The real threat will come to Microsoft not via some certain tech advance - it will come in the form of a slow penetration of anti-MS and pro-Linux gossip being spread throughout the business community.
I would suggest that this is already happening. The tech press has been tossing out positive Linux articles for a few years now. Even more main-stream sources like Newsweek report on Linux and note its increased acceptance.
And it is being accepted. I was shocked when I fled the dot-bomb for the more stable life of my old, concervative Government haunts and found Linux everywhere. It was no longer some strange name people heard muttered somewhere. It was a viable option - sometimes a preferred option. It was in the lab hosting testbeds. It was in production. Linux was being deployed on the floor of the server farm right next to Windows, Solaris, HP/UX, and a handful of legacy systems.
Linux is out there. I'm not convinced it'll bury Microsoft; after all, Compaq and the slew of clones didn't bury IBM. But Linux is riding the comoditization of software just as Microsoft rode IBM's loss of control over the PC. And its already causing changes within Microsoft.
And that's a win for the consumer - whether you're deploying Linux or Windows.
The rest of us poor souls, who don't want to play the DRM game are completely locked out of seeing/using their content.
Actually, the rest of us poor souls who value our fair use rights will turn to a thriving black market for our content. Part of the black market will undoubtedly provide content that has had the involved DRM scheme stripped. We'll value that content - partly because it fits our belief in our rights, partly because it is all we'll be able to use.
This black market content may require considerable effort and expense to create. After all, it may require specialy modified hardware to defeat the DRM schemes being discussed today. Depending on the difficulty of such a hack, and the logistics of distributing information and hacked hardware (mostly due to the legal environment), it may mean that the only people who will invest in this hardware are the very dedicated and the professional.
The casual "warez" scene of today will loose ground to a new group. It will be replaced by an increasing number of illicit data peddlers who will require direct compensation for their own expenses.
And we will buy in to it because it will be the only market that will offer what we want.
Editorial Separation? BS. Slashdot has a large readership of Microsoft-oriented technical people, complete with IE and.NET User Agent strings. Michael knows, OSDN/LUNX knows it, and the advertisers like Microsoft know it.
Just because Slashdot makes a good place to advertise technology doesn't mean there's a lack of seperation between marketing and editorial departments.
After hitting our heads against the wall all day, it's fun to come here and bitch about "The Man" or argue with some C/UNIX luddite caveman type about something. In fact, that's the MOST POPULAR feature of the slashdot.org site -- not the Linux stuff.
To each their own. I come here for the Linux stuff.
In short Slashdot is one of the most appropriate places for Microsoft advertisements, precisely due to their MS-bashing editorial stance.
Sure. It makes sense to advertise here - even if you're Microsoft. Heck... MS is "advertising" at Linux conventions. Their booth at a local technology fair this year was pushing their Unix services kit. In short, they're not uncomfortable dealing with potentially hostile markets. They are, after all, masters of marketing.
Still. This all has nothing to do with whether Slashdot editors have any say towards what shows up in the banner space.
I didn't say that, nimrod. I'm not even talking about Microsoft zealots. I'm talking about the typical mentality around here, and doubly so for the amateur "editors" that run this site.
First - a lot of this "Linux-bashing" comes from trolls and Microsoft zealots. Which is a shame because most of the issues that fall to this kind of fodder has more than ample room for intelligent discussion of various problems / areas that could be improved.
Secondly - your comments about maturity and being "taken seariously" might cary more weight if you weren't lacing your post with name-calling in the exact style that you criticize.
Finaly - don't like the editors? What... are there no technical sites other than Slashdot to read? Slashdot has always had the current general attitude. Its not a change. I suspect you're here to bitch and play martyr, not discuss.
Mindless gnu/open source/linux zealotry and slashbotitis are still a problem if the gnu/open source/linux stuff is ever going to be taken seriously in "the industry".
Sure - I don't like some of the attitude (although I do agree with the general dislike / distrust of Microsoft). There's obviously a growing number that need a bit more education behind their apparent angst. But hey - my managers don't read Slashdot. They read usual trade rags. And there, Linux is being taken seriously. Now days, I get the same level of approval deploying Linux as I would a Solaris or Windows solution.
That's a very valid point, but I would say that if MS gave away the source code for NT4 tomorrow then it would take months before even the real coders would understand it fully, months before they could patch the problems and then test them.
Of course, with environments like *BSD and Linux, the source code has always been there since day-one of many people adopting it as their platform of choice. Its been available for years as developers drop in and out of the various projects that run in these collective environments. There is no lag as you suggested there would be with WinNT4.
NT4 is about 7(?) years old now and I'd be surprised if many people would be running on RH 5 and expecting support for it, and of those who would be able to code a patch for their own machine? Not many.
It depends. If you're going it alone... you vs. the rest of the *nix world... then you're going to have to code on your own. But I'm occasionally suprised when I find old forks still being developed by an, albeit smaller, community. Two examples that come to mind is the older Apache tree and the Linux 2.0.x kernel tree - both still have an apparently healthy install base and still undergo bugfixes.
Where the numbers may be considered a failure in the commerical environment, these same numbers may represent a fairly healthy and active community for an Open Source project. That may not appear to be important to a userbase who are constantly shifting and updating. But its damn important to those who have to maintain legacy systems - and I've seen enough legacy systems to suspect that number isn't trivial.
I also find it amusing the editors sooo hate Microsoft, but have no problem taking ad money to fund them. Got hypocrisy?
Dig around a bit. Taco has often stated that they maintain complete editorial separation from OSDN's marketing. That is to say, Marketing doesn't dictate the flavor of their articles and they don't dictate who can advertise (that also explaines the "Slashdot Cruiser" marketing flop). No wonder Slashdot serves up the occasional Doubleclick banner or Microsoft ad.
Along those lines, I don't see how accepting funding from Microsoft while criticizing them is hypocrisy. Now - if they're critical on some aspect and then change their tune because of ad funding, then you might have something.
It's no wonder that there is a community of Linux-bashers out there.
You make it sound like Microsoft Zealotry and Linux-bashing didn't exist before Slashdot became popular (or at least well-known). If anything, some of the extreme views taken by Linux zealots are a reaction to an already overly-pro-Microsoft environment fostered by management and Industry rags at one time (although the press is giving Linux more even coverage these days).
Granted - it could very well be a self-feeding cycle that we're in now. But it shure didn't start that way.
Yes, of course. Let me guess - that's because this is Slashdot.org, where 90% of readers are Linux users who won't touch IE under any circumstances? I see your point now.
Oh c'mon. You know perfectly well that it will be the rare techie who isn't touched by Windows/IE in some manner.
Some have to use Windows even if they dislike it and once they do that they're running IE whether they use Mozilla or Opera to browse. Others may be able to stick to MacOS, Linux, or *BSD but will still have customers or friends and family who they may still support.
Granted - its a minor bug and more curiosity than anything else in both cases. But the embeded nature of IE makes it an interesting discussion point (as does Mozilla and where it CAN be found embedded - such as in Nautilus).
I would think this Mozilla bug deserves its own article simply because the IE bug got one. And the only reason the IE bug is article-worthy is that there is some interesting discussion possibilities such as exactly where this bug could surface (the browser, sure... but how about creating a file with the bug in it and dropping it in a directory...).
And it might be worth noting that discussion on Bugtraq seems to indicate that the IE bug isn't exploitable (maybe that kind of discussion could happen on the Mozilla bug too).
Of course, I didn't dig too far in to that article. Just like this one, it becomes fodder for "MS sucks" or "Slashdot is biased" - as if any of that is really insightful (moded as such or not).
If this doesn't get modded up or gets labelled as Flamebait or troll I'll have lost all hope for Slashdot.
I would have been tempted to mod you down because:
1) You begin your post with the typical martyr complex demands for mod / karma.
2) Your post's content is all references to other threads in this very same discussion, yet you create a seperate post instead of replying to the actual threads.
This isn't about the issue at hand. Its about grand-standing.
They used to. And true to the existing market - the vast majority of browsers appeared to be IE.
Of course, this then leads to the never-ending fight over whether the results are valid or what the smart user fakes so they don't get turned away from particularly brain-dead web sites. Or whether this simply reflects "at work" browsing where one "is forced to use Windows" (I can identify with that:). Etc, etc.
It would be interesting to see the link again - assuming it wasn't removed to simply eliminate traffic aimed at tipping numbers. But it won't prove much besides the fact that Microsoft does in fact dominate the desktop. I know... shocker.
An unpatched Linux machine is as vulnerable as an unpatched Windows machine. Security is to do with administration, not the operating system.
The sooner Linux zealots realise this, and start saying things like "Linux provides an easier patch path", the sooner people will start taking them seriously.
This hits on a very important point.
Usually this kind of conversation ends up as a flamewar debating over the vulnerability counts found on SecurityFocus, etc. Ignoring exactly what these numbers mean, how they are tabulated, and whether they compare apples to apples or not... they only tell a part of the whole story. The trouble is, when people think "security", they've become conditioned to think exploit numbers. And patches.
Ideas like "Linux provides an easier patch path" is a good start. So would something along the lines of "Linux provides a more modular environment and control over installed components." But then, that's considerably longer than "Linux provides better security." Even if it leads to miscommunication.
But it may be worth the extra effort. After all, at the risk of generating another slew of flames, infosec is one of the subjects that seem to draw a lot of comments from those who really don't understand the subject. Pointing out the strengths of one's favorite environment might hold more weight if it also included some education in the subject matter at hand.
The Information Technology Association of America. The same group that, in the midst of the dot-bomb bloodbath insisted that there was a shortage in available IT labor and lobied for raising caps in H-1B visa allowances. The same group maintaining that there is a current 500,000 worker shortage and expected to champion maintaining the current temporarily increased H-1B visa cap.
Re:NEWSFLASH, NTFS is a journaling filesystem!
on
Looking at Longhorn
·
· Score: 1
For example, you will need Nortons for file system X and Nortons for file system Y and Nortons for file system Z. So, which one does Symantec pick in this case? And once Joe User figures out that his favorite utilities don't work, which file system will he want to use?
Assuming that Nortons Utilities is an example and easily replaced with any other application (such as Partition Magic)...:)
Sure. They will have to expand their project to handle additional file systems. I'm not sure how Nortons handles it - but I know Partition Magic releases updates that handle the latest file systems. Their latest consumer offering supports EXT3 but not ReiserFS (Paragon Parition Manger handles both). Of course, adding additional functionality shouldn't be TOO difficult as the specs are open.
It might be worth noteing that NTFS has undergone changes too. Old versions of Partition Magic won't work on the latest version of NTFS. There has been three incompatible versions coinciding with WinNT, Win2K, and WinXP. And makers of disk utility sofware for Windows have had to adapt (heck - it probably helps drive sales).
Having too many choices in what is considered a low-level system function will hurt the market, not help it.
Depends on exactly what your market is. This may affect Nortons Utilities if Symantec wanted to move in to that space (assuming there's a call for Nortons in the Linux envrionment). But they could easily take a cue from PowerQuest and support what is being widely deployed (EXT3 and ReiserFS) - unless, of course, their entire product goal is complete coverage (I'd expect MegaWidget PartitionManager for Linux to handle more filesystems than Partition Magic does). If your product is MegaWidget Office, then it would seem that one wouldn't worry what filesystem is sitting underneath.
Re:NEWSFLASH, NTFS is a journaling filesystem!
on
Looking at Longhorn
·
· Score: 1
Are you a goddamn Linux Zealot idiot???
An ill-mannered MS zealot / troll. Who would'a thunk it.
Sure. NTFS works well. Now. Its undergone improvements over its history.
The various filesystem projects under Linux are competing and improving. RiserFS works well. EXT3 works well. Just to name two. And I can use whatever I wish. Heck - I can even turn to a very respected "third party" like Veritas.
NTFS working fine for you? Good. Doesn't mean a choice is a bad thing.
Re:NEWSFLASH, NTFS is a journaling filesystem!
on
Looking at Longhorn
·
· Score: 1
Actually, I don't believe plug&play showed up in NT until 4.0 and even then, it was only partial support. Pretty decent in Win2K though (if only it wasn't marketed as a "professional OS" which sometimes limited hardware support).
Re:NEWSFLASH, NTFS is a journaling filesystem!
on
Looking at Longhorn
·
· Score: 1
Why does the average joe user, need several different journaling file systems for a desktop OS?
Competition. Diffent projects attack the problem in different ways. This leads to technology that offers different advatages. Granted - this sounds like the realm of techies, not the average joe user. But Joe User can also bennefit from this competition as his distro picks what they believe is the best technology and makes it a part of the default install.
It may not be immediately obvious to people why anybody'd propose this, to them I say "think about the information your unblinking ear could receive." A lot of us listen to music while using our computer, right? Well why not provide some extra cues as to what your machine's doing?
Because a changing tone would interfere with your music?
You should chat with Carnage4life. He claims to be a MS intern and mentioned some time ago that somewhere in MS they were working on a UI spec that included 4.1 surround sound and audio cues. My responce is that their working environment is very different than the average workspace.
The vast majority of my work environments have involved shared workspace; be it divided offices or cube farms. The trend seems to be going towards additional methods of shared workspace rather than the other way.
Heck - even at home there tend to be 2 or 3 desktops being used at any given time. Granted, my household isn't average. Additional pops and whirs might make more sense in one's own room, dorm, home office, etc.
But in the majority of environments, sound becomes a distraction. For me, I use music as a way to zone in on what I'm doing (headphones go on, volume goes up, and someone has to wave at my rear-view monitor mirror to get my attention - or send email). I wouldn't want additional audio cueus interfering with my music or turning my office in to a soundtrack from Star Trek's Origional Series.
How have I done so? By being upset at what I have experienced with linux users and passing that along to those who ask? What should I say instead?
The problem is that you've completely ignored any positive aspects of the Linux community. Again, I've been using Linux personally and professionally for years now. I've found a wealth of usefull information and help. All this despite the occasional zealot or the "RTFM" horror stories you hear in this forum.
Focusing on the misbehavior of a questionable portion of the Linux community smacks of elitism.
If you want to recommend *BSD over Linux, please do so. There's plenty of technical reasons on which to base that recommendation (although I tend to favor Linux myself). Heck, even throw in your own politics / belief based on the difference in license between the two - just as valid depending on the environment. But do both the *BSD and Linux communities a favor and show some of the maturity you claim the Linux community lacks. Stop encouraging zealotry.
I am anti-linux and pro-BSD for no other reason than the fact that I can't stand the brutal attitude shown by a majority of linux users. In fact, I've influenced clients to go with BSD instead of linux for just that reason. Wanna hear a secret? I'm not the only one.
What you've just proven is that Linux is not alone in its legions of elitists and zealots. Such attitudes exist for *BSD. The same attitudes can be found amoung Windows supporters. And it is almost legendary amoung Mac enthusiasts. We don't even have to mention other environments like OS2, BeOS, VMS, etc.
Linux has its zealots, to be sure. But it also has a community that offers a wealth of information, code, and support. I've relied on this for years now as I use Linux at work and home.
One side note - I've also noticed bad attitudes. While we're usually discussing the attitudes of people who should be helping those who need help, there is also questionable attitudes expressed by some who ask for help. There seems to be a quantity of individuals who show up in various live and message forums with a "something for nothing" mentality. They expect immediate answers and help without putting out any effort on their own. Little wonder flames quickly follow.
If one wants that kind of help - it can be had. Buy a support contract from your favorite Linux company. Or use a service like Google Answers.
That doesn't mean the complete novice Linux user can't get free help. It does mean that instead of asking for solutions on a silver platter, a better strategy is to ask for where to find information. Instead of asking "How do I..", ask "What do I need for Foo service?" or "I read the food daemon HOWTO but I don't understand the '--widget' option, can someone explain what they mean?" Etc.
Of course - one is likely to find that this is a good strategy whether one is seeking help on Linux, BSD, Windows or any technical subject.
It's probably more of a nervous chuckle than a laugh. After all, Win2003 developers are paying attention. To the point:
Why is there no command line only version? We're looking longer term to see what can be done, looking at the layers and what's available at each layer and how do we make it much closer to the thing the Linux guys have -- having only the pieces you want running. That's something Linux has that's ahead of us, but we're looking at it. We will have a command line-only version, but whether it'll have all the features in is another matter. A lot of the tools depend on having the graphical interface. Printing, for example, requires all the graphics subsystems because we have the "what you see is what you get" model. You need to have the whole of the display stuff to render it. It's a very tangled subsystem.
Maybe there's something to that whole simplicity idea.
Seems like just about every product release, Apple fails to save the world. Criminy. You'd think they could get their act together by now. Lazy buggers.
...
But will it save the "industry in collapse"?? Probably not.
I didn't mean to imply that Apple SHOULD be saving the world. After all, they're having a hard enough time saving themselves. And perhapse that's the point. This isn't about saving the music industry. This is about creating another compelling reason to Switch.
Let's be fair - Apple did good. But my response is aimed at the parent post and its claim that we'll not see anything better out of the Music Industry. Its all about the Music Industry, not Apple... or their new browser.
Maybe we shouldn't be expecting free updates to software we got free with our computers to do so... You think?
Free? I assume we're talking about Apple software here. One pays a premium for those systems. A large part of the reason to pay that premium is to run software unavailable on any other hardware. Ya know - compelling reasons.... Switch? Developing new software is part of continuing to win over new customers - providing updates keeps current customers happy and bragging to their friends. Bug-fixes aside.
Dude, if you're not planning on sharing the music you buy with the whole world, the restrictions that they *do* put in will NEVER hinder you.
What happens when I catch the Linux bug and move to that platform? How about if the Microsoft anti-Switch campaign catches my fancy and I'm all for migrating to WinXP? What about playing that killer tune on my car stereo? If I decide I wanna goof around with this Ogg Vorbis thing people keep talking about? Or if I want to take a little snippit of a tune and turn it in to my "new mail" sound? Or I wanna add snippit to a presentation comparing pop music of today to the 60s and 80s?
It's amazing how people always complain.
Its amazing how people don't understand the issue.
People, it's not going to get better than this. Do you really think Apple could have struck a deal with the five record labels without some sort of DRM?
It better get better than this. The music industry is suffocating from their own weight. They're lacking compelling, new content. They're overpricing their product. And for the first time in their history, the music industry is finding itself losing its main advantage - control of the only economical distribution channel(s).
Apple is coming close. It might even be close enough to be successful. Whether its close enough to save and industry in collapse may be another question.
Slashdot Mirror
I would suggest that this is already happening. The tech press has been tossing out positive Linux articles for a few years now. Even more main-stream sources like Newsweek report on Linux and note its increased acceptance.
And it is being accepted. I was shocked when I fled the dot-bomb for the more stable life of my old, concervative Government haunts and found Linux everywhere. It was no longer some strange name people heard muttered somewhere. It was a viable option - sometimes a preferred option. It was in the lab hosting testbeds. It was in production. Linux was being deployed on the floor of the server farm right next to Windows, Solaris, HP/UX, and a handful of legacy systems.
Linux is out there. I'm not convinced it'll bury Microsoft; after all, Compaq and the slew of clones didn't bury IBM. But Linux is riding the comoditization of software just as Microsoft rode IBM's loss of control over the PC. And its already causing changes within Microsoft.
And that's a win for the consumer - whether you're deploying Linux or Windows.
This is one of those "clever" attempts at trolling, isn't it?
Actually, the rest of us poor souls who value our fair use rights will turn to a thriving black market for our content. Part of the black market will undoubtedly provide content that has had the involved DRM scheme stripped. We'll value that content - partly because it fits our belief in our rights, partly because it is all we'll be able to use.
This black market content may require considerable effort and expense to create. After all, it may require specialy modified hardware to defeat the DRM schemes being discussed today. Depending on the difficulty of such a hack, and the logistics of distributing information and hacked hardware (mostly due to the legal environment), it may mean that the only people who will invest in this hardware are the very dedicated and the professional.
The casual "warez" scene of today will loose ground to a new group. It will be replaced by an increasing number of illicit data peddlers who will require direct compensation for their own expenses.
And we will buy in to it because it will be the only market that will offer what we want.
Just because Slashdot makes a good place to advertise technology doesn't mean there's a lack of seperation between marketing and editorial departments.
To each their own. I come here for the Linux stuff.
Sure. It makes sense to advertise here - even if you're Microsoft. Heck... MS is "advertising" at Linux conventions. Their booth at a local technology fair this year was pushing their Unix services kit. In short, they're not uncomfortable dealing with potentially hostile markets. They are, after all, masters of marketing.
Still. This all has nothing to do with whether Slashdot editors have any say towards what shows up in the banner space.
First - a lot of this "Linux-bashing" comes from trolls and Microsoft zealots. Which is a shame because most of the issues that fall to this kind of fodder has more than ample room for intelligent discussion of various problems / areas that could be improved.
Secondly - your comments about maturity and being "taken seariously" might cary more weight if you weren't lacing your post with name-calling in the exact style that you criticize.
Finaly - don't like the editors? What... are there no technical sites other than Slashdot to read? Slashdot has always had the current general attitude. Its not a change. I suspect you're here to bitch and play martyr, not discuss.
Sure - I don't like some of the attitude (although I do agree with the general dislike / distrust of Microsoft). There's obviously a growing number that need a bit more education behind their apparent angst. But hey - my managers don't read Slashdot. They read usual trade rags. And there, Linux is being taken seriously. Now days, I get the same level of approval deploying Linux as I would a Solaris or Windows solution.
Of course, with environments like *BSD and Linux, the source code has always been there since day-one of many people adopting it as their platform of choice. Its been available for years as developers drop in and out of the various projects that run in these collective environments. There is no lag as you suggested there would be with WinNT4.
It depends. If you're going it alone... you vs. the rest of the *nix world... then you're going to have to code on your own. But I'm occasionally suprised when I find old forks still being developed by an, albeit smaller, community. Two examples that come to mind is the older Apache tree and the Linux 2.0.x kernel tree - both still have an apparently healthy install base and still undergo bugfixes.
Where the numbers may be considered a failure in the commerical environment, these same numbers may represent a fairly healthy and active community for an Open Source project. That may not appear to be important to a userbase who are constantly shifting and updating. But its damn important to those who have to maintain legacy systems - and I've seen enough legacy systems to suspect that number isn't trivial.
Dig around a bit. Taco has often stated that they maintain complete editorial separation from OSDN's marketing. That is to say, Marketing doesn't dictate the flavor of their articles and they don't dictate who can advertise (that also explaines the "Slashdot Cruiser" marketing flop). No wonder Slashdot serves up the occasional Doubleclick banner or Microsoft ad.
Along those lines, I don't see how accepting funding from Microsoft while criticizing them is hypocrisy. Now - if they're critical on some aspect and then change their tune because of ad funding, then you might have something.
You make it sound like Microsoft Zealotry and Linux-bashing didn't exist before Slashdot became popular (or at least well-known). If anything, some of the extreme views taken by Linux zealots are a reaction to an already overly-pro-Microsoft environment fostered by management and Industry rags at one time (although the press is giving Linux more even coverage these days).
Granted - it could very well be a self-feeding cycle that we're in now. But it shure didn't start that way.
Oh c'mon. You know perfectly well that it will be the rare techie who isn't touched by Windows/IE in some manner.
Some have to use Windows even if they dislike it and once they do that they're running IE whether they use Mozilla or Opera to browse. Others may be able to stick to MacOS, Linux, or *BSD but will still have customers or friends and family who they may still support.
Granted - its a minor bug and more curiosity than anything else in both cases. But the embeded nature of IE makes it an interesting discussion point (as does Mozilla and where it CAN be found embedded - such as in Nautilus).
I would think this Mozilla bug deserves its own article simply because the IE bug got one. And the only reason the IE bug is article-worthy is that there is some interesting discussion possibilities such as exactly where this bug could surface (the browser, sure... but how about creating a file with the bug in it and dropping it in a directory...).
And it might be worth noting that discussion on Bugtraq seems to indicate that the IE bug isn't exploitable (maybe that kind of discussion could happen on the Mozilla bug too).
Of course, I didn't dig too far in to that article. Just like this one, it becomes fodder for "MS sucks" or "Slashdot is biased" - as if any of that is really insightful (moded as such or not).
I would have been tempted to mod you down because:
1) You begin your post with the typical martyr complex demands for mod / karma.
2) Your post's content is all references to other threads in this very same discussion, yet you create a seperate post instead of replying to the actual threads.
This isn't about the issue at hand. Its about grand-standing.
They used to. And true to the existing market - the vast majority of browsers appeared to be IE.
:). Etc, etc.
Of course, this then leads to the never-ending fight over whether the results are valid or what the smart user fakes so they don't get turned away from particularly brain-dead web sites. Or whether this simply reflects "at work" browsing where one "is forced to use Windows" (I can identify with that
It would be interesting to see the link again - assuming it wasn't removed to simply eliminate traffic aimed at tipping numbers. But it won't prove much besides the fact that Microsoft does in fact dominate the desktop. I know... shocker.
This hits on a very important point.
Usually this kind of conversation ends up as a flamewar debating over the vulnerability counts found on SecurityFocus, etc. Ignoring exactly what these numbers mean, how they are tabulated, and whether they compare apples to apples or not... they only tell a part of the whole story. The trouble is, when people think "security", they've become conditioned to think exploit numbers. And patches.
Ideas like "Linux provides an easier patch path" is a good start. So would something along the lines of "Linux provides a more modular environment and control over installed components." But then, that's considerably longer than "Linux provides better security." Even if it leads to miscommunication.
But it may be worth the extra effort. After all, at the risk of generating another slew of flames, infosec is one of the subjects that seem to draw a lot of comments from those who really don't understand the subject. Pointing out the strengths of one's favorite environment might hold more weight if it also included some education in the subject matter at hand.
The Information Technology Association of America. The same group that, in the midst of the dot-bomb bloodbath insisted that there was a shortage in available IT labor and lobied for raising caps in H-1B visa allowances. The same group maintaining that there is a current 500,000 worker shortage and expected to champion maintaining the current temporarily increased H-1B visa cap.
Assuming that Nortons Utilities is an example and easily replaced with any other application (such as Partition Magic)...
Sure. They will have to expand their project to handle additional file systems. I'm not sure how Nortons handles it - but I know Partition Magic releases updates that handle the latest file systems. Their latest consumer offering supports EXT3 but not ReiserFS (Paragon Parition Manger handles both). Of course, adding additional functionality shouldn't be TOO difficult as the specs are open.
It might be worth noteing that NTFS has undergone changes too. Old versions of Partition Magic won't work on the latest version of NTFS. There has been three incompatible versions coinciding with WinNT, Win2K, and WinXP. And makers of disk utility sofware for Windows have had to adapt (heck - it probably helps drive sales).
Depends on exactly what your market is. This may affect Nortons Utilities if Symantec wanted to move in to that space (assuming there's a call for Nortons in the Linux envrionment). But they could easily take a cue from PowerQuest and support what is being widely deployed (EXT3 and ReiserFS) - unless, of course, their entire product goal is complete coverage (I'd expect MegaWidget PartitionManager for Linux to handle more filesystems than Partition Magic does). If your product is MegaWidget Office, then it would seem that one wouldn't worry what filesystem is sitting underneath.
An ill-mannered MS zealot / troll. Who would'a thunk it.
Sure. NTFS works well. Now. Its undergone improvements over its history.
The various filesystem projects under Linux are competing and improving. RiserFS works well. EXT3 works well. Just to name two. And I can use whatever I wish. Heck - I can even turn to a very respected "third party" like Veritas.
NTFS working fine for you? Good. Doesn't mean a choice is a bad thing.
APTools is one example.
Actually, I don't believe plug&play showed up in NT until 4.0 and even then, it was only partial support. Pretty decent in Win2K though (if only it wasn't marketed as a "professional OS" which sometimes limited hardware support).
Competition. Diffent projects attack the problem in different ways. This leads to technology that offers different advatages. Granted - this sounds like the realm of techies, not the average joe user. But Joe User can also bennefit from this competition as his distro picks what they believe is the best technology and makes it a part of the default install.
Because a changing tone would interfere with your music?
You should chat with Carnage4life. He claims to be a MS intern and mentioned some time ago that somewhere in MS they were working on a UI spec that included 4.1 surround sound and audio cues. My responce is that their working environment is very different than the average workspace.
The vast majority of my work environments have involved shared workspace; be it divided offices or cube farms. The trend seems to be going towards additional methods of shared workspace rather than the other way.
Heck - even at home there tend to be 2 or 3 desktops being used at any given time. Granted, my household isn't average. Additional pops and whirs might make more sense in one's own room, dorm, home office, etc.
But in the majority of environments, sound becomes a distraction. For me, I use music as a way to zone in on what I'm doing (headphones go on, volume goes up, and someone has to wave at my rear-view monitor mirror to get my attention - or send email). I wouldn't want additional audio cueus interfering with my music or turning my office in to a soundtrack from Star Trek's Origional Series.
The problem is that you've completely ignored any positive aspects of the Linux community. Again, I've been using Linux personally and professionally for years now. I've found a wealth of usefull information and help. All this despite the occasional zealot or the "RTFM" horror stories you hear in this forum.
Focusing on the misbehavior of a questionable portion of the Linux community smacks of elitism.
If you want to recommend *BSD over Linux, please do so. There's plenty of technical reasons on which to base that recommendation (although I tend to favor Linux myself). Heck, even throw in your own politics / belief based on the difference in license between the two - just as valid depending on the environment. But do both the *BSD and Linux communities a favor and show some of the maturity you claim the Linux community lacks. Stop encouraging zealotry.
What you've just proven is that Linux is not alone in its legions of elitists and zealots. Such attitudes exist for *BSD. The same attitudes can be found amoung Windows supporters. And it is almost legendary amoung Mac enthusiasts. We don't even have to mention other environments like OS2, BeOS, VMS, etc.
Linux has its zealots, to be sure. But it also has a community that offers a wealth of information, code, and support. I've relied on this for years now as I use Linux at work and home.
One side note - I've also noticed bad attitudes. While we're usually discussing the attitudes of people who should be helping those who need help, there is also questionable attitudes expressed by some who ask for help. There seems to be a quantity of individuals who show up in various live and message forums with a "something for nothing" mentality. They expect immediate answers and help without putting out any effort on their own. Little wonder flames quickly follow.
If one wants that kind of help - it can be had. Buy a support contract from your favorite Linux company. Or use a service like Google Answers.
That doesn't mean the complete novice Linux user can't get free help. It does mean that instead of asking for solutions on a silver platter, a better strategy is to ask for where to find information. Instead of asking "How do I..", ask "What do I need for Foo service?" or "I read the food daemon HOWTO but I don't understand the '--widget' option, can someone explain what they mean?" Etc.
Of course - one is likely to find that this is a good strategy whether one is seeking help on Linux, BSD, Windows or any technical subject.
It's probably more of a nervous chuckle than a laugh. After all, Win2003 developers are paying attention. To the point:
Maybe there's something to that whole simplicity idea.
I didn't mean to imply that Apple SHOULD be saving the world. After all, they're having a hard enough time saving themselves. And perhapse that's the point. This isn't about saving the music industry. This is about creating another compelling reason to Switch.
Let's be fair - Apple did good. But my response is aimed at the parent post and its claim that we'll not see anything better out of the Music Industry. Its all about the Music Industry, not Apple... or their new browser.
Free? I assume we're talking about Apple software here. One pays a premium for those systems. A large part of the reason to pay that premium is to run software unavailable on any other hardware. Ya know - compelling reasons.... Switch? Developing new software is part of continuing to win over new customers - providing updates keeps current customers happy and bragging to their friends. Bug-fixes aside.
What happens when I catch the Linux bug and move to that platform? How about if the Microsoft anti-Switch campaign catches my fancy and I'm all for migrating to WinXP? What about playing that killer tune on my car stereo? If I decide I wanna goof around with this Ogg Vorbis thing people keep talking about? Or if I want to take a little snippit of a tune and turn it in to my "new mail" sound? Or I wanna add snippit to a presentation comparing pop music of today to the 60s and 80s?
Its amazing how people don't understand the issue.
It better get better than this. The music industry is suffocating from their own weight. They're lacking compelling, new content. They're overpricing their product. And for the first time in their history, the music industry is finding itself losing its main advantage - control of the only economical distribution channel(s).
Apple is coming close. It might even be close enough to be successful. Whether its close enough to save and industry in collapse may be another question.