It has nothing to do with George W. Bush (nice random bash).
I wouldn't want some cartoon devil character showing up on my company's computers either. It looks unprofessional and odd. I work in a real estate office. Would I want to have Bugs Bunny as the boot logo on all the machines in our computer room?
The word "bothering" in this case has nothing to do with the religious aspects and everything to do with the silly image in a professional setting.
I've often wondered why Windows didn't just shift to using the Windows key instead of the Ctrl key. On Macs, the Apple/Command key is what is used. They added a Windows key in the mid-90s, yet who really uses it all that much?
That's my point. The extreme left are the ones justifying terrorist bombings to look witty while ignoring the atrocities of those fascist governments. Take it up with them.
It's an interesting problem for Microsoft. There was a reason to switch to OS X over the classic MacOS, but the transition from Windows XP/2000 to Longhorn will seem entirely superfluous. Most of the changes will be under the hood, like the new.NET foundation which will also add performance overhead.
The interface, called "Aero Glass" (I don't supposed that means it will have shiny highlights on the tops of the widgets, does it? Been there, done that), is supposed to be full 3D-accelerated DirectX visuals. The problem is that a lot of old PCs won't even be able to run it and will end up using the lower visual tier of Longhorn, which is supposed to look more like today's Windows, which again makes you wonder what would be the advantage in upgrading.
Microsoft waited too long. Windows XP has saturated and stabilized in the market, and everyone has grown quite comfortable with it despite major security issues. As for.NET, how many major developers are actually going to write managed code? Adobe's not going to rewrite Photoshop. Macromedia's not going to rewrite Dreamweaver. id isn't going to be releasing.NET games any time soon. So Microsoft will have to keep supporting Win32 indefinitely anyway..NET will take charge in the market that Visual Basic currently does, because that's what C# is geared toward.
The only real thing I was looking forward to in Longhorn was Avalon and WinFS. WinFS won't ship with Longhorn and Apple has already beaten it to the punch with Spotlight, and Avalon and Indigo will be released as backports for both Windows XP and Windows Server 2003. In addition, the.NET runtime also already ships for Windows XP.
What exactly does Longhorn offer other than a 3D accelerated interface and a big information bar on the side (I guess it's Microsoft's answer to the Dock or something)? I've been following Longhorn for a while, and its advantages have slowly diminished, and now I'm honestly much less interested.
I would have figured dust would be #1. I've cracked open my parents' Windows PC every six months or so only to discover the horror of a totally alien world caked in a layer of gray-brown fuzz. Like the Cowboy Bebop episode, I half-expect a new species of organism to form from the unique atmosphere. If I start seeing a human Martian face forming on the soundcard, I may just end up throwing the whole thing away.
I wouldn't be surprised if Apple bumped up the Tiger release by a few weeks to the beginning of June to stick it to the "developer beta 1" of Longhorn.
Not that it will matter. Longhorn won't even be shipping with WinFS, while Tiger already has Spotlight. Let Microsoft release a "developer beta." Apple is still going to get all the positive press.
Fifty years later, it seems electronic music has fizzle out a little after being hyped as the next big thing in the 90s. I only hear it during fight scenes in movies now. In fact, one of the last good electronic albums I heard was from Japanese Telecom, a relative unknown.
I guess the repetitive unS unS unS bores me after a while. What are the new movements going on in the electronic music world that the mainstream has yet to become aware of?
Also, where does your "BILLIONS of people" stat come from?
Apple gets its own topic because Apple is a major computer manufacturer that started personal computing in the late 70s. Firefox gets "lumped" with Netscape because Mozilla started from Netscape and Firefox derives from Mozilla. It's all the same family.
Also, the editors are lazy. Have they updated the Gnome icon yet?
In my experience, people who claim such things--that evil American culture is to blame--are just projecting their own trendy counterculturalism onto others. It makes people feel intellectual and clever to criticize mainstream society.
That's why they can defend certain Islamic societies that brutalize women and employ extreme conservative governments, all the while "standing up" for women's rights and liberalism in America. The contradiction in values always confused me until I realized why they did it. It's another way to "go against the grain" and feel enlightened.
Doesn't apply to everybody, but I'd say a good portion.
My point is that you've automatically decided that Firefox is secure without giving the reasons why. I'm asking, what makes it so automatically secure? Because the developers say it is? If given the marketshare IE has, Firefox would be blown wide open. Look at the flaws we've seen recently.
Just telling me "Firefox is inherently secure and IE isn't" doesn't actually tell me anything other than your own personal conclusion.
What automatically makes Firefox a "locked door with an alarm system?"
When people mention the popularity argument, what they're saying is that if you have the millions of people vetting Firefox the way IE is, Firefox will quickly become a door that's wide open too. It's already had some pretty embarrassing flaws this year, and that's with the relatively little usage it has right now.
We can make "locked door" analogies all we want, but I guarantee people will find embarrassing ways to exploit your program if it's used by over 95% of desktop users in the computer market.
First thing--I disagree with the tactic of calling anything one disagrees with "FUD." If there was ever an overused term around here, that one would be it.
Second, Linux would most definitely have exploits galore. We've already seen outright kernel exploits and holes in the 2.6 series of kernels. I don't know about you, but I don't even remember there being a Windows security flaw that used the kernel. Go to LinuxSecurity and witness the stream of security advisories that are announced for each Linux distro, much more than the Windows patches we get on the second Tuesday of each month. These advisories very rarely make Slashdot front page news.
And no, it's not an unfair comparison to put a Linux distro and a Windows install on the same level. Just because the Linux distro ships with more software doesn't matter. If someone buys Mandrake, uses the software it came with, and then gets exploited, that is an exploit of the Mandrake software distribution that they bought with their distro.
People like to compare a single kernel to the entire Windows operating system, and in the next breath argue about how Linux is "just a kernel." So it's all the more amusing when some people argue that there's a difference between a Linux distro and Windows. There's not.
On a *nix based system, wiping out the home directory would usually fix you right up.
Bollocks. The UNIX "filesystem standard" fragments things way more than Windows does. With Windows, you know a few places to look for a malicious program to get rid of it--\Windows, \Windows\System, \Program Files, and so on. There aren't a lot of places. Linux, on the other hand? Where do you look?/usr,/usr/bin/,/usr/shared/bin,/usr/local,/usr/local/bin,/opt/bin,/opt/local/bin...and that's just the executable, not even getting into whatever configuration files it might have left which could be in/etc, a.directory in ~, and so on. Thankfully, most Linux users don't run as root, but there are still PLENTY of ways a program can exploit someone without needing root access. If Linux was #1, we'd see all kinds of crap getting installed on people's Linux systems, and you'd have fun exploring the entire UNIX filesystem hierarchy fishing it out, possibly even dealing with self-propagating shell scripts to keep moving it around. Fun for everyone.
Believe me, malicious software writers would find a way you haven't thought of to screw people. That's what they do.
The Cell chip uses the Power architecture, so one wonders if Apple isn't going to ship a 3.0 Ghz G5 after all and just wait for Cells instead (4.3 Ghz dual Power Mac Cell? Geez...).
Slashdot Mirror
The clients who come in and sit beside the agents who use the computers to find property listings. Any other questions?
People have been claiming Linux is gaining on Microsoft marketshare for years. It's seven years later now, people.
WinFS won't be shipping with Longhorn. Avalon, Indigo, .NET, and more either already exist or will be made available for Windows XP.
The only reason to upgrade, it seems, will be to have a Direct3D visual interface?
And people wonder why desktop Linux isn't taking off?
Just saying. Programming for OSS toolkits is hell.
It has nothing to do with George W. Bush (nice random bash).
I wouldn't want some cartoon devil character showing up on my company's computers either. It looks unprofessional and odd. I work in a real estate office. Would I want to have Bugs Bunny as the boot logo on all the machines in our computer room?
The word "bothering" in this case has nothing to do with the religious aspects and everything to do with the silly image in a professional setting.
I've often wondered why Windows didn't just shift to using the Windows key instead of the Ctrl key. On Macs, the Apple/Command key is what is used. They added a Windows key in the mid-90s, yet who really uses it all that much?
Okay, I have to ask, what in the fuck is the gooey orange stuff?
My god...
Umm, you mean like the neocons?
That's my point. The extreme left are the ones justifying terrorist bombings to look witty while ignoring the atrocities of those fascist governments. Take it up with them.
It's an interesting problem for Microsoft. There was a reason to switch to OS X over the classic MacOS, but the transition from Windows XP/2000 to Longhorn will seem entirely superfluous. Most of the changes will be under the hood, like the new .NET foundation which will also add performance overhead.
.NET, how many major developers are actually going to write managed code? Adobe's not going to rewrite Photoshop. Macromedia's not going to rewrite Dreamweaver. id isn't going to be releasing .NET games any time soon. So Microsoft will have to keep supporting Win32 indefinitely anyway. .NET will take charge in the market that Visual Basic currently does, because that's what C# is geared toward.
.NET runtime also already ships for Windows XP.
The interface, called "Aero Glass" (I don't supposed that means it will have shiny highlights on the tops of the widgets, does it? Been there, done that), is supposed to be full 3D-accelerated DirectX visuals. The problem is that a lot of old PCs won't even be able to run it and will end up using the lower visual tier of Longhorn, which is supposed to look more like today's Windows, which again makes you wonder what would be the advantage in upgrading.
Microsoft waited too long. Windows XP has saturated and stabilized in the market, and everyone has grown quite comfortable with it despite major security issues. As for
The only real thing I was looking forward to in Longhorn was Avalon and WinFS. WinFS won't ship with Longhorn and Apple has already beaten it to the punch with Spotlight, and Avalon and Indigo will be released as backports for both Windows XP and Windows Server 2003. In addition, the
What exactly does Longhorn offer other than a 3D accelerated interface and a big information bar on the side (I guess it's Microsoft's answer to the Dock or something)? I've been following Longhorn for a while, and its advantages have slowly diminished, and now I'm honestly much less interested.
I would have figured dust would be #1. I've cracked open my parents' Windows PC every six months or so only to discover the horror of a totally alien world caked in a layer of gray-brown fuzz. Like the Cowboy Bebop episode, I half-expect a new species of organism to form from the unique atmosphere. If I start seeing a human Martian face forming on the soundcard, I may just end up throwing the whole thing away.
I wouldn't be surprised if Apple bumped up the Tiger release by a few weeks to the beginning of June to stick it to the "developer beta 1" of Longhorn.
Gotta love that 3D Longhorn alt-tabbing.
*hits F9 in Panther and grins*
Not that it will matter. Longhorn won't even be shipping with WinFS, while Tiger already has Spotlight. Let Microsoft release a "developer beta." Apple is still going to get all the positive press.
Fifty years later, it seems electronic music has fizzle out a little after being hyped as the next big thing in the 90s. I only hear it during fight scenes in movies now. In fact, one of the last good electronic albums I heard was from Japanese Telecom, a relative unknown.
I guess the repetitive unS unS unS bores me after a while. What are the new movements going on in the electronic music world that the mainstream has yet to become aware of?
You could use it as a portable music player.
Oh.
Actually, the #2 browser under IE6 is IE5. :P
Also, where does your "BILLIONS of people" stat come from?
Apple gets its own topic because Apple is a major computer manufacturer that started personal computing in the late 70s. Firefox gets "lumped" with Netscape because Mozilla started from Netscape and Firefox derives from Mozilla. It's all the same family.
Also, the editors are lazy. Have they updated the Gnome icon yet?
In my experience, people who claim such things--that evil American culture is to blame--are just projecting their own trendy counterculturalism onto others. It makes people feel intellectual and clever to criticize mainstream society.
That's why they can defend certain Islamic societies that brutalize women and employ extreme conservative governments, all the while "standing up" for women's rights and liberalism in America. The contradiction in values always confused me until I realized why they did it. It's another way to "go against the grain" and feel enlightened.
Doesn't apply to everybody, but I'd say a good portion.
The current rumors are that a Cell chip would be used alongside a normal G5 to aid in processing.
You do not seem to understand the point.
My point is that you've automatically decided that Firefox is secure without giving the reasons why. I'm asking, what makes it so automatically secure? Because the developers say it is? If given the marketshare IE has, Firefox would be blown wide open. Look at the flaws we've seen recently.
Just telling me "Firefox is inherently secure and IE isn't" doesn't actually tell me anything other than your own personal conclusion.
What automatically makes Firefox a "locked door with an alarm system?"
When people mention the popularity argument, what they're saying is that if you have the millions of people vetting Firefox the way IE is, Firefox will quickly become a door that's wide open too. It's already had some pretty embarrassing flaws this year, and that's with the relatively little usage it has right now.
We can make "locked door" analogies all we want, but I guarantee people will find embarrassing ways to exploit your program if it's used by over 95% of desktop users in the computer market.
Also, the very multi-platform nature of the code makes it harder to write an app that will work well.
Actually, doesn't that make it easier to write an exploit that will work on all platforms?
Especially after being told Firefox was the secure alternative to IE that didn't require endless security patches.
First thing--I disagree with the tactic of calling anything one disagrees with "FUD." If there was ever an overused term around here, that one would be it.
/usr, /usr/bin/, /usr/shared/bin, /usr/local, /usr/local/bin, /opt/bin, /opt/local/bin...and that's just the executable, not even getting into whatever configuration files it might have left which could be in /etc, a .directory in ~, and so on. Thankfully, most Linux users don't run as root, but there are still PLENTY of ways a program can exploit someone without needing root access. If Linux was #1, we'd see all kinds of crap getting installed on people's Linux systems, and you'd have fun exploring the entire UNIX filesystem hierarchy fishing it out, possibly even dealing with self-propagating shell scripts to keep moving it around. Fun for everyone.
Second, Linux would most definitely have exploits galore. We've already seen outright kernel exploits and holes in the 2.6 series of kernels. I don't know about you, but I don't even remember there being a Windows security flaw that used the kernel. Go to LinuxSecurity and witness the stream of security advisories that are announced for each Linux distro, much more than the Windows patches we get on the second Tuesday of each month. These advisories very rarely make Slashdot front page news.
And no, it's not an unfair comparison to put a Linux distro and a Windows install on the same level. Just because the Linux distro ships with more software doesn't matter. If someone buys Mandrake, uses the software it came with, and then gets exploited, that is an exploit of the Mandrake software distribution that they bought with their distro.
People like to compare a single kernel to the entire Windows operating system, and in the next breath argue about how Linux is "just a kernel." So it's all the more amusing when some people argue that there's a difference between a Linux distro and Windows. There's not.
On a *nix based system, wiping out the home directory would usually fix you right up.
Bollocks. The UNIX "filesystem standard" fragments things way more than Windows does. With Windows, you know a few places to look for a malicious program to get rid of it--\Windows, \Windows\System, \Program Files, and so on. There aren't a lot of places. Linux, on the other hand? Where do you look?
Believe me, malicious software writers would find a way you haven't thought of to screw people. That's what they do.
Apple's Connection to the Cell Processor
The Cell chip uses the Power architecture, so one wonders if Apple isn't going to ship a 3.0 Ghz G5 after all and just wait for Cells instead (4.3 Ghz dual Power Mac Cell? Geez...).