Abuse Microsoft's trust? First, that implies they are capable of trust. History indicates otherwise. Liar's don't believe in anyone else. Second, the point of providing source code is so others can improve it and benefit from it. Why provide source if you don't want to allow others to use it?
Encryption. The fact that Micro "We Get Security now. Really." soft released a wireless driver that lacks this fundamental security feature is ripe for derisive jokes. Honestly, why even release the driver before you can provide this basic ability? It is a problem waiting to happen.
I'm sure some artists (Indies) will continue to sell through ITMS, and I already have tens of GB of music. I will listen to that and not purchase a CD unless I like most of the songs and can rip them to my iPod. I had not purchased any new music for years until ITMS came along. I was not stealing it either. I just stopped paying $15 for a CD with one good song.
My iPod revolutionized how I listened to music I already owned, ripping CDs I had purchased over the years. ITMS got me buying music again. I have purchased 326 songs from ITMS since its inception. That is up from zero per year for several years. If the music industry wants to cut its own throat, I'll let them. Piss on them. I can't stand those greedy bastards. The RIAA and MPAA are some of the worst scumbags on the face of the earth. They have no respect for the rights of others, and they are totally consumed by greed. How many cars and multi-million dollar homes do you need?
"If "too many options confuse people and make them pissed off," then Linux is absolutely..."
That is one of the main objections against Linux voiced by computer illiterate Joe Sixpack on Slashdot. "I'm confused. Which ditribution should I use? I don't like to think. I fear choice. Please don't make me read or use my brain. Don't ask me questions like, "What do you want to name your computer?"" So why is Microsoft aping this strategy of providing many flavors of their server and desktop OS, especially since it is one company instead of numerous, competing, specialized distros?
Honestly, Joe Sixpack never chooses. He runs the OS that comes with the computer. He is generally incapable of replacing the OS unless he knows someone who will do it for him.
Microsoft is one of the least innovative corporations. To be fair, large corporations with cash cow products typically don't risk innovation. Innovation comes from small, nimble startups, which are then sometimes purchased by large companies.
It is unlikely Microsoft will "out-Google" anyone. Microsoft is better at using dirty tricks like well poisoning, and they do have a lot of monopoly power to abuse. Never underestimate the ignorance and ambivalence of their customers either.
I have never run any anti-virus on my Linux or OS X systems. Like the parent, I feel it is not worth the trouble. None of my non-Microsoft systems have ever been brought down by a virus, although every year I have heard next year will be the year for viruses on Linux and Mac.
Last week I saw an article on ClamXav for OS X. I thought, "What the heck." and installed it. The other day, I moved some old Word docs into a directory being "Sentry" monitored by ClamXav. Suddenly the ClamXav alarm went off. It turns out these docs had macro viruses. Now, I don't use Microsoft Office at home. I use OpenOffice.org so I was not vulnerable to the viruses in these docs, which were created by other people and sent to me for review, but it gave me a little start then a chuckle. These Microsoft viruses had remained dormant on my Linux then Mac OS X systems for years, while my systems chugged along unaffected. I do wonder what happened to the guys who sent the documents to me years ago.
You are criticizing Apple for marketing its computers as "easy to use"? Is "easy to use" bad? Don't numerous Microsoft cheerleaders on Slashdot drone on and on about how superior Windows is to Linux because it is easier to use? Don't they say Linux won't make it on the desktop until Grandma can install an application? Let me tell you something. Grandma can't install applications with Windows now. People like me do it for her. Also, doesn't Microsoft take the same "easy to use" marketing approach as Apple, although Windows is not nearly as easy to use as OS X?
You are criticizing Apple users as being novices? The vast majority of Windows users are completely incompetent. Many IT professionals supporting Windows are not much better. Why am I reinstalling Windows systems for two friends who contracted viruses recently? How difficult is it to pop in a CD and install Windows. (The answer is, "More difficult than many Linux distros I have used." Windows drivers/hardware support has been giving me fits on one of these systems.) Why am I doing the most fundamental Windows system configuration for another friend (a dentist, not a dumb guy)? I thought Windows was supposed to be easy. Regardless, Windows has been getting eaten alive by security problems in contrast to the "easy" OS (OS X) and the "hard" OS (Linux).
In the article, some clown made the statement that Linux has been secure by accident instead of design, as if it was one or the other. The "more popular target" argument is only part of the equation. Linux and Mac benefit from better designs. That does not make them invulnerable, but it makes them less vulnerable. Think Pinto (Microsoft) versus Volvo (Linux & OS X).
Microsoft once made the choice to auto-execute or allow the execution of email attachments. By default, Linux and included email apps did not set the execute bit for attachments. Those are design choices affecting a system's vulnerability to attacks. Linux and OS X have benefitted from their Unix-like heritage. Microsoft did their own, ill informed thing. Linux and OS X are not perfect, but they are better secured and more securable. Windows-heads like to believe their system is most attacked purely based upon its market share, attempting to shirk all responsibility for inherent design flaws and user incompetence. Until they stop deluding themselves, they will continue to have problems.
So they have patented "navigating a succession of menus". No prior art there. I think the Zen patent should be for including a virus on an MP3 player.
Companies like this make me sick. I wouldn't accept a Creative MP3 player as a gift because they suck in comparison to Apple's offerings. If they sue Apple, I will never buy another Creative product again, and I do currently own a few of their sound cards and even an olde display adapter. Notice the "e" in olde. That's how old it is.
"After all, I'd rather have my system owned by a script kiddie who's trying to shut down the internet than someone going after my identity and personal information. "
I'd rather not have my system "owned". The Windows user attitude of, "I don't care if someone breaks into my system because it contains nothing important, and I already rebuild it every few months" is not encouraging.
What do you think the statistical likelihood of an overt attack is compared to an automated worm? Those weasels at mi2g who came up with this "study" of dubious merit, are simply looking for some way to get a dig in on Linux. Would you rather be on an OS that gets 52% of.1% of all attacks or one that gets 99% of 99.9% of all attacks?
Getting into a Linux box should require some overt effort. Breaking Windows boxes automatically using worms has been all too easy, as proven by numerous, catastrophic examples such as Code Red, Nimda, Sasser, Slammer, Loveletter, Melissa, etc. Please refresh my memory of all the high-profile, impactful, overt Linux attacks.
I agree that the suicides need to be investigated. Utah has a bloody history of certain fanatical mormon sects committing murder because God told them to. Certain characters on the SCO Group side seem to be ethically shaky, regardless of religious affiliation.
But apart from Virtual memory, Virtual machines, Relational Databases, SQL, Protected memory, Multiuser Operating Systems, Multitasking Operating systems, Markup (SGML, the parent of HTML and XML), Source code management, Spinning disk storage, Network terminals, graphics terminals, and RISC architectures, what has IBM ever done for us?
Wow! Those are two of the most ignorant comments I have heard, and you actually ended up defending both of them.
The first is typical of American-bashing that comes from mindless, spineless Euro-snobs. Everything done by Americans is bad. This comet is 83 million miles away and travelling at an enormous velocity, but this anonymous super-genius could land a gentle probe on it "for not much more money". That explains the stunningly successful European mission that did just that.
The second comment from your friend who studies these things seems at odds with the endless comments about how we lack the technology to prevent a comet or asteroid from colliding with the Earth. The largest atomic weapons could not budge an asteroid in time, we are told. It is already too late for us, and yet, this rather insignificant probe can alter the course of this comet enough to cause a collision over such vast distances. In that case, why don't we launch another probe or two to swat it away?
Then you were modded up as informative by the same nitwit teenagers who endlessly bash organized religion, with enough bile to fill the Pacific ocean.
I'm going to sue this Russian bimbo for $300 million for causing me such morale outrage.
Legislate instead of compete, and try this in the court of public opinion. I thought AMD was gainng market share and making a comeback. Are they so worried about their finances and roadmap that they must resort to this. There may have been a time this case had merit, but everyone except Dell (and Apple) is shipping AMD systems. How effectively did Intel "coerce" these vendors for that to happen? Sounds like AMD is worried about slipping in the near future so they want to cement their gains by using these unsavory tactics.
Huh? Add a feature to Longhorn? They have been gutting features from Longhorn as fast as they can, and it still does not look like it will be released before 2007. Is this "threat" supposed to be even remotely threatening, or did I miss some sarcasm here?
as soon as I saw Fred Langa's name. He has a well earned rep of providing inaccurate information to bolster Microsoft products and trash OSS. That is my tactful way of saying he is incompetent, biased, or a shill. Perhaps he is a mix of the three: an incombiashill.
Years ago, Fred added the announced vulnerabilities of multiple distributions to demonstrate Linux had more security problems than Windows, not allowing for the fact that there would be duplicates from multiple distros including the same code. Either Fred does not know what he is talking about, or he is being misleading. One is bad, and the other is worse. Either way, what is the value of his "analysis"?
It is the same way with the constant stream of nonsense spewing forth from Redmond. Whether they are confused or deceiptful, it does not matter. Their information is still junk.
Slashdot Mirror
Abuse Microsoft's trust? First, that implies they are capable of trust. History indicates otherwise. Liar's don't believe in anyone else. Second, the point of providing source code is so others can improve it and benefit from it. Why provide source if you don't want to allow others to use it?
"what more could I ask for?"
Encryption. The fact that Micro "We Get Security now. Really." soft released a wireless driver that lacks this fundamental security feature is ripe for derisive jokes. Honestly, why even release the driver before you can provide this basic ability? It is a problem waiting to happen.
I'm not sure a lot of people like it. It is probably safer to say that a lot of people tolerate it.
(cough) OpenOffice.org already has it (cough)
"Music Industry Threatens to Commit Suicide"
I'm sure some artists (Indies) will continue to sell through ITMS, and I already have tens of GB of music. I will listen to that and not purchase a CD unless I like most of the songs and can rip them to my iPod. I had not purchased any new music for years until ITMS came along. I was not stealing it either. I just stopped paying $15 for a CD with one good song.
My iPod revolutionized how I listened to music I already owned, ripping CDs I had purchased over the years. ITMS got me buying music again. I have purchased 326 songs from ITMS since its inception. That is up from zero per year for several years. If the music industry wants to cut its own throat, I'll let them. Piss on them. I can't stand those greedy bastards. The RIAA and MPAA are some of the worst scumbags on the face of the earth. They have no respect for the rights of others, and they are totally consumed by greed. How many cars and multi-million dollar homes do you need?
"If "too many options confuse people and make them pissed off," then Linux is absolutely..."
That is one of the main objections against Linux voiced by computer illiterate Joe Sixpack on Slashdot. "I'm confused. Which ditribution should I use? I don't like to think. I fear choice. Please don't make me read or use my brain. Don't ask me questions like, "What do you want to name your computer?"" So why is Microsoft aping this strategy of providing many flavors of their server and desktop OS, especially since it is one company instead of numerous, competing, specialized distros?
Honestly, Joe Sixpack never chooses. He runs the OS that comes with the computer. He is generally incapable of replacing the OS unless he knows someone who will do it for him.
Microsoft is one of the least innovative corporations. To be fair, large corporations with cash cow products typically don't risk innovation. Innovation comes from small, nimble startups, which are then sometimes purchased by large companies.
It is unlikely Microsoft will "out-Google" anyone. Microsoft is better at using dirty tricks like well poisoning, and they do have a lot of monopoly power to abuse. Never underestimate the ignorance and ambivalence of their customers either.
I have never run any anti-virus on my Linux or OS X systems. Like the parent, I feel it is not worth the trouble. None of my non-Microsoft systems have ever been brought down by a virus, although every year I have heard next year will be the year for viruses on Linux and Mac.
Last week I saw an article on ClamXav for OS X. I thought, "What the heck." and installed it. The other day, I moved some old Word docs into a directory being "Sentry" monitored by ClamXav. Suddenly the ClamXav alarm went off. It turns out these docs had macro viruses. Now, I don't use Microsoft Office at home. I use OpenOffice.org so I was not vulnerable to the viruses in these docs, which were created by other people and sent to me for review, but it gave me a little start then a chuckle. These Microsoft viruses had remained dormant on my Linux then Mac OS X systems for years, while my systems chugged along unaffected. I do wonder what happened to the guys who sent the documents to me years ago.
You are criticizing Apple for marketing its computers as "easy to use"? Is "easy to use" bad? Don't numerous Microsoft cheerleaders on Slashdot drone on and on about how superior Windows is to Linux because it is easier to use? Don't they say Linux won't make it on the desktop until Grandma can install an application? Let me tell you something. Grandma can't install applications with Windows now. People like me do it for her. Also, doesn't Microsoft take the same "easy to use" marketing approach as Apple, although Windows is not nearly as easy to use as OS X?
You are criticizing Apple users as being novices? The vast majority of Windows users are completely incompetent. Many IT professionals supporting Windows are not much better. Why am I reinstalling Windows systems for two friends who contracted viruses recently? How difficult is it to pop in a CD and install Windows. (The answer is, "More difficult than many Linux distros I have used." Windows drivers/hardware support has been giving me fits on one of these systems.) Why am I doing the most fundamental Windows system configuration for another friend (a dentist, not a dumb guy)? I thought Windows was supposed to be easy. Regardless, Windows has been getting eaten alive by security problems in contrast to the "easy" OS (OS X) and the "hard" OS (Linux).
In the article, some clown made the statement that Linux has been secure by accident instead of design, as if it was one or the other. The "more popular target" argument is only part of the equation. Linux and Mac benefit from better designs. That does not make them invulnerable, but it makes them less vulnerable. Think Pinto (Microsoft) versus Volvo (Linux & OS X).
Microsoft once made the choice to auto-execute or allow the execution of email attachments. By default, Linux and included email apps did not set the execute bit for attachments. Those are design choices affecting a system's vulnerability to attacks. Linux and OS X have benefitted from their Unix-like heritage. Microsoft did their own, ill informed thing. Linux and OS X are not perfect, but they are better secured and more securable. Windows-heads like to believe their system is most attacked purely based upon its market share, attempting to shirk all responsibility for inherent design flaws and user incompetence. Until they stop deluding themselves, they will continue to have problems.
So they have patented "navigating a succession of menus". No prior art there. I think the Zen patent should be for including a virus on an MP3 player.
Companies like this make me sick. I wouldn't accept a Creative MP3 player as a gift because they suck in comparison to Apple's offerings. If they sue Apple, I will never buy another Creative product again, and I do currently own a few of their sound cards and even an olde display adapter. Notice the "e" in olde. That's how old it is.
None. Apple computers are way too expensive. Now help me get these Windows systems fixed. This is going to take forever.
unless they were trying to escape.
"After all, I'd rather have my system owned by a script kiddie who's trying to shut down the internet than someone going after my identity and personal information. "
.1% of all attacks or one that gets 99% of 99.9% of all attacks?
I'd rather not have my system "owned". The Windows user attitude of, "I don't care if someone breaks into my system because it contains nothing important, and I already rebuild it every few months" is not encouraging.
What do you think the statistical likelihood of an overt attack is compared to an automated worm? Those weasels at mi2g who came up with this "study" of dubious merit, are simply looking for some way to get a dig in on Linux. Would you rather be on an OS that gets 52% of
Getting into a Linux box should require some overt effort. Breaking Windows boxes automatically using worms has been all too easy, as proven by numerous, catastrophic examples such as Code Red, Nimda, Sasser, Slammer, Loveletter, Melissa, etc. Please refresh my memory of all the high-profile, impactful, overt Linux attacks.
I agree that the suicides need to be investigated. Utah has a bloody history of certain fanatical mormon sects committing murder because God told them to. Certain characters on the SCO Group side seem to be ethically shaky, regardless of religious affiliation.
"Windows is sort of a GUI version of the Mac's operating system"
What is Mac OS again?
Most comments are from teenagers who parrot crap spouted by bitter, old fans of Alpha.
But apart from Virtual memory, Virtual machines, Relational Databases, SQL, Protected memory, Multiuser Operating Systems, Multitasking Operating systems, Markup (SGML, the parent of HTML and XML), Source code management, Spinning disk storage, Network terminals, graphics terminals, and RISC architectures, what has IBM ever done for us?
And what have they done for us lately.
Wow! Those are two of the most ignorant comments I have heard, and you actually ended up defending both of them.
The first is typical of American-bashing that comes from mindless, spineless Euro-snobs. Everything done by Americans is bad. This comet is 83 million miles away and travelling at an enormous velocity, but this anonymous super-genius could land a gentle probe on it "for not much more money". That explains the stunningly successful European mission that did just that.
The second comment from your friend who studies these things seems at odds with the endless comments about how we lack the technology to prevent a comet or asteroid from colliding with the Earth. The largest atomic weapons could not budge an asteroid in time, we are told. It is already too late for us, and yet, this rather insignificant probe can alter the course of this comet enough to cause a collision over such vast distances. In that case, why don't we launch another probe or two to swat it away?
Then you were modded up as informative by the same nitwit teenagers who endlessly bash organized religion, with enough bile to fill the Pacific ocean.
I'm going to sue this Russian bimbo for $300 million for causing me such morale outrage.
Legislate instead of compete, and try this in the court of public opinion. I thought AMD was gainng market share and making a comeback. Are they so worried about their finances and roadmap that they must resort to this. There may have been a time this case had merit, but everyone except Dell (and Apple) is shipping AMD systems. How effectively did Intel "coerce" these vendors for that to happen? Sounds like AMD is worried about slipping in the near future so they want to cement their gains by using these unsavory tactics.
P.S.
Considering the rate of adoption for XP, when will Longhorn reach critical mass, if ever? 2012?
Huh? Add a feature to Longhorn? They have been gutting features from Longhorn as fast as they can, and it still does not look like it will be released before 2007. Is this "threat" supposed to be even remotely threatening, or did I miss some sarcasm here?
how it could be any worse than it already is.
I also blame the Internet for pornography.
Then what exactly are they trying to show off here?
as soon as I saw Fred Langa's name. He has a well earned rep of providing inaccurate information to bolster Microsoft products and trash OSS. That is my tactful way of saying he is incompetent, biased, or a shill. Perhaps he is a mix of the three: an incombiashill.
Years ago, Fred added the announced vulnerabilities of multiple distributions to demonstrate Linux had more security problems than Windows, not allowing for the fact that there would be duplicates from multiple distros including the same code. Either Fred does not know what he is talking about, or he is being misleading. One is bad, and the other is worse. Either way, what is the value of his "analysis"?
It is the same way with the constant stream of nonsense spewing forth from Redmond. Whether they are confused or deceiptful, it does not matter. Their information is still junk.