Try this one on for size: Firefox didn't have an security issues until it started becoming popular. The Mac had a few recently too.
Windows SERVERS are not the common target of these root-kits, the DESKTOP is because it IS the most popular.
If Joe Beerbelly used Linux on the desktop, you'd have to take away his ability to install programs to protect him. How useable is the system at that point?
"If Windows represent a bigger target, it SUPPOSEDLY has the "advantage" of being closed-source but the open source Unices, which are fewer in number SHOULD be an easier target."
Hogwash. Why would i target a system that fewer installs? I need an army of machines to get my spam out or to propagate my virus. *nix can't provide that right now.
I'm not saying that *nix is no good, but the logic that it is a smaller target therefore relatively unchallenged holds true.
From site (www.briandilley.com): "Man, it's been a while since i've done anything on this site. Anyway, i'm jobless once again."
Tell you what, I'll challenge you to write a Windows Desktop application. You can use whatever you want, I'll use VB6. We'll see whose program has less bugs, less lines of code and took less time to develop and I'll give you a hundred dollars if you win.
Where will all the components for Gambas come from? Is the database access as full featured as ADO? In VB we have access to so many nice commercial code and GUI components, I won't be switching anytime soon.
That's the problem with the Linux KDE/Gnome/etc. environment...they are so fragmented that nobody can make components that will work on all Linux systems.
"But he's made computers easy to use..."..."But you see, he hasn't..." I replied...He may have made MS-DOS PeeCees easier to use than before...
Contradict yourself much? You're right, if it weren't for Bill Gates and Windows most of the world would still be using some DOS variant or an IBM terminal. Most businesses realize the value of CHOICE which is why Apple didn't make it in the business sector, not because of some malicious action on Microsoft's part (they lost that look-n-feel case remember?).
Bill Gates has done a remarkable job of pulling the wool over they eyes of the average member of the public...
Do tell. And how did he do that? As an average user, my Dad who' been using Windows since '95 would also like to know what this great evil is.
Can you find one argument in that article for the reason *why* an Open Source implementation would help?
The author makes a nice argument for the existence of patents in general and for software patents, but I didn't see anything in the way of telling my why the hell I would want to Open Source my new invention.
Well, I guess the words Open Source showed up so it must be news.
The Result: Would be a system that is both lightweight and fast. Everything
could move at the speed of a finely tuned video game. Advances
in rendering pipelines and library design would be easy to
accommodate. This window system design isn't particularly
radical: it's more just pointing out that this is the way that X is
going already, given the increasing predominance of applicationside
rendering libraries. Once you accept that fact and admit that
it's actually the right way to go, the design falls out, simply by
stripping away legacy stuff that isn't needed any more.
First of all, CERT didn't recommend that Explorer users change browsers. I challenge you to find this on CERT's site.
Second, the fact that IE is closed source means that you could not possibly know that it is coded badly.
Third, nobody uses Firefox, but I can't wait til they do so we can see how many bugs hackers can find. (They're already taking advantage of the XPI Installer)
Fourth, you would have sounded more important if you'd spelled Therefore correctly. Instead you just sounded like a stupid parrot, repeating the advice already given to us. Hope you're proud of that "Insightful" point!
I'm not saying they're useless, just that it is an interruption to me...
Well, if they're just an interruption to YOU, then why do you say this:
People who use computers as toys seem to like the desktop environments because there's lots to explore and play with. (not offensive, just pompous, assenine, and WRONG)
Obviously, you think they're useless because otherwise you wouldn't refer to them as "toys". So which one is it? You seem to be contradicting yourself.
And no, I don't take it personally, I just like to do my job as a good netizen pointing out the trolls and karma whores. Anyway, this argument is over you lost. Accept it.
Besides, arguing on the Internet is like being in the Special Olympics...even if you win, you're still retarded. So I guess we're both retards.
I could care less if you don't like a desktop with all the bells and whistles, I could care less if you want to think of them as toys. Just don't get mad when you make idiotic statements and people call you out on them.
Windows (as in Microsoft) is generally faster with regards to desktop operations, so I can understand your situation (what with your decision to use the all powerful Linux).
I did not understand what you meant because I don't use Linux for desktop anything. However, I still disagree.
You're saying things like the Start menu, Task bar, System Tray, and Desktop are useless right? Two clicks and I've got the program that I want. Other people need to use my computer know instantly how to do what they want. That's productivity.
You have to find an open terminal window, switch to it, and type a command with whatever arguments it needs to open in the background. Gee, I'd say that's way more productive.
How about global hot keys, do you get those? For instance, it's two steps for me to set Ctrl+Alt+Q to open the program Query Analyzer. Ctrl+Alt+N to open UltraEdit.
Personally, I think that most people use a GUI because they don't have time to memorize the location of every executable they need to use (furthermore, they don't care). You obviously have a lot of time on your hands and care very deeply that everyone knows that you are a linux god that doesn't need such a silly toy.
(Personally, I think you should shut the fuck up, but that's me).
My take is that people who use computers as tools avoid using desktop environments like Gnome and KDE because they just get in the way of getting things done. People who use computers as toys seem to like the desktop environments because there's lots to explore and play with.
Let's analyze this. Frankly, its a troll. A good one too, because it worked.
The poster isn't speculating at all, he's making a brash statement that offends a whole segment of people that use a graphical desktop. Furthermore, I wouldn't be surprised if he was being sarcastic in the first place.
And no, there is no choice of a "Window Manager" in Windows because most people can afford the $50 for a 256MB SDRAM chip and aren't whiny little bitches who live in their parent's basement tweaking their box all day.
Slashdot Mirror
Agreed. Linux and Mac OS both have shite for a development IDE.
"This has been refuted time and again..."
Really? Got an example?
Try this one on for size: Firefox didn't have an security issues until it started becoming popular. The Mac had a few recently too.
Windows SERVERS are not the common target of these root-kits, the DESKTOP is because it IS the most popular.
If Joe Beerbelly used Linux on the desktop, you'd have to take away his ability to install programs to protect him. How useable is the system at that point?
"If Windows represent a bigger target, it SUPPOSEDLY has the "advantage" of being closed-source but the open source Unices, which are fewer in number SHOULD be an easier target."
Hogwash. Why would i target a system that fewer installs? I need an army of machines to get my spam out or to propagate my virus. *nix can't provide that right now.
I'm not saying that *nix is no good, but the logic that it is a smaller target therefore relatively unchallenged holds true.
Why don't you read this post: http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=144795&cid= 12126400
From site (www.briandilley.com): "Man, it's been a while since i've done anything on this site. Anyway, i'm jobless once again."
Tell you what, I'll challenge you to write a Windows Desktop application. You can use whatever you want, I'll use VB6. We'll see whose program has less bugs, less lines of code and took less time to develop and I'll give you a hundred dollars if you win.
That's the problem with the Linux KDE/Gnome/etc. environment...they are so fragmented that nobody can make components that will work on all Linux systems.
Suckers.
Luckily, there is a wonderful free exception handling system for VB called HuntErr. You can also make your own data structures using classes.
That's right homey.
Contradict yourself much? You're right, if it weren't for Bill Gates and Windows most of the world would still be using some DOS variant or an IBM terminal. Most businesses realize the value of CHOICE which is why Apple didn't make it in the business sector, not because of some malicious action on Microsoft's part (they lost that look-n-feel case remember?).
Bill Gates has done a remarkable job of pulling the wool over they eyes of the average member of the public...Do tell. And how did he do that? As an average user, my Dad who' been using Windows since '95 would also like to know what this great evil is.
In terms of market share, Microsoft owns Apple.
and they'll probably say something like "how the @#@$%^ do you work this POS?" or "What the hell am i supposed to do with only 1 button??"
CowboyNeal is a big dork who can't stand the fact that Microsoft rulez him.
The author makes a nice argument for the existence of patents in general and for software patents, but I didn't see anything in the way of telling my why the hell I would want to Open Source my new invention.
Well, I guess the words Open Source showed up so it must be news.
Besides general statements like "because it's more reliable than other software" are obvious karma-whore statements.
That about sums up the reason that I don't just give my code away.
The Result: Would be a system that is both lightweight and fast. Everything could move at the speed of a finely tuned video game. Advances in rendering pipelines and library design would be easy to accommodate. This window system design isn't particularly radical: it's more just pointing out that this is the way that X is going already, given the increasing predominance of applicationside rendering libraries. Once you accept that fact and admit that it's actually the right way to go, the design falls out, simply by stripping away legacy stuff that isn't needed any more.
LOL!
Take a look at your post again. Tell me, what was so insightful about your post? Did you bring any new information to the discussion?
Didn't think so.
How many times does it appear? (none)
(Sorry for the late reply, my ISP was down).
Second, the fact that IE is closed source means that you could not possibly know that it is coded badly.
Third, nobody uses Firefox, but I can't wait til they do so we can see how many bugs hackers can find. (They're already taking advantage of the XPI Installer)
Fourth, you would have sounded more important if you'd spelled Therefore correctly. Instead you just sounded like a stupid parrot, repeating the advice already given to us. Hope you're proud of that "Insightful" point!
I think that the Washington Post has gotten it's facts wrong. The only thing they say to do is to disable Javascript:
http://www.us-cert.gov/current/current_activity.ht ml#iis5
Tell you what, let's have a contest then we'll see who's right, OK?
Well, if they're just an interruption to YOU, then why do you say this: People who use computers as toys seem to like the desktop environments because there's lots to explore and play with. (not offensive, just pompous, assenine, and WRONG)
Obviously, you think they're useless because otherwise you wouldn't refer to them as "toys". So which one is it? You seem to be contradicting yourself.
And no, I don't take it personally, I just like to do my job as a good netizen pointing out the trolls and karma whores. Anyway, this argument is over you lost. Accept it.
Besides, arguing on the Internet is like being in the Special Olympics...even if you win, you're still retarded. So I guess we're both retards.
I could care less if you don't like a desktop with all the bells and whistles, I could care less if you want to think of them as toys. Just don't get mad when you make idiotic statements and people call you out on them.I did not understand what you meant because I don't use Linux for desktop anything. However, I still disagree.
You're saying things like the Start menu, Task bar, System Tray, and Desktop are useless right? Two clicks and I've got the program that I want. Other people need to use my computer know instantly how to do what they want. That's productivity.
You have to find an open terminal window, switch to it, and type a command with whatever arguments it needs to open in the background. Gee, I'd say that's way more productive.
How about global hot keys, do you get those? For instance, it's two steps for me to set Ctrl+Alt+Q to open the program Query Analyzer. Ctrl+Alt+N to open UltraEdit.
Personally, I think that most people use a GUI because they don't have time to memorize the location of every executable they need to use (furthermore, they don't care). You obviously have a lot of time on your hands and care very deeply that everyone knows that you are a linux god that doesn't need such a silly toy.
(Personally, I think you should shut the fuck up, but that's me).
People who use computers as toys seem to like the desktop environments because there's lots to explore and play with.
This is more than likely making up for a small penis. Why are you defending this person?
Let's analyze this. Frankly, its a troll. A good one too, because it worked.
The poster isn't speculating at all, he's making a brash statement that offends a whole segment of people that use a graphical desktop. Furthermore, I wouldn't be surprised if he was being sarcastic in the first place.
And no, there is no choice of a "Window Manager" in Windows because most people can afford the $50 for a 256MB SDRAM chip and aren't whiny little bitches who live in their parent's basement tweaking their box all day.