paying.
Slashdot Mirror
>Say...you don't have the name of the IE ad-blocking tool handy, do you?
I'm not aware of an IE ad-blocking plugin, but you can use a proxy for this purpose, and it will work with all the browsers configured to use it. JunkBusters maintains a page that offers two products, both free: Guidescope ("easy"), and the Internet JunkBuster.
If you're interested in an even more powerful solution, you could leverage the free Squid Caching Proxy to block offenders.
Sigh. I'm so tired of this urban legend. Al Gore never claimed to invent the Internet. As much as I disagree with much of that man's politics, it irritates me when people harp on something that's simply untrue.
It's FUD, and as with all FUD, it detracts from reasonable and serious discussion and debate.
Ah, but you're assuming an Ignorant Zealot type of Gentoo Admin. I've deployed Gentoo production before, and your hypothetical would have run one of two ways:
Boss: Proteus, I want this new webserver machine up and running ASAP.
Proteus: Ok, Boss, let me just boot from this deployment CD and clone the standard Gentoo set. I should have us ready to go in a couple of hours.
OR
Boss: Proteus, I want this new webserver machine up and running ASAP.
Proteus: Ok, Boss, I'll build it with a stage-3 Gentoo and use only binary ebuilds; it'll be up in a couple of hours, and I'll schedule the rebuild-from-source during maintenance windows.
Obviously, I preferred the former, but the latter worked fine.
All things considered, though, I much prefer Debian for corporate production installs.
According to the w3schools site, As of Feb2006, market share is approximately:
Most notably, the overall share of Mac and Linux have grown steadily while Windows has shrunk at about the same rate. I agree that I doubt MS decided not to support EFI based solely on the new Intel Mac strategy, but marketshare analyses are not the way to point it out.
The point comes down to this: MS would benefit by allowing Mac hardware to boot Windows. A copy sold is a copy sold. Besides, MS already sells a Mac version of Virtual PC with a Windows license for hardly more than just a copy of Windows itself, so it's clear that they have no issue with people running Windows on Mac hardware.
I'm more willing to bet that EFI support is just one more vaporware feature that MS ran out of time to implement for Vista. Every time I hear of yet another Vista feature being axed, I have to wonder if anyone will care about Vista when its released -- what will it actually do for us?
You shouldn't really have to call in a programming team every time someone needs a trivial database. People are fairly capable at defining up tables, fields, connect them together in a visual SQL editor and produce simple forms and reports.
And there are a number of Enterprise solutions that do this. WebFocus, for example. For smaller organizations, I've seen many excellent case studies for FileMaker -- it's the same category of application as Access, but scales better and has a much saner design environment.
Let's take a look at Higher Education, since that's the topic at hand. Let's assume that the OS of choice, here, is Windows -- and for desktops, it probably will continue to be for some time, as you need affordable on-site Help Desk staff and such isn't widely available yet.
The point of all this is that OSS is extremely useful, and you don't have to use OSS in every single place. Often, the OSS equivalent of a non-free application will be sufficient: sometimes, it won't. But to think that all of OSS requires programmers to get working is inane: all of the above are currently in use by barely-computer-literate teachers in K-12 education and in higher ed. They installed them and use them on their own.
OSS has become so diverse that you can't pick on it as a whole, now. You have to evaluate individual applications and address their problems compared to the problems of the non-free counterparts. Anything else is just FUD.
That doesn't follow. Nobody searches Google, so your inversion is flawed.
In the US, Google helps you search the Internet; in China, Google helps the Internet search YOU!
If you're going to plagarize a cliché joke, at least do it correctly.[$pedant_mode->off()]
Dear RIAA,
For a long time now, you've been slowly eroding the rights of legitimate music owners in the name of "ending piracy". I respect the fact that there are individuals who avoid paying for music through illegal copying and/or downloading, and that such actions cause your members damage. However, of late your preponderance for taking away the freedoms of your members' customers while ignoring the effect this has on your sales (which you conveniently ascribe to "piracy") has made you seem a bit insane.
This morning I read about your statement that, in your opinion, I cannot legally transfer the music on CD to a portable player so that I may enjoy it in places where carrying CDs and CD players would be impractical, nor can I use a backup copy of a CD in order to protect the original from damage. I can only assume, by this statement, that you have a drug-abuse problem that has progressed to the point of destroying your capacity for rational thought.
I not be purchasing music -- on CD or in any other format -- from RIAA-member publishers until you seek the treatment you so desparately need.
Until then, fuck you all.
Regards,
Proteus.
"Linux" has rwx-rwx-rwx. That's it.
That's simply false, unless for some stupid reason you're using an antiquated filesystem. There is full support for file-system level ACLs in Linux. For example, XFS supports POSIX ACLs, and the SuSE folks include instructions on implementing POSIX ACLs in Linux (pdf) on a couple of different filesystems in their administration guide.
It's not like this is particularly new, either. It's just that you aren't forced to use ACLs, and by default they are configured to be overridden by the traditional mode bits (which, by the way, are surprisingly more powerful in the hands of an expert than many people realize).
Let's try to discuss actual shortfalls in Linux, rather than making them up out of ignorance, hm?
Believe me it's much less hassle to have 2 machines. :)
Most of what I develop doesn't present the challenges you describe. Either I'm working on something for 1 OS or for another, and I have the luxury of one project at a time.
It's just not worth it to buy the second machine, and given that both Linux and OSX can read common file systems, and that the tools I use are usually cross-platform, keeping configs in reasonable sync is not that hard -- I just keep my configs in a CVS repository on the shared paritition, and have a 'cvs update' in my login scripts (and a tricky 'cvs commit' just for configs in my shutdown scripts).
Yeah, the FBI sucks -- trying to investigate threats against minorities before someone gets hurt. Who do they think they are? They have a lot of nerve asking for help from a public library.
They didn't ask for help, they demanded the ability to deprive the library of its computers without having met the burden of proof that those computers were relevant to the investigation. The library will have to live without those computers for a while.
By requiring that the FBI get a warrant, the librarian basically said "prove to a judge that you actually have a good reason to take these from me." The attitude was -- and should be -- "I am perfectly willing to assist you, as long as you can prove you aren't abusing my trust."
Searching or seizing someone's personal property is encroaching upon their rights; there are times when it is jusitified for police to do so, but it's perfectly reasonable to expect that a judge be convinced that the police have justification before they encroach on one's rights.
Without the ability to demand these checks and balances, the FBI could demand my PC on a whim, just because they don't like me. All they'd have to do is claim that they suspect my PC was involved in a crime, and they deprive me of my PC idefinately. By requiring that they get a warrant first (which takes hardly any time, so all the "before someone got hurt" arguments are just ignorant), I make sure that a judge agrees that there is reasonable suspicion.
BTW, there are exceptions to the warrant requirement, subject to review. If there was, for example, clear and present danger that could likely be averted by the search or seizure, they can search first and get the warrant afterward. It's rarely used because you have to be really sure that it's justified, or the sanctions can be very severe.
aside from the whole dual booting fad, why would someone go pay good money for a mac, only to install RadHat?
Dual-booting fad? Yes, because there couldn't possibly be a legitimate reason to have multiple OSes available on a machine (and without the overhead of something like VMware [which, sadly, doesn't yet have an OSX version]).
I have a Powerbook that dual-boots Ubuntu and OSX. Why? I like OSX: it fits me well for my day-to-day use -- I have access to the UNIX tools I need, and I have (IMO) the best Desktop GUI around. I also develop software with OSX as a target. However, I do have to test the things I create on Linux, and sometimes I develop exclusively for Linux. It makes sense for me to have a Linux machine available to work on and test such projects. Unforutnately, VMware doesn't have a version that supports OSX as either guest or host, and VirtualPC only hosts Windows.
If I want OSX for some things and Linux for others, I have two options: dual-boot or buy a second box.
Why would I pay good money for a second machine when I can make the one I have dual-boot for free?
Fad, indeed...
is there a program that can encrypt/decrypt an entire (relatively) small drive with some sort of key system or something?
TrueCrypt is a Free/OpenSource project for Windows and Linux that allows you to encrypt removable devices (and create files as encrypted volumes) easily, and with your choice of open and well-tested algorithms (including AES).
I use this with great success, and would recommend it for Enterprise use in a heartbeat. I have no association with the project, I'm just a thrilled user.
imagine being able to whistle a song into your mic, for example and being told what it was called.
Even better: imagine your co-workers whistling a song into their mics and being told they can't carry a tune. I'd consider it a public service...
Nothing about apt-get precludes it from enterprise use. Enterprise Windows installs almost always turn off Windows Update and use SMS or a third-party tool for patch management. Apt-get is easy to configure in the same way.
Simply set up a repository server locally (similar to an SMS server). Use apt-get to upgrade on a test machine and regress it (just like Windows patches). Then, move the tested updates to the local apt repository.
Configure your client machines to point to the local repository. Poof. Easier and more reliable than SMS, with about the same effor to set up.
What would you do with a PS2 once you've bought a PS3?
Install Linux on it, and use it for whatever GP computing you wish.
it's not clear before you install that this is going on, it was slipped into a regular update, etc.
Meh. It's well-known that the iTMS is a network application, and is included with the iTunes product. If you download the application from the Apple iTunes download site, that very page describes the Mini Store functionality (with that description and a tiny bit of common sense, it's fairly obvious that some data needs to be sent to a remote server).
And, aside from all of that, they key point: the Apple privacy policy and the iTunes 6 EULA together explain what kind of data is collected and how it is used.
Should it have been a clear opt-in? Maybe. Or maybe the ability to easily disable a feature that obviously only works if you send information is enough.
I'm a total privacy nut, but three things here. First, this is optional functionality that is easy and straightforward to disable. Second, it's sending the name of the song you have selected to a server in order to make a recommendation. There is no evidence that this is being aggregated, but mention of Apple's practices in this regard are communicated in the privacy policy (which is linked on the download page, btw).
Was Apple being a great corporate citizen and acting in an exemplary fashion? No. Were they being evil? Certainly not. Are people overreacting to something that is *really* not a big deal? Absolutely.
Hm, sudo access to chmod?
/usr/bin/vi /usr/sbin/visudo
/etc/sudoers ~/ /etc/sudoers
$ sudo chmod u+s
$ sudo chmod u+s
$ visudo
Seems like a bad idea. Or, even less detectable if I also had sudo access to cp/mv:
$ sudo cp -p
$ sudo chmod a+rw ~/sudoers
$ vi ~/sudoers
$ sudo chmod 110 ~/sudoers
$ sudo mv -p ~/sudoers
BMW is hardly for the "super rich". I recently bought a used VW Jetta for my wife, and it cost about $9000. A BMW in the same approximate class, with similar features, age, and milage cost $11500 (though it does cost more to insure).
A used vehicle for $11500 hardly puts things in the realm of "super rich".
Even if you compare prices for new vehicles, the perception of BMW as a "rich man's car" is odd. A new 3-series (which, I know from experience, *can* fit 5 rather rotund adults comfortably) can be had for around $33500. A Buick LaCrosse (considered a 'mid-range' vehicle) is $34000. No one trumps up on Slashdot claiming that Buick is only for rich people.
Now, this may put it out of the reach of "working stiffs" like me, but it by no means requires significant wealth to attain.
Besides, new technology is often released to the wealthier folks first so that the R&D gets recouped by early adoption. That initial chunk of sales drives the ability to gear up for the investments that allow economies of scale which bring the tech to a more reasonable price range.
If a company can only profit from environmental tech by selling the first couple batches to the wealthy, so be it: at least the tech gets developed rather than shelved because "it's too expensive for the general public."
Of all the comments I've read on this thread, I see a great many complaining that MS is getting unfairly chided for bundling software. I've even seen a thread about Linux distros "doing the same thing". Has everyone lost the capacity for rational analysis?
MS is not being sued over "bundling" software; that is, they have not run afoul of the law for including applications with Windows. They are being sued because the applications they include are impossible to uninstall without damaging your system, and MS is losing because that technique is anticompetitive.
If a user cannot replace the included software (like WMP and IE, for example) with competitive software, then MS is being anti-competitive. Sure, you can install Firefox and RealPlayer if you want, but you can't safely and reasonably get rid of WMP and IE. Attempting to do so without great care and a reasonable level of technical knowledge is likely to damage the OS. That behavior is unacceptable, and MS is finally being taken to task for it.
Linux distros already allow you to easily replace software with competing software wihout causing damage, so that comparison is simply insane.
All that said, I would agree that a better ruling would have been "change Windows so that you can uninstall stuff that's not core to the OS without breaking things". However, I think "make a version of Windows that doesn't have these things" is a reasonable compromise, and is actually better for MS than it could have been.
E? IE! I... Oh.
As I write this, the above is rated (Score:2, Funny). Because of this rating, the post is amusing, but would not be otherwise.
I 3 self-fulfilling prophecies!
I want to just get rid of that dialog (as in forever)
So, turn it off... Windows and KDE both allow you to do that, you know.
To be fair, they didn't claim an innovation. They said it was a breakthrough in their interface. In otherwords, they have finally figured out how to do this in a manageable way under Linux. Not the best choice of words, but not an inaccurate thing to say. Think of 'a breakthrough' as lexically scoped. ;-)
You are confusing AutoRun and Media Insert Notification (MiN). MiN simply detects that removable media has been inserted and notifies the MiN manager (in this case, the KDE window manager). The individual MiN manager then has a choice about how to react. In general, this is a pretty good idea because it lets the user choose what to do, or do nothing. Advanced users can configure most MiN managers to just ignore notices, so everyone wins. No malicious code is executed unless you choose to instruct your system to do something stupid with the notification (like automatically execute the first EXE it finds or some crap).
AutoRun is MS's addition to MiN. Windows' MiN manager will pop up a choice for certain media types (which is OK), but if AutoRun is on and the removable media contains an AUTORUN.INF file in its toplevel directy, Windows blithely executes the instructions therein. That's how the Sony BMG rootkit propagated.
As to the implication that it's not a particularly novel feature, I have to agree: MiN has been in most modern OSes for some time. It is, however, a commonly-requested feature, and I think KDE has done well to include it in a way that satisfies their customers[1] and is still admin- and security-professional friendly.
[1]: they are customers, even if they aren't paying.