Sorry man, you can't use the crashing argument anymore.
I've been using XP for several weeks, not to mention the XP betas I've been using for months and crashes have NOT even been an issue.
Also my Win2k box which serves as a dedicated router and firewall has been up for months at time...the only time it shuts down itself down is when the power goes out for longer than 5 minutes.
Your comparison of this situation to the spread and risks of a deadly human virus is ridiculous.
There is a big difference between acknowledging the existence of a deadly human virus and how it's transmitted and...distrubuting instructions on how to EASILY create a deadly human virus that would allow someone to willingly transmit it at virtually no risk to themselves.
Would you justify cooking up new deadly human viruses that would target a specific group? and releasing the instuctions on how to create them into the wild just for the heck of it? Would this be all in the name of helping those that will most likely be infected?
Sounds a lot more like the terrorist threats we're facing right now, then good security measures.
I'd like to see some hard numbers on exploits before they are release to the public and after.
If there is evidence of a subtantial number of real exploits occuring prior to the release of this info to the public, then I believe the public has the right to know about the vulnerability, but if there isn't and it's an exploit that is "theoritical" and not out in the wild, then the company should be notified of the vulnerability and there should be a sort of grace period before the information is released to the public at large. This way Microsoft or any other company would only have themselves to blame for their failure to correct the problem before this information is released to the public.
Hopefully this would prevent some of the rampant spread of vulnerabilities that we have been seeing, that end up affecting everyone using the internet in some way or another.
I noticed that some of you want to lump all these type of systems togther for the sake of boosting the Linux numbers, but it just isn't the same thing. Desktops have much greater user flexibility and it is that user flexibility that is at the core of whether a OS is widely deployed for a certain use.
With out a doubt Linux is a great server OS, but one you put it in the hands of everyday desktop users, many of the advantages that slashdotters recognize linux as a great OS for go to waste and can even create problems for the ordinary users.
The truth is, and always will be...There has to be dumbed down OS's... the vast majority of computer users not only NEED it but the WANT something simple. Until a "dumbed down distro" exists linux will not be competative in the desktop market. Keep in mind too that this dumbed down distro will also have a broad range of first class applications as well, otherwise there will be no incentive beyond price/hate for MS to switch over from an OS that alread gets the job done.
You're the "decision maker" who will be laid off in 6 months because the company you work for has made too many poor business decisions. Decisions like spending too much on Linux admins that have a sticks up their asses and make decisions based purely on their own preferences rather than on what's actually good for the company. Admins that choose to disregard the affect those decisions will have on the end users.
It's all about productivity stupid.
A company can have the coolest cluster and the best [insert your favorite distro] workstations in town, but if it's at the cost of productivity, it really doesn't matter does it?
It's not good for Playstation 2...hardcore gamers don't give a flying @#&* about AOL or any non game related crap....and if M$ is smart they will stick to game plan and keep the xbox a game console period. I have a computer and UltimateTV, I don't need or want a cross between the two...I need a kick ass game console.
Not only do the specs on the xbox blow this completely out of the water, but Microsoft can and will probably sell the xbox for cheaper then Nokia can afford to sell this little gadget. As far as games go...with those specs, the games will no doubt suck. Anyone who thinks that this thing will be a serious contender in the game console arena needs to get that penguin out of their ass.
I can see this being a small competitor to Ultimate TV, but that's about it.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry man, you can't use the crashing argument anymore.
I've been using XP for several weeks, not to mention the XP betas I've been using for months and crashes have NOT even been an issue.
Also my Win2k box which serves as a dedicated router and firewall has been up for months at time...the only time it shuts down itself down is when the power goes out for longer than 5 minutes.
Your comparison of this situation to the spread and risks of a deadly human virus is ridiculous.
There is a big difference between acknowledging the existence of a deadly human virus and how it's transmitted and...distrubuting instructions on how to EASILY create a deadly human virus that would allow someone to willingly transmit it at virtually no risk to themselves.
Would you justify cooking up new deadly human viruses that would target a specific group? and releasing the instuctions on how to create them into the wild just for the heck of it? Would this be all in the name of helping those that will most likely be infected?
Sounds a lot more like the terrorist threats we're facing right now, then good security measures.
I'd like to see some hard numbers on exploits before they are release to the public and after.
If there is evidence of a subtantial number of real exploits occuring prior to the release of this info to the public, then I believe the public has the right to know about the vulnerability, but if there isn't and it's an exploit that is "theoritical" and not out in the wild, then the company should be notified of the vulnerability and there should be a sort of grace period before the information is released to the public at large. This way Microsoft or any other company would only have themselves to blame for their failure to correct the problem before this information is released to the public.
Hopefully this would prevent some of the rampant spread of vulnerabilities that we have been seeing, that end up affecting everyone using the internet in some way or another.
If you don't like a company's services, then don't give them your business.
Otherwise, don't bitch about it.
I noticed that some of you want to lump all these type of systems togther for the sake of boosting the Linux numbers, but it just isn't the same thing. Desktops have much greater user flexibility and it is that user flexibility that is at the core of whether a OS is widely deployed for a certain use.
With out a doubt Linux is a great server OS, but one you put it in the hands of everyday desktop users, many of the advantages that slashdotters recognize linux as a great OS for go to waste and can even create problems for the ordinary users.
The truth is, and always will be...There has to be dumbed down OS's... the vast majority of computer users not only NEED it but the WANT something simple. Until a "dumbed down distro" exists linux will not be competative in the desktop market. Keep in mind too that this dumbed down distro will also have a broad range of first class applications as well, otherwise there will be no incentive beyond price/hate for MS to switch over from an OS that alread gets the job done.
You're the "decision maker" who will be laid off in 6 months because the company you work for has made too many poor business decisions. Decisions like spending too much on Linux admins that have a sticks up their asses and make decisions based purely on their own preferences rather than on what's actually good for the company. Admins that choose to disregard the affect those decisions will have on the end users.
It's all about productivity stupid.
A company can have the coolest cluster and the best [insert your favorite distro] workstations in town, but if it's at the cost of productivity, it really doesn't matter does it?
It's not good for Playstation 2...hardcore gamers don't give a flying @#&* about AOL or any non game related crap. ...and if M$ is smart they will stick to game plan and keep the xbox a game console period. I have a computer and UltimateTV, I don't need or want a cross between the two...I need a kick ass game console.
Not only do the specs on the xbox blow this completely out of the water, but Microsoft can and will probably sell the xbox for cheaper then Nokia can afford to sell this little gadget. As far as games go...with those specs, the games will no doubt suck. Anyone who thinks that this thing will be a serious contender in the game console arena needs to get that penguin out of their ass. I can see this being a small competitor to Ultimate TV, but that's about it.