For the same reason software is so valuable, even though it's just a jumble of bytes.
Yet it's interesting that the "everything wants to be free" crowd couldn't shell out $5 for a complete operating system but doesn't think twice about accepting that a font can have a monetary value attached to it.
The FTC accused Brian D. Westby, of suburban St. Louis, of using the e-mail spam operation to drive business to an adult Web site called "Married But Lonely."
Hopefully Mr. Westby will heretofore be "Lonely with Guido" in a minimum security facility for at least a few years.
If you really are getting crashes or lockups on Linux therefore it's most likely you have hardware problems
I have an older (~3 year) box, a Gateway with some mods. I boot to both Debian and RedHat 7.x (or maybe it's 6.x, it's the "Valhalla" build) on it.
RH works fine. Debian crashes once in a while, especially when using Mozilla and/or xmms. Sometimes the OS as a whole will begin to get unresponsive to the point I have to reboot. All is well for a few hours after that.
I don't consider myself a Linux expert since I've only been using it for about two years, but I can't find anything that would point to the reason for this.
I'm probably at fault, but that doesn't mean that a) Linux sucks; or b) Windows r00lz. It just means that sometimes you can screw it up just as happily with the "superior" OS.
Ah, one of those urban legends post trying to prove than [Linux|BSD|OSX] is better than Windows.
While W2k is an improvement over NT in terms of reliability, it still bluescreens occasionally
So does my Debian box running Gnome, and so does every other OS ("blue screen" being whatever passes for that elsewhere). The assertion that operating system X fails more than operating system Y is about as valid as other apples-to-oranges comparisons because I'm sure as heck not doing the same things with my Windows boxes as you are with Linux.
finally managed to rack up 2 years
Server uptime is a nice statistic that is irrelevant for people who buy computers to play games or send email to grandma. Windows 2000 has absolutely fantastic uptime compared to NT4, and yet that's irrelevant as well even in the server space. What matters is service availability. I really don't find it amazing that a box can serve static HTML for six years in a row without crapping out. In the real world, I don't care if the box never dies, it's being rebooted at 4:00 AM on a Sunday. Why? Because. It doesn't matter which OS it happens to be running. And since you can cluster Windows boxes very easily, you have 100% service availability. Period.
BTW, Slammer is not an IIS worm.
is gonna be all shiny new and with a fabulous and innovative range of unforeseen bugs too
So is the next version of Oracle. So your point is?
I may not have the latest frilly border on my documents
Good for you. I use Windows to write code, mostly and play games. In three years I've had exactly two blue screens, both caused by crappy Creative drivers. At work my workstation has had exactly zero blue screens in two years. These are boxes that get turned off about once a week.
Slashbork lost all creadibility a couple of years ago, when they decided that they would use the front page to post the same flamebait material they bettled to keep out of comments for a long time.
This is just another example. The "Micro$oft Office XML fiasco" is another recent one, off the top of my head. This place is becoming more of a Microsoft bashing arena than a place to discuss and learn about open source.
But hey, it sells ads. "Page impressions" I think they call it. Don't get many of those if the story is about some obscure (but interesting) part of the BSD kernel - but virulent anti-Microsoft shit? Ahhhhh. That's where the profit is!
Wow, that's quite a mouthful. Am I getting your panties all in a bunch?
Debian tracks over three thousand packages
*chuckle* You keep repeating that like it's some sort of Higher Truth. Do you bang your head against the keyboard every time you say "three thousand packages"?
Microsft tracks a handful of packages
The fallacy in your "point" is obvious, yet you can't bring yourself to see its inherent stupidity. Microsoft doesn't "track packages". It sells an operating system. It doesn't include "GNUChess" and they don't give you an rpm for it. The fact that Debian does that is besides the point. Asserting that Debian is "more secure" than Windows is about as stupid as saying that your house is more secure than mine, even though yours has 50 doors and mine has only two. But hey, you use lots of locks. That's so, well, stunningly stupid, it hurts.
So you see now how much more secure debian is then windows?
If you keep repeating that over and over again maybe you'll eventually believe it. Good luck!
Is that still too hard for you to follow?
No. Like I said, I have trouble following your monkey logic.
Did anyone get that incredibly annoying full-screen Flash ad when hitting the Wired.com front page? Holy shit, they're really hitting bottom now. And the best part is, if you click "Skip" the browser just hangs there and has to be closed.
I know times are tough and all, but talk about killing the golden goose (or something to that effect).
In this day and age there is no need to wallow in your ignorance
Yes, fuck you too.
The main point is that debian is more secure then windows despite the fact that debian tracks over 3000 pieces of software while windows only has to track a handful of them.
It must be nice to live in a world where everything is so simple.
Because they used to promote movies (back in the day when they had no sound) and even stage gigs using posters that were glued to wood boards and towed in -wait for it- trailers using big trucks that drove around town with announcements on loudspeakers.
Actually, I just made that up, but it seems plausible =)
QT sucks unless it's running on a Mac. Not a general statement on Apple software, but their software on Windows feels and acts the same way as IBM's - an afterthought. People complain stuff is not ported to Linux - I wish stuff was ported to Windows correctly.
I've never really gotten QT to work correctly in Windows. Multiple machines, multiple versions of the OS, etc. Something is always wrong.
OTOH, on a Mac QT is absolutely amazing, especially the sound.
With Windows, it's run their patch application and hope it doesn't screw anything up
You certainly have a point there. I've become very selective in what type of update I apply to my boxes, because of the potential I see for something going belly up when 15 "cumulative patches" are applied at the same time. IMO, Microsoft's solution to this problem is closer to being a problem itself. The "OK, we'll disclose all the bugs and here are all the patches for them" approach doesn't really work. For me, at least. But I guess we got what we ask for =)
Slashdot Mirror
Yet it's interesting that the "everything wants to be free" crowd couldn't shell out $5 for a complete operating system but doesn't think twice about accepting that a font can have a monetary value attached to it.
Uncanny.
Hopefully Mr. Westby will heretofore be "Lonely with Guido" in a minimum security facility for at least a few years.
We can only hope.
I have an older (~3 year) box, a Gateway with some mods. I boot to both Debian and RedHat 7.x (or maybe it's 6.x, it's the "Valhalla" build) on it.
RH works fine. Debian crashes once in a while, especially when using Mozilla and/or xmms. Sometimes the OS as a whole will begin to get unresponsive to the point I have to reboot. All is well for a few hours after that.
I don't consider myself a Linux expert since I've only been using it for about two years, but I can't find anything that would point to the reason for this.
I'm probably at fault, but that doesn't mean that a) Linux sucks; or b) Windows r00lz. It just means that sometimes you can screw it up just as happily with the "superior" OS.
While W2k is an improvement over NT in terms of reliability, it still bluescreens occasionally
So does my Debian box running Gnome, and so does every other OS ("blue screen" being whatever passes for that elsewhere). The assertion that operating system X fails more than operating system Y is about as valid as other apples-to-oranges comparisons because I'm sure as heck not doing the same things with my Windows boxes as you are with Linux.
finally managed to rack up 2 years
Server uptime is a nice statistic that is irrelevant for people who buy computers to play games or send email to grandma. Windows 2000 has absolutely fantastic uptime compared to NT4, and yet that's irrelevant as well even in the server space. What matters is service availability. I really don't find it amazing that a box can serve static HTML for six years in a row without crapping out. In the real world, I don't care if the box never dies, it's being rebooted at 4:00 AM on a Sunday. Why? Because. It doesn't matter which OS it happens to be running. And since you can cluster Windows boxes very easily, you have 100% service availability. Period.
BTW, Slammer is not an IIS worm.
is gonna be all shiny new and with a fabulous and innovative range of unforeseen bugs too
So is the next version of Oracle. So your point is?
I may not have the latest frilly border on my documents
Good for you. I use Windows to write code, mostly and play games. In three years I've had exactly two blue screens, both caused by crappy Creative drivers. At work my workstation has had exactly zero blue screens in two years. These are boxes that get turned off about once a week.
No Windows, no bluescreens, yes productivity.
More power to you.
Sure. And even post FUD on Slashdot.
And if you switch to Windows 2000, well, no more "BSODs".
Give an eyelash and I'll tell you.
I was going to make a lame joke about this and then I thought better about it. Not worth the karma hit.
Oh, wait...
This is just another example. The "Micro$oft Office XML fiasco" is another recent one, off the top of my head. This place is becoming more of a Microsoft bashing arena than a place to discuss and learn about open source.
But hey, it sells ads. "Page impressions" I think they call it. Don't get many of those if the story is about some obscure (but interesting) part of the BSD kernel - but virulent anti-Microsoft shit? Ahhhhh. That's where the profit is!
And of course this type of thing begs the question - do they want to be "wired"?
Indeed.
Does the word "metaphor" give you goosebumps?
Right. Perhaps if you tried to educate yourself first your heroic efforts would actually pan out.
Wow, that's quite a mouthful. Am I getting your panties all in a bunch?
Debian tracks over three thousand packages
*chuckle* You keep repeating that like it's some sort of Higher Truth. Do you bang your head against the keyboard every time you say "three thousand packages"?
Microsft tracks a handful of packages
The fallacy in your "point" is obvious, yet you can't bring yourself to see its inherent stupidity. Microsoft doesn't "track packages". It sells an operating system. It doesn't include "GNUChess" and they don't give you an rpm for it. The fact that Debian does that is besides the point. Asserting that Debian is "more secure" than Windows is about as stupid as saying that your house is more secure than mine, even though yours has 50 doors and mine has only two. But hey, you use lots of locks. That's so, well, stunningly stupid, it hurts.
So you see now how much more secure debian is then windows?
If you keep repeating that over and over again maybe you'll eventually believe it. Good luck!
Is that still too hard for you to follow?
No. Like I said, I have trouble following your monkey logic.
It's unfortunate you've been unable to do the same.
3000 packages
Since Debian has more "packages", it must be the superior OS. OK, I get it.
And I care because...?
I know times are tough and all, but talk about killing the golden goose (or something to that effect).
Yes, fuck you too.
The main point is that debian is more secure then windows despite the fact that debian tracks over 3000 pieces of software while windows only has to track a handful of them.
It must be nice to live in a world where everything is so simple.
Hey, cool. Thanks.
Actually, I just made that up, but it seems plausible =)
QT sucks unless it's running on a Mac. Not a general statement on Apple software, but their software on Windows feels and acts the same way as IBM's - an afterthought. People complain stuff is not ported to Linux - I wish stuff was ported to Windows correctly.
I've never really gotten QT to work correctly in Windows. Multiple machines, multiple versions of the OS, etc. Something is always wrong.
OTOH, on a Mac QT is absolutely amazing, especially the sound.
I totally agree.
Yeah, but packages of what?
Freshmeat and Sourceforge have over 100,000 "projects" between them. That doesn't mean they're all useful or even remotely interesting.
I could care less if a distro installs sixteen different text editors and media players if I don't get a decent Office suite.
Wow. Every time I think Slashdot has hit bottom, someone surprises me.
You certainly have a point there. I've become very selective in what type of update I apply to my boxes, because of the potential I see for something going belly up when 15 "cumulative patches" are applied at the same time. IMO, Microsoft's solution to this problem is closer to being a problem itself. The "OK, we'll disclose all the bugs and here are all the patches for them" approach doesn't really work. For me, at least. But I guess we got what we ask for =)