How is that false? In Windows, moving beyond the pretty clicky clicky click interfaces is deep, dark fucking Voodoo that nobody actually understands! There are no serious experts in Windows.
Of course there are.
Are there people who know every aspect of every component of Windows inside and out ? Probably not. However, the same is true of every platform these days, they're all too big for any one person to comprehensively understand top to bottom.
So yeah, even people who are theoretically Windows "experts" - even Mark Russinovich, who supposedly understood Windows so much better than anyone at Microsoft that it got him hired there - don't really know how Windows works. What sort of a chance does anyone else have?
It's hard to see how you've reached that conclusion.
The real solution? Reimage the production server to just get it working, then you dig around on the dev server until you find out what's actually going on.
It'd be nice if a dev environment could genuinely mirror production, but very few people are that lucky.
How true. There popular explanation of the difference between a CLI and a GUI is that CLIs are so complicated that you need a manual to use it, whereas GUIs are so simple and intuitively obvious that no manual is needed.
No, the difference is that a CLI is nearly impossible to use if you aren't familiar with it - the semantics and syntax are as, if not more, important than the concepts - whereas a GUI requires much less focussing on the "how", allowing much more focussing on the "what".
GUIs may have some aesthetic appeal (aka "pretty pictures"), but they remain the slowest, clumsiest way to use a computer that we've yet developed.
Ridiculously untrue, particularly in the context of non-specialised, non-expert users.
Just ensure that the description of any GPL app includes a link to download the sourcecode, or make complying with the gpl and providing sourcecode a requirement in order to get your gpl licensed app listed on the marketplace.
Not good enough. If Microsoft distributes GPLed software, _Microsoft_ has to distribute the source code.
Actually, this is no longer correct. SSDs (such as the one in this study) are quite capable of examining the filesystem stored on the drive, independently, and the concept of 'dutifully' and ignorantly maintaining deleted data goes out of the window as a result.
This would be an exceptionally stupid mis-feature for a drive vendor to implement, and hence I have a great deal of difficulty believing it is true. Do you have a source ?
Reinstalling windows regularly is like changing the oil in your car. If your not doing it often you have hidden problems that you may not know about. This isn't even about viruses. Windows loves to randomly trash itself.
Rubbish.
Now to be fair I haven't used windows 7 yet. I have to get a copy of it but I am unwilling to spend $200 on something that i only need occasionally. I know somethings have changed for the better. Oh and it is $200 because I am not a student, and refuse to install limited versions when the full OS X is $130.
An upgrade copy of Windows 7 Home Premium is $110, and is no more "limited" than any copy of OS X you can buy.
Might I add, I presume having a very complex/intricate design would make construction a lot trickier.. Compare the innards of a MacBook Pro and any other laptop manufacturer and you'll know what I'm talking about.
I would expect the interior design of a MBP to be substantially less "complex/intricate" due to the fewer features and options it offers over PC counterparts.
Frak, IE6 is STILL in the wild and you have the gall to ask this? Really?
The assertion is that IE has "deep hooks into the OS" that enable "higher privileges", not that it is one of the included components of a default Windows install.
I'm going to leave it there with this thread, I think.
Look, it's a pretty simply question. You are asserting that certain Windows applications have "deep hooks" into the OS. WHY do you believe this to be true ? What evidence is there that it is true ?
I can tell you right now that your belief is false. I am curious as to how you reached it, however.
Oh I get it. This is more "us and them" fanboyism. It's like when I say that something Obama does is bad for the country, somebody who likes the Democrats has to chime in and say "oh yeah well Bush did this and that and it was bad too!" as though that makes it okay. Like it's a big imaginary zero-sum balance sheet, so if I criticize "one side" I must also be supporting "the other side". You're either with us or against us, right? It's a rejection of objectivity and I refuse to validate it.
No. I'm merely wondering why you don't criticise consistently. The jab at marketing wasn't the only place, either - you call Apple's BSD codebase "mature", as if Windows was created only few years before Vista was released, when in fact it's the better part of 25 years old, only a couple of years less than NeXT/OS X.
If you are going to offer "Team A" up as bad because of particular behaviour, it pays not to similarly criticise - if not praise - "Team B" when they're doing the same thing, *especially* when you're comparing them to each other.
As I understand it, some Microsoft applications have deep hooks into the core OS or libraries that give them higher privileges that what the user running them has - the best analogy I can give is "sudo" in Linux. It is those elevated permissions that allow some scripts or malware to exploit.
How did you come to "understand" this patently false proposition ?
More likely, he doesn't get the same benefits for "quitting" that he would get for being "fired".
You have that backwards. Most likely, he gets all the benefits from "quitting", and would get none for being "fired" (though these days CxOs are so brazen in their greed that their employment contracts probably give them benefits even if they were fired for raping children in the company boardroom).
The way Linux/Apple have gone with Applications as packages is a much smarter idea.
What ? I can get applications onto a Linux or OS X systems via a binary in a zipfile/tarball, via a package manager like Fink/apt/RPM, via a packaged installer, by a simple drag & drop from a disk image, by compiling from source, from a shell archive, and probably others I haven't thought of.
Your argument is ridiculous on its face. There are *more* "install vectors" on Linux and OS X than there are on Windows.
Apple made a wise move by basing OSX on BSD Unix. They won't end up reinventing Unix that way and they are starting with a mature codebase that has already experienced a great number of security attacks. Of course that isn't and won't be perfect, but it would be worse still if they started from scratch.
Can you highlight the aspects of Apple's marketing where they "unambiguously state that their products may endanger the user if the user does not learn about and follow good security practices" ?
Duo Dock, Old Man, you're probably to old to remember it
I remember it quite well, it's the main reason I'm so disappointed their "professional" laptops have been missing this near category-defining feature for the better part of 15 years.
No, that's not what it means at all, it means it takes ~100 times more Dollars to purchase the same asset, or in monetary terms the USD has been de-valued by about 100. It's assumed that in an inflationary environment that prices and wages will adapt, as will exchange rates.
If something costs 100 times as much, but I have 100 times as much to spend, how has that money been devalued ?
Slashdot Mirror
Of course there are.
Are there people who know every aspect of every component of Windows inside and out ? Probably not. However, the same is true of every platform these days, they're all too big for any one person to comprehensively understand top to bottom.
It's hard to see how you've reached that conclusion.
It'd be nice if a dev environment could genuinely mirror production, but very few people are that lucky.
No, the difference is that a CLI is nearly impossible to use if you aren't familiar with it - the semantics and syntax are as, if not more, important than the concepts - whereas a GUI requires much less focussing on the "how", allowing much more focussing on the "what".
Ridiculously untrue, particularly in the context of non-specialised, non-expert users.
When you have a non-trivial virtualisation environment, there's still plenty to be done.
They can, however, break for a reason that is beyond your level of knowledge, skill, or simply free time to discover.
Because it's a requirement of the GPL.
Not good enough. If Microsoft distributes GPLed software, _Microsoft_ has to distribute the source code.
Wow. Which brave soul wants to be the first to put a few of these into a RAID array and watch them slowly self-destruct ?
Actually it's equally true for traditional hard disks. They have plenty of idle "cycles" that could be used to erase specific blocks.
This would be an exceptionally stupid mis-feature for a drive vendor to implement, and hence I have a great deal of difficulty believing it is true. Do you have a source ?
Rubbish.
An upgrade copy of Windows 7 Home Premium is $110, and is no more "limited" than any copy of OS X you can buy.
I would expect the interior design of a MBP to be substantially less "complex/intricate" due to the fewer features and options it offers over PC counterparts.
The assertion is that IE has "deep hooks into the OS" that enable "higher privileges", not that it is one of the included components of a default Windows install.
Look, it's a pretty simply question. You are asserting that certain Windows applications have "deep hooks" into the OS. WHY do you believe this to be true ? What evidence is there that it is true ?
I can tell you right now that your belief is false. I am curious as to how you reached it, however.
No. I'm merely wondering why you don't criticise consistently. The jab at marketing wasn't the only place, either - you call Apple's BSD codebase "mature", as if Windows was created only few years before Vista was released, when in fact it's the better part of 25 years old, only a couple of years less than NeXT/OS X.
If you are going to offer "Team A" up as bad because of particular behaviour, it pays not to similarly criticise - if not praise - "Team B" when they're doing the same thing, *especially* when you're comparing them to each other.
How did you come to "understand" this patently false proposition ?
You have that backwards. Most likely, he gets all the benefits from "quitting", and would get none for being "fired" (though these days CxOs are so brazen in their greed that their employment contracts probably give them benefits even if they were fired for raping children in the company boardroom).
What ? I can get applications onto a Linux or OS X systems via a binary in a zipfile/tarball, via a package manager like Fink/apt/RPM, via a packaged installer, by a simple drag & drop from a disk image, by compiling from source, from a shell archive, and probably others I haven't thought of.
Your argument is ridiculous on its face. There are *more* "install vectors" on Linux and OS X than there are on Windows.
Can you highlight the aspects of Apple's marketing where they "unambiguously state that their products may endanger the user if the user does not learn about and follow good security practices" ?
Please elaborate on how Outlook and IE "hook deeply into the core system".
So, an application problem, then ?
I assume you mean UAC. Windows NT has had this since day one, Vista and 7 just made it more automatic.
So did other OSes until about the same time. Are you asserting their security, also, was "a giant sign that says, "Please don't own this box."" ?
What ? That's like saying steering isn't something car drivers should ever have to worry about.
The end user is the single biggest security risk in any remotely modern system.
What security features were missing until Windows 7 ?
The dollar is an arbitrary unit of purchasing power. In and of itself, it's both irrelevant and worthless.
I remember it quite well, it's the main reason I'm so disappointed their "professional" laptops have been missing this near category-defining feature for the better part of 15 years.
If something costs 100 times as much, but I have 100 times as much to spend, how has that money been devalued ?
That's not a docking station. You still have multiple cables to connect and it doesn't allow you to attach multiple screens.