Actually, it's a pointless comparison because Linux is just a kernel while Windows is a kernel (and a very good one), a HAL, a GUI subsystem, various system libraries, various applications that use them, etc.
I will say, however, that taking the average monthly vulnerabilities for any given Linux distro + kernel and comparing to Windows yields surprising results. About the same ore more vulnerabilities exist in Linux distro apps than on a typical Windows installation. See http://www.linuxsecurity.com/advisories and compare for yourself.
The point is that we're all humans making software, so we're all prone to the same mistakes. Both systems are inherently insecure to the same degree, but Windows is used so much more that holes are widely reported.
You complain when trolls pop up and say "Ha ha!" to Linux vulnerabilities, but look at a Windows vulnerability article on Slashdot sometime and you'll find 90% of the discussion follows those very lines. Some people genuinely enjoy Microsoft technology and use it daily, so it's a little healthy schadenfreude when it's pointed out that, hey, Linux isn't the 100% flawless Golden Warrior it's made out to be. It's a dangerous mindset to have anyway--it makes you overlook things. Which seems to be the case in this LWN article.
From what I understood, Blu-Ray continues to use MPEG-2 while HD-DVD uses MPEG-4, so HD-DVD didn't need as much space as Blu-Ray does. But looking at specs online, I see that MPEG-4 is listed as one of many codecs supported for both. It's confusing following the process of both formats.
So am I right in saying the only technical difference between each disc is that Blu-Ray holds more data and has twice the data transfer rate? Googling for actual differences between the two, beyond vague descriptions of "differing manufacturing processes," is difficult. Based on the assumptions above, Blu-Ray appears to be the superior format. I just want the absolute most superior movie format for posterity's sake.
When you get right down to it, which format is the best?
Moderators aren't supposed to mod down comments just because they disagree with them. You mod down when something is an inflammatory troll or some other abusive comment. To do otherwise creates a bland hegemony of groupthink. If someone told me MacOS System 7 was the greatest operating system in the world, I wouldn't mod them down just because I thought they had a dumb position. In fact, if they listed their reasons why they thought the way they did, I'd mod them up, even though I disagreed with them.
Apparently, there are a lot of people like you who believe otherwise, supporting a pseudo-fascist opinion state where anybody who disagrees with the talking points are flushed out of the system.
I see articles posted on Windows vulnerabilities affecting pre-SP2 installs all the time. I didn't realize Slashdot wasn't supposed to talk about security flaws that affected recent versions but not the absolute latest version of something. If that's true, it's a waste of time looking to this place for security news.
I and others have mentioned this before, sometimes with accompanying downmods. The rallying response is that "choice is good," but let's face facts here. At some point there comes a bottleneck where the number of conflicting choices is hindering stable progress.
Just as an example, the CEO of Cakewalk has stated on the Cakewalk forums that they would release a Linux version of Sonar if there was enough demand for it. Which platform do they target? Which kernel, which libraries, and which desktop environment? What if Adobe wanted to port Photoshop--which toolkit do they use? How do they get it easily installed and uninstallable?
There needs to be a universal desktop installation/uninstallation API. Either that, or implement the so-called "xcopy installation" of.NET and OS X programs which let you just copy an app to a folder and delete the folder to remove the program.
Or, the defenders are proactively defending someone who's not really being attacked. His ideas are what get challenged, not the man personally (I've never met the man).
I believe many are unable to see the difference and so react the way they do.
Well, I wondered the same thing until I tried out Debian and realized you could do interesting things like downgrade packages to previous versions. In general, the install system had features Portage doesn't, until the next version of Portage anyway.
That didn't stop me from happily moving to FreeBSD, however.:)
Sorry, but a lot of developers will take offense to being called "anti-social" just because they, gasp, don't release all their source code and make everything free. Stallman talks up his fight for freedom, but then pushes against the freedom of choice. If a lot of people disagree with Stallman, it's because he's so extreme and unreasonable about everything. His solutions to problems are all One Big Solution that is supposed to fit every situation like a glove, and having such a rigid, unchanging viewpoint can be dangerous or, at the least, counterproductive and anti-progress. In fact, part of that weird hostility toward corporations and non-free software that seems to facilate such theory-driven ideologies is part of the reason I switched to BSD. The community there just seems more interested in getting things done and letting people do whatever the hell they want with the code rather than forcing everyone into a rigid ideology, which is the opposite of free choice. That is the great irony, for me anyway, of Stallman's brand of thinking when he talks about "freedom."
Think of all the criticism against George Bush for being unrigid and unchanging in his views regardless of the situation. "No one can tell him he's wrong," said the ads. Well, that's how some feel about Stallman.
I hear this often. Nobody is saying he hasn't contributed, but I would say that just because you've been saying the same thing for 20 years doesn't make you a great person. If anything, it makes you stubborn and unable to progress. There are many who believe Stallman's absolutist positions on some things are unreasonable and anti-progress.
Like I said elsewhere, I don't get why Stallman's defenders get so very defensive. Instead of just saying, "He's still relevant and I'm glad he's around," it's usually things like, "You're ungrateful children who don't understand that he's done more in 20 years than you'll do in your lifetimes, you peons!" It's rather hostile.
I just wish for once all the idiots who will inevitably spout their mouth would just shut up.
Just because people say things you disagree with doesn't automatically make them "idiots." Whenever a Stallman article is posted, it seems there are really defensive Stallman defenders who post such insults. It's not necessary; if you think they're idiots, just ignore them.
Honestly, the voices of the previous games were sorely missing from WarCraft III's lame "can the formalities" dialogue and phrasing. Most of the humans and Orcs were missing that vocal quality we loved from before.
Anyway, I don't think Blizzard has really been the same company for years. Not since StarCraft. There's a paraphrased story about one of the programmers for StarCraft whose wife went into labor. He checked out a laptop and headed to the hospital and continued working on the Campaign Editor in the lobby. When he was invited into the room with his wife who was giving birth, he continued working. His wife looked at him and said, "You're missing the birth of our daughter to work on that damn game?"
His response: "It's not some damn game! It's StarCraft!"
I don't think that passion is still there, especially with the influence of Vivendi.:)
Without elitism, there are no standards, and without standards, how can you determine what is most true? Otherwise, you trust entirely to subjectivity and assume nothing is true. Which begs the question, what's the point of Wikipedia then? A collection of personal opinion essays?
I mention them all the time. And I'll ask you the same question I ask the others. What makes them so special that they need special entitlements to do their work?
So basically, you're saying that getting paid for your work is a "special entitlement?" I'm sure John Carmack would feel otherwise.
It's no more valuable than my work, yet I have to show up and work if I want to get paid.
My point was that ripping them off ensures that they DON'T get paid. You wouldn't want to not get paid, would you?
Oh my god, I've just realized the piracy movement has gone so far now that even the artists are openly shit on. It's a bad time to be a struggling musician.
It is you who is clouding the real issue of self-distribution with nonsense like piracy(which the industry makes great use of itself) and infringement.
Completely, 100% wrong. The clouded issue is from people like you who think piracy has some vague "root cause" when it's nothing more than people wanting shit for free so they don't have to go to a store and pay for it. It's basic human nature theivery.
It's the copyright holders who are demanding the free gov't handout of monopoly and control of information. That's your real issue right there.
Enforcement of the law and protection of their rights by going after copyright infringers is now a "free gov't handout?" If you don't like the control of information, then don't sign that record contract, bub.
They want to insure that they own and control everything you see.
Can you cite an example other than emotive propaganda? All they want is to not get pirated.
Any program that enables a person to distribute information without going through the gatekeepers is a good thing.
Which is why iTunes and Steam are such a success. That still doesn't justify piracy.
It matters not one bit that it can be used for disagreeable purposes to me.
Clearly, you possess no morals when it comes to ripping artists off. To you, their feelings on the matter simply don't factor into the equation. I imagine you think they're "greedy" for wanting to paid for their work.
You can cry all you want about legalities.
How about moralities? I'm an artist. It's depressing to me that I know I can't make money now because people think they're entitled to have everything pirated under the sun, and that if I suggest otherwise, people will actually hate me. Meanwhile, they would feel the same if their work got ripped off from them.
I'm going to do what I can to insure that people are able to communicate anonymously and freely, regardless of what is being communicated.
In other words, "anything goes." I'll remember that in the next "GPL source code theft" Slashdot article, when people like you are bitching yet again but this time for the opposite position. Hypocrite.
No one person or group has right to control that.
You don't have the right to something just because you want it. This whiny sense of entitlement of today's generation is pathetic. You haven't argued anything other than the following:
"*I* think I have the right to pirate. That justifies it."
Anyone else find it odd that Slashdot seems to be against actions like this from the RIAA, on the grounds that it's immoral or breaks the law? Yet the amusing aspect is that this is in response to piracy, which is just as immoral and illegal if not more so, yet we don't see people speaking out against it like we do against things like this?
I fully expect to get downmodded for this, but I just had to respond. I'm not surprised at all that this garbage was modded up, because Slashdot has become a haven now for pirates and their defenders.
I feel no sympathy for these morons who think their actions are some way to "protect the artists".
Funny, I feel the exact same way about pirates. How is ripping off artists to make sure they don't get paid any better? At least they get paid when you buy their album in the stores. The artists willingly signed their contracts, so don't start this ridiculous "I'm just fighting for the artists!" crap.
People are starving and fighting for their lives and freedom, from corrupt governments and natural disasters, yet meanwhile, in the rich west, people who can afford internet connections, computers, portable music players and hell, electricity, people who NEVER go hungry, are "protecting the artists" by suing anyone who dares try out a technology that challenges their government granted monopoly status.
What a bunch of emotive rubbish. What is your argument here, exactly? Because there are countries where people are starving, illegal music piracy is okay? What is the connection between starving people and music companies protecting the content they rightfully own?
These people who are suing poor technophiles,
Hysterical. "Poor technophiles?" Why are they downtrodden victims, because they didn't want to pay for something so decided to rip off the artist through eMule? You don't have a right to something just because you don't want to pay for it.
could have spent that money researching ways to utilize the technology to their advantage rather than trying to stifle new innovations!
You mean like iTunes, the new Napster, and all the other online music services? Yes, that's right, there is absolutely no reason to pirate music other than because you just want to freeload it.
Nobody has ever given a valid legal or ethical justification for pirating music. I won't hold my breath. I don't see these kinds of posts when there is a "GPL source code theft" article. Funny how copyright and ethics suddenly seem to matter in those articles, eh? That's because the motives behind protecting music piracy have nothing to do with ethics or beefs with copyright; it's just about wanting to get stuff for free without having to pay for it, and being so used to the convenience and ability to do it that you get bitter when the free ride is taken away.
Apparently, IP and patents and copyrights only matter in two situations on Slashdot:
1.) In the event of GPL "source code theft" 2.) In the event that it makes the media industry look bad in any way, hence this article
The predictability of the attitudes on this site have really made the content turn to crap. Just my opinion. Seeing an article posted by michael that complains about preventing a man from getting "what he's due" is amusing in the context of all the piracy justifications that happen in other articles, where suddenly the rights of the creators aren't as important.
This story has been posted to Slashdot before, or one exactly like it where they have young gamers play old games and record their reactions. In fact, it was part one of a two-part series...oh, wait.
What makes you think they're NOT going after rapists/murders/terrorists? Do you believe the FBI is a one-tier organization with one group of people that performs one task at a time? That's like saying, "OSS spends too much time developing SQL databases" without acknowledging the other OSS work out there. Or saying, "Linus spends too much time on hacking in new task schedulers," as though that's the only work going into the kernel. I think you just don't like the idea that they're going after pirates, so you're finding something to complain about by unreasonably assuming it's suddenly their #1 priority.
By the way, civil suits don't work as well, and the government's duty is to protect its citizens--that includes the citizens who work at the businesses getting ripped off. Besides, when these companies do file civil suits, Slashdot complains. When the government goes after the pirates, Slashdot complains. It seems Slashdot just complains period whenever piracy is attacked. Except when GPL source code is "stolen" by some company--only then does copyright suddenly matter.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, it's a pointless comparison because Linux is just a kernel while Windows is a kernel (and a very good one), a HAL, a GUI subsystem, various system libraries, various applications that use them, etc.
I will say, however, that taking the average monthly vulnerabilities for any given Linux distro + kernel and comparing to Windows yields surprising results. About the same ore more vulnerabilities exist in Linux distro apps than on a typical Windows installation. See http://www.linuxsecurity.com/advisories and compare for yourself.
The point is that we're all humans making software, so we're all prone to the same mistakes. Both systems are inherently insecure to the same degree, but Windows is used so much more that holes are widely reported.
You complain when trolls pop up and say "Ha ha!" to Linux vulnerabilities, but look at a Windows vulnerability article on Slashdot sometime and you'll find 90% of the discussion follows those very lines. Some people genuinely enjoy Microsoft technology and use it daily, so it's a little healthy schadenfreude when it's pointed out that, hey, Linux isn't the 100% flawless Golden Warrior it's made out to be. It's a dangerous mindset to have anyway--it makes you overlook things. Which seems to be the case in this LWN article.
From what I understood, Blu-Ray continues to use MPEG-2 while HD-DVD uses MPEG-4, so HD-DVD didn't need as much space as Blu-Ray does. But looking at specs online, I see that MPEG-4 is listed as one of many codecs supported for both. It's confusing following the process of both formats.
So am I right in saying the only technical difference between each disc is that Blu-Ray holds more data and has twice the data transfer rate? Googling for actual differences between the two, beyond vague descriptions of "differing manufacturing processes," is difficult. Based on the assumptions above, Blu-Ray appears to be the superior format. I just want the absolute most superior movie format for posterity's sake.
When you get right down to it, which format is the best?
Moderators aren't supposed to mod down comments just because they disagree with them. You mod down when something is an inflammatory troll or some other abusive comment. To do otherwise creates a bland hegemony of groupthink. If someone told me MacOS System 7 was the greatest operating system in the world, I wouldn't mod them down just because I thought they had a dumb position. In fact, if they listed their reasons why they thought the way they did, I'd mod them up, even though I disagreed with them.
Apparently, there are a lot of people like you who believe otherwise, supporting a pseudo-fascist opinion state where anybody who disagrees with the talking points are flushed out of the system.
That is, if they support the majority opinion. ;)
I've read plenty of -1 posts that deserved to be +5 but were simply a minority opinion that the moderators happened to disagree with on that day.
The much-promised "new moderation system" we hear about every year in Taco's journals. ;)
I see articles posted on Windows vulnerabilities affecting pre-SP2 installs all the time. I didn't realize Slashdot wasn't supposed to talk about security flaws that affected recent versions but not the absolute latest version of something. If that's true, it's a waste of time looking to this place for security news.
Toggle switches? I was computing on an abacus made of moist wood pulp and paper!
I and others have mentioned this before, sometimes with accompanying downmods. The rallying response is that "choice is good," but let's face facts here. At some point there comes a bottleneck where the number of conflicting choices is hindering stable progress.
.NET and OS X programs which let you just copy an app to a folder and delete the folder to remove the program.
Just as an example, the CEO of Cakewalk has stated on the Cakewalk forums that they would release a Linux version of Sonar if there was enough demand for it. Which platform do they target? Which kernel, which libraries, and which desktop environment? What if Adobe wanted to port Photoshop--which toolkit do they use? How do they get it easily installed and uninstallable?
There needs to be a universal desktop installation/uninstallation API. Either that, or implement the so-called "xcopy installation" of
Or, the defenders are proactively defending someone who's not really being attacked. His ideas are what get challenged, not the man personally (I've never met the man).
I believe many are unable to see the difference and so react the way they do.
Well, I wondered the same thing until I tried out Debian and realized you could do interesting things like downgrade packages to previous versions. In general, the install system had features Portage doesn't, until the next version of Portage anyway.
:)
That didn't stop me from happily moving to FreeBSD, however.
"Is Your Development Project a Sinking Ship?"
Why yes, we make submarines. Hoo-hah!
I keep my laptop in a cage in a large safe filled with water and swarming with baby sharks. And I change the combination every day!
Sorry, but a lot of developers will take offense to being called "anti-social" just because they, gasp, don't release all their source code and make everything free. Stallman talks up his fight for freedom, but then pushes against the freedom of choice. If a lot of people disagree with Stallman, it's because he's so extreme and unreasonable about everything. His solutions to problems are all One Big Solution that is supposed to fit every situation like a glove, and having such a rigid, unchanging viewpoint can be dangerous or, at the least, counterproductive and anti-progress. In fact, part of that weird hostility toward corporations and non-free software that seems to facilate such theory-driven ideologies is part of the reason I switched to BSD. The community there just seems more interested in getting things done and letting people do whatever the hell they want with the code rather than forcing everyone into a rigid ideology, which is the opposite of free choice. That is the great irony, for me anyway, of Stallman's brand of thinking when he talks about "freedom."
Think of all the criticism against George Bush for being unrigid and unchanging in his views regardless of the situation. "No one can tell him he's wrong," said the ads. Well, that's how some feel about Stallman.
Richard Stallman: I would quit that job. Would you participate in something anti-social just because somebody pays you to?
Thousands of people without jobs right now who have real-world perspective: "YES!!"
I hear this often. Nobody is saying he hasn't contributed, but I would say that just because you've been saying the same thing for 20 years doesn't make you a great person. If anything, it makes you stubborn and unable to progress. There are many who believe Stallman's absolutist positions on some things are unreasonable and anti-progress.
Like I said elsewhere, I don't get why Stallman's defenders get so very defensive. Instead of just saying, "He's still relevant and I'm glad he's around," it's usually things like, "You're ungrateful children who don't understand that he's done more in 20 years than you'll do in your lifetimes, you peons!" It's rather hostile.
I just wish for once all the idiots who will inevitably spout their mouth would just shut up.
Just because people say things you disagree with doesn't automatically make them "idiots." Whenever a Stallman article is posted, it seems there are really defensive Stallman defenders who post such insults. It's not necessary; if you think they're idiots, just ignore them.
I miss "Tagu." That is all!
:)
Honestly, the voices of the previous games were sorely missing from WarCraft III's lame "can the formalities" dialogue and phrasing. Most of the humans and Orcs were missing that vocal quality we loved from before.
Anyway, I don't think Blizzard has really been the same company for years. Not since StarCraft. There's a paraphrased story about one of the programmers for StarCraft whose wife went into labor. He checked out a laptop and headed to the hospital and continued working on the Campaign Editor in the lobby. When he was invited into the room with his wife who was giving birth, he continued working. His wife looked at him and said, "You're missing the birth of our daughter to work on that damn game?"
His response: "It's not some damn game! It's StarCraft!"
I don't think that passion is still there, especially with the influence of Vivendi.
Without elitism, there are no standards, and without standards, how can you determine what is most true? Otherwise, you trust entirely to subjectivity and assume nothing is true. Which begs the question, what's the point of Wikipedia then? A collection of personal opinion essays?
I mention them all the time. And I'll ask you the same question I ask the others. What makes them so special that they need special entitlements to do their work?
So basically, you're saying that getting paid for your work is a "special entitlement?" I'm sure John Carmack would feel otherwise.
It's no more valuable than my work, yet I have to show up and work if I want to get paid.
My point was that ripping them off ensures that they DON'T get paid. You wouldn't want to not get paid, would you?
Oh my god, I've just realized the piracy movement has gone so far now that even the artists are openly shit on. It's a bad time to be a struggling musician.
It is you who is clouding the real issue of self-distribution with nonsense like piracy(which the industry makes great use of itself) and infringement.
Completely, 100% wrong. The clouded issue is from people like you who think piracy has some vague "root cause" when it's nothing more than people wanting shit for free so they don't have to go to a store and pay for it. It's basic human nature theivery.
It's the copyright holders who are demanding the free gov't handout of monopoly and control of information. That's your real issue right there.
Enforcement of the law and protection of their rights by going after copyright infringers is now a "free gov't handout?" If you don't like the control of information, then don't sign that record contract, bub.
They want to insure that they own and control everything you see.
Can you cite an example other than emotive propaganda? All they want is to not get pirated.
Any program that enables a person to distribute information without going through the gatekeepers is a good thing.
Which is why iTunes and Steam are such a success. That still doesn't justify piracy.
It matters not one bit that it can be used for disagreeable purposes to me.
Clearly, you possess no morals when it comes to ripping artists off. To you, their feelings on the matter simply don't factor into the equation. I imagine you think they're "greedy" for wanting to paid for their work.
You can cry all you want about legalities.
How about moralities? I'm an artist. It's depressing to me that I know I can't make money now because people think they're entitled to have everything pirated under the sun, and that if I suggest otherwise, people will actually hate me. Meanwhile, they would feel the same if their work got ripped off from them.
I'm going to do what I can to insure that people are able to communicate anonymously and freely, regardless of what is being communicated.
In other words, "anything goes." I'll remember that in the next "GPL source code theft" Slashdot article, when people like you are bitching yet again but this time for the opposite position. Hypocrite.
No one person or group has right to control that.
You don't have the right to something just because you want it. This whiny sense of entitlement of today's generation is pathetic. You haven't argued anything other than the following:
"*I* think I have the right to pirate. That justifies it."
Right.
Anyone else find it odd that Slashdot seems to be against actions like this from the RIAA, on the grounds that it's immoral or breaks the law? Yet the amusing aspect is that this is in response to piracy, which is just as immoral and illegal if not more so, yet we don't see people speaking out against it like we do against things like this?
Just saying.
I'll never forgive EA for ruining Bullfrog, Westwood, Maxis, and so on. If I see another hip-hop laden "underground racing" game, I'm gonna puke!
I fully expect to get downmodded for this, but I just had to respond. I'm not surprised at all that this garbage was modded up, because Slashdot has become a haven now for pirates and their defenders.
I feel no sympathy for these morons who think their actions are some way to "protect the artists".
Funny, I feel the exact same way about pirates. How is ripping off artists to make sure they don't get paid any better? At least they get paid when you buy their album in the stores. The artists willingly signed their contracts, so don't start this ridiculous "I'm just fighting for the artists!" crap.
People are starving and fighting for their lives and freedom, from corrupt governments and natural disasters, yet meanwhile, in the rich west, people who can afford internet connections, computers, portable music players and hell, electricity, people who NEVER go hungry, are "protecting the artists" by suing anyone who dares try out a technology that challenges their government granted monopoly status.
What a bunch of emotive rubbish. What is your argument here, exactly? Because there are countries where people are starving, illegal music piracy is okay? What is the connection between starving people and music companies protecting the content they rightfully own?
These people who are suing poor technophiles,
Hysterical. "Poor technophiles?" Why are they downtrodden victims, because they didn't want to pay for something so decided to rip off the artist through eMule? You don't have a right to something just because you don't want to pay for it.
could have spent that money researching ways to utilize the technology to their advantage rather than trying to stifle new innovations!
You mean like iTunes, the new Napster, and all the other online music services? Yes, that's right, there is absolutely no reason to pirate music other than because you just want to freeload it.
Nobody has ever given a valid legal or ethical justification for pirating music. I won't hold my breath. I don't see these kinds of posts when there is a "GPL source code theft" article. Funny how copyright and ethics suddenly seem to matter in those articles, eh? That's because the motives behind protecting music piracy have nothing to do with ethics or beefs with copyright; it's just about wanting to get stuff for free without having to pay for it, and being so used to the convenience and ability to do it that you get bitter when the free ride is taken away.
Apparently, IP and patents and copyrights only matter in two situations on Slashdot:
1.) In the event of GPL "source code theft"
2.) In the event that it makes the media industry look bad in any way, hence this article
The predictability of the attitudes on this site have really made the content turn to crap. Just my opinion. Seeing an article posted by michael that complains about preventing a man from getting "what he's due" is amusing in the context of all the piracy justifications that happen in other articles, where suddenly the rights of the creators aren't as important.
This story has been posted to Slashdot before, or one exactly like it where they have young gamers play old games and record their reactions. In fact, it was part one of a two-part series...oh, wait.
What makes you think they're NOT going after rapists/murders/terrorists? Do you believe the FBI is a one-tier organization with one group of people that performs one task at a time? That's like saying, "OSS spends too much time developing SQL databases" without acknowledging the other OSS work out there. Or saying, "Linus spends too much time on hacking in new task schedulers," as though that's the only work going into the kernel. I think you just don't like the idea that they're going after pirates, so you're finding something to complain about by unreasonably assuming it's suddenly their #1 priority.
By the way, civil suits don't work as well, and the government's duty is to protect its citizens--that includes the citizens who work at the businesses getting ripped off. Besides, when these companies do file civil suits, Slashdot complains. When the government goes after the pirates, Slashdot complains. It seems Slashdot just complains period whenever piracy is attacked. Except when GPL source code is "stolen" by some company--only then does copyright suddenly matter.