The question is, do Linux distros have more vulnerabilities listed because more are found, or because more exist? Does less known vulnerabilities mean it's more secure, or that no-one can be bothered to find them?
Variables like that make it much harder to correlate the cause with the effect.
I don't believe climate change is a bad thing.
With the amount of damage that raw crude oil and methane does to the environment, i think that burning it is probably the cleanest thing to do with it. Sure, it's much better to leave it where it is, but the earth is changing all the time, and that crude oil may indeed make it to the surface to pollute the oceans naturally.
Also, given the amount of forests we chop down and don't replace, the Arctic (and Antarctic) becoming greener, gives us some new carbon sinks where we never had them before.
We're heading for warmer times, sure, but is it really all doom and gloom? I Think that all the other life on the planet will thank us in a few thousand years (probably because we've starved ourselves to death, due to all our crops dying out due to climate change, or maybe skip the middle man and just nuke ourselves)
The long-held belief that Linux is somehow a much more secure OS than Windows is a long-held fallacy. Linux is just as vulnerable to viruses and hacking as any other system. In fact, a mis-configured Linux server can have more holes in it than a colander. The only reason Windows get's targeted so often, is it's ~90% market share of desktop PC's.
If linux had that sort of market share, all the viruses would target Linux instead. Everyone would be singing the praises of Microsoft and how their black-box proprietary OS makes it hard for hackers as they have no access to source code.
THISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHIS. Gave up with Ubuntu after every single fecking update broke something. If it's not sound, it's graphics. if it's neither, then there's some other obscure piece of hardware, such as the parallel interface or the USB ports. Users want a stable API/ABI, not something that's going to change in 3 weeks. Why do you think Windows has been so successful since Win95. Because everything works. It might be an unreliable and unsafe heap of turd, but it'll run my back catalog of applications, which quite often may have cost more than the machine running it.
Most people prefer Coke over Pepsi. Doesn't mean that everyone in the world has drunk both and can make an informed choice. Just means the ones who have tried one or the other prefer Coke.
Maybe "I don't want straight Ubuntu. I want Mint. So do many other users of Debian-based GNU/Linux Operating Systems." would have been a better choice of words for you grammar nazis out there.
I
My father worked in the new (and fancy) Lifeboat College in Poole, UK. Plagued by many design flaws (including direct line-of-sight from a corridor into a ladies cubicle via "architectural" windows), the steel beams that make up the structure partially blocks the timekeeping signal to the large deployment of time-syncing clocks. This makes for an amusing sight around noon, where all the clocks in the building would try to sync with the weak signal, and do many rotations round the clock face when the signal dropped out.
Took an old PC cooling fan and spliced it into the 5V wires of an old USB lead to help an old EeePC 701 mobo keep cool. Was using it as a super-cheap NAS with a USB HDD
The only reason RAM exists is because it's many magnitudes faster than "disk". Once non-volatile memory is up to the same speeds as volatile, RAM will cease to exist
What's the point in running a brand new OS on it? Is HP-UX not good enough? Or the many other *NIX's? I'll put money on Linux being ported to it before it even ships to Joe Public
Either way, a $500 PC will be woefully outdated within the same timeframe as a next-gen console is released and then phased out. However, the biggest advantage is that the entire (Windows-based) back catalogue is (mostly) backwards, and forwards compatible with newer machines. On the other hand, consoles usually live long lives anyway, with new games trickling out for old platforms. Therefore, your ~12 year old PS2 could still be put to use with new titles. The other advantage to consoles, is you know the game will work on it. No worrying if your graphics card is too crap, no worrying if you'll have enough RAM. If it says PS3, or XBox 360, etc on it, it will work on that console, no matter how old or young.
IIRC, all the GTA series (inc for definite, SA) came from Rockstar North, with the exception of the *City Stories series, which was made by Rockstar Leeds. As for Chinatown Wars and Advance, i have no idea.
However, Midnight Club came from Angel Studios/R* San Diego, of which, Midnight Club 3 was my favourite.
Slashdot Mirror
The question is, do Linux distros have more vulnerabilities listed because more are found, or because more exist? Does less known vulnerabilities mean it's more secure, or that no-one can be bothered to find them?
Variables like that make it much harder to correlate the cause with the effect.
I don't believe climate change is a bad thing. With the amount of damage that raw crude oil and methane does to the environment, i think that burning it is probably the cleanest thing to do with it. Sure, it's much better to leave it where it is, but the earth is changing all the time, and that crude oil may indeed make it to the surface to pollute the oceans naturally. Also, given the amount of forests we chop down and don't replace, the Arctic (and Antarctic) becoming greener, gives us some new carbon sinks where we never had them before. We're heading for warmer times, sure, but is it really all doom and gloom? I Think that all the other life on the planet will thank us in a few thousand years (probably because we've starved ourselves to death, due to all our crops dying out due to climate change, or maybe skip the middle man and just nuke ourselves)
The long-held belief that Linux is somehow a much more secure OS than Windows is a long-held fallacy. Linux is just as vulnerable to viruses and hacking as any other system. In fact, a mis-configured Linux server can have more holes in it than a colander. The only reason Windows get's targeted so often, is it's ~90% market share of desktop PC's. If linux had that sort of market share, all the viruses would target Linux instead. Everyone would be singing the praises of Microsoft and how their black-box proprietary OS makes it hard for hackers as they have no access to source code.
THISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHIS. Gave up with Ubuntu after every single fecking update broke something. If it's not sound, it's graphics. if it's neither, then there's some other obscure piece of hardware, such as the parallel interface or the USB ports. Users want a stable API/ABI, not something that's going to change in 3 weeks. Why do you think Windows has been so successful since Win95. Because everything works. It might be an unreliable and unsafe heap of turd, but it'll run my back catalog of applications, which quite often may have cost more than the machine running it.
Most people prefer Coke over Pepsi. Doesn't mean that everyone in the world has drunk both and can make an informed choice. Just means the ones who have tried one or the other prefer Coke. Maybe "I don't want straight Ubuntu. I want Mint. So do many other users of Debian-based GNU/Linux Operating Systems." would have been a better choice of words for you grammar nazis out there. I
My father worked in the new (and fancy) Lifeboat College in Poole, UK. Plagued by many design flaws (including direct line-of-sight from a corridor into a ladies cubicle via "architectural" windows), the steel beams that make up the structure partially blocks the timekeeping signal to the large deployment of time-syncing clocks. This makes for an amusing sight around noon, where all the clocks in the building would try to sync with the weak signal, and do many rotations round the clock face when the signal dropped out.
https://xkcd.com/927/
Build more nuclear plants
Total bollocks
Seriously, who cares?
Took an old PC cooling fan and spliced it into the 5V wires of an old USB lead to help an old EeePC 701 mobo keep cool. Was using it as a super-cheap NAS with a USB HDD
No-one's interested in his shitty computers anymore
Get down, deeper and down? Down down, deeper and down?
He doesn't shit on the carpet.
HP = Hewlett Packard
BeOS is owned by ACCESS. Either way, BeOS is so woefully out of date, even the Haiku devs don't want it.
The only reason RAM exists is because it's many magnitudes faster than "disk". Once non-volatile memory is up to the same speeds as volatile, RAM will cease to exist
What's the point in running a brand new OS on it? Is HP-UX not good enough? Or the many other *NIX's? I'll put money on Linux being ported to it before it even ships to Joe Public
Worst bit was, i bought it when the release date was Spring 2013. The PS3 died shortly after GTA V came out >_>
No, i meant a $2000 PC.
Either way, a $500 PC will be woefully outdated within the same timeframe as a next-gen console is released and then phased out. However, the biggest advantage is that the entire (Windows-based) back catalogue is (mostly) backwards, and forwards compatible with newer machines. On the other hand, consoles usually live long lives anyway, with new games trickling out for old platforms. Therefore, your ~12 year old PS2 could still be put to use with new titles. The other advantage to consoles, is you know the game will work on it. No worrying if your graphics card is too crap, no worrying if you'll have enough RAM. If it says PS3, or XBox 360, etc on it, it will work on that console, no matter how old or young.
Not everyone has the money for a $2000 PC
I bought a PS3 specifically for GTAV.
You're an asshat.
Or, uhhh, PS2/PS3...
IIRC, all the GTA series (inc for definite, SA) came from Rockstar North, with the exception of the *City Stories series, which was made by Rockstar Leeds. As for Chinatown Wars and Advance, i have no idea.
However, Midnight Club came from Angel Studios/R* San Diego, of which, Midnight Club 3 was my favourite.