Why does it need to be less autocratic? Just because you say so? Do you have any evidence whatsoever that your 'democracy' would do a better job than the current system? Or are you just pulling political strawmen out of your ass?
If you don't like the way things are done, you have the option of using some other OS. So stop your bitching and do it already - that's how you vote. You do *not* get to change the way things are done just because you're pissed that *you* aren't the one in charge, or because you're jealous that it isn't your name that's attached to a major OS.
The people who usually spout this sort of crap are the ones who're pissed off that they aren't Linus. Ever claiming that Linus needs to relinquish control for reason X if Linux is to flourish/do well on the desktop/become ready for corporate America - whatever. It all boils down to the fact that Linus is in charge, and they aren't.
If you don't like the way Linus does things, there are other operating systems out there that might be more your style. BeOS, FreeBSD, AtheOS, etc. But these all suffer from the same problem, don't they? I mean, somebody else is in charge - not you.
Once again we have the raving Windows lunatics screaming about how restricting access to a *private* mailing list is somehow "arrogant", "elitist", "asinine", and a host of other colorful descriptors simply because the restriction deals with *their* mail utility - Outlook.
Let's review, shall we? Putting aside the fact that Outlook is a crock of poorly-written shit, these enraged jerk-offs seem to completely ignore the fact that the mailing list is - dare we say it? - private. Repeat that to yourselves, you outraged loons - priiiiivvaaaate. As in, the guy owns the show, he makes the rules, you either comply or take your marbles elsewhere.
Somehow, somewhere, some Windows-using twits have gotten the idea that if they're denied a private service then they have cause to bitch, complain, whine, and generally act like 9-year-olds whose parents say "no" to the candy bar in the store. To the casual observer it's both hilarious and annoying, as well as a bit mystifying - at what point did these yahoos decide that they have a god-given right to impose themselves anywhere they please? Or were these folks just born complete fuckwits with no sense of private property?
Well, guess what. In some places you just aren't wanted. That isn't arrogant, that isn't elitist, it's just the way things go. I have a website complete with forum that only allows users with a password access - does that mean I'm being elitist simply because I won't give you the password? If you think so, then don't be surprised if you look into the mirror and find the word "LOSER" tattooed on your forehead.
Of course, in this case the guy makes it painfully easy to get on to the mailing list, practically giving you a step-by-step on how to go about it with a minimum of effort. No where near as restrictive as I am with my own property - my website and my forum, to do with as I please.
His mailing list. To do with as *he* pleases. Same as you can, if you can master the basics of setting up one in the first place.
Like I said, if you don't like it take your marbles elsewhere. You don't have a right to demand entry, or worse - to demand entry on your terms. It ain't your property, it ain't a democracy, you don't have a vote nor do you deserve one.
The simple fact is that you don't have the right to force him to do anything. His mailing list, his rules. You don't like it, too goddamned bad. You don't have any standing to complain about the issue, especially when you could easily comply with the rules (e.g., load Eudora, for chrissakes) and play along with the rest of the folks on the list.
I don't like it when people send me Word attachments, but hey - that's their choice. It's also *my* choice to throw them away unanswered, as I always do. Thems the breaks.
While teaching middle school students aged 11-14 I found they had no more difficulty installing SuSe Linux than Windows. In fact, the kids were quick to grasp the fact that you could mess with Linux a great deal more than you could with Windows and were always surprising me - both with what they learned and the nifty practical jokes they pulled.
That, and their absolute fascination with TuxRacer....
Seems to me that the people who have the most problems with Linux are those whose brains have already pickled. The young don't see the installation or use of Linux as any more of a chore than Windows, and learn a great deal more from it. It's the old and lazy who can't seem to wrap their brains around anything other than the shitty Windows OS they've been using for years.
Linux isn't just as vulnerable, and you mentioned the reason: in order to install a piece of spyware you really need to be running as root. Anything else won't do the job.
Furthermore it's painfully easy to spot spyware in a system where you can readily see and disable everything that runs at boot. There's no place for spyware to 'hide'.
Try hiring tech support that exhibits some small ability to actually problem solve. Tech support at the University level is some of the worst I've ever seen; and even more appalling, these pseudo-geeks actually think they're savvy. I've run into more obnoxious, arrogant little fools in University tech departments than in any private company, their idiocy only exceeded by their contempt for the people they supposedly support.
So many complaints, and for what? Hasn't anyone noticed that TV has generally sucked dick since its invention? Hey, so it's going to suck dick even more - big surprise!
Think about it: the average American thinks that "Seinfield" is the height of programming. The average American spends 3 hours a day in front of the tube doing...absolutely nothing. Not a criticism, mind you, what you do with your leisure time is your business; but if you're one of those Americans snorting the media version of cocaine then hasn't the commercial 'cut' already left a blood trail across your nasal passages?
And you think another 3 minutes of commercials in your three-hour allotment is really going to make a difference? Will you honestly stop watching episode 87 of "Seinfeld" for the 126th time just because you lose 30 seconds of it? Tell me another....
I'm also an adult with a day job and a family, and that means limited time for games (pretty much after everyone else has gone to sleep). And yet I want *longer* games with more paths to be taken and many different outcomes. I don't give a rats ass if I can only play an hour a day three or four times a week and it takes all year to complete the game; that just means less money wasted on the (primarily) trash that sells today.
So here's a vote from the camp that doesn't want to complete a game in one long weekend.
Fool, AOL got to where it's at today through criminal misrepresentation of business and accounting practices that date back to its founding. Until AOL merged with Time-Warner *it had never made a profit*, yet it consistently reported that it had, driving its stock prices to many times what they were actually worth. Their accounting practices were so criminal that the SEC fined them $3 million - the largest fine allowed by law, and the first time in history that such a fine has been levied against any company. In addition, SEC investigators urged a criminal investigation of Case and other company executives, alleging that they knew of these criminal activities and encouraged them.
Only the fact that Case was a personal friend of Bill Clinton protected AOL. And such a good job was done that the stock - actually close to valueless - rose so high in price they were able to buy out Time-Warner.
AOL is the biggest snake-oil job in business history. They have never played fair and most likely never will. There is nothing whatsoever redeeming about the company, its activities, its history, or its bastard executives. If you want Spawn of Satan(TM), Steve Case ranks right up there with Bill Gates. It's just a matter of choosing which devil you want reaming you in the ass.
Laws are neither required nor practical. Aside from the obvious idiocy of attempting to enforce nation-specific laws world-wide, the issue is more of a technical one than anything else. DoS attacks are so easy because the system currently supports such activities even when launched by complete morons using basic programs stolen from others. The kiddies aren't even required to know how the program works; they simply launch the sucker and sit back to enjoy the ensuing carnage.
The only way these attacks will be prevented is to change the way communications occur between machines on the internet. The current system, while nicely redundant and easy to employ, is virtually devoid of security features or accountability (i.e., identifying the source of attacks). Worse, most ISPs aren't at all interested in putting out the energy to track down attacks made by their own users and shutting them down. How many script kiddies would remain in the DoS business if an ISP sent a bill home to their parents in the tens of thousands of dollars for massive misuse of system resources? That would do more to put a stop to teen twits than anything else, I think, at least in countries where such bills are enforceable.
Of course, the fact that certain unnamed operating systems practically beg to be exploited doesn't help much....
Exactly why does Linux need more credibility? Who, exactly, will this nebulous 'credibility' benefit? Certainly not me, who uses Linux right now and is quite content with the development process in the kernel, GUIs, and apps. So far as I can see, acquisition of Redhat by AOL will do absolutely nothing to improve the quality of Linux or any associated software.
Seems to me that the only people who believe this kind of tripe are the ones convinced that Linux is somehow 'at war' with Windows and needs corporate backing to prosecute hostilities across the desktop. Why is this a good thing? If you don't like Windows (like yours truly, who only uses it for games) then you can always use Linux on your home system. Who gives a shit what other people choose to install?
Linux will spread on its own power, in its own time. Whether it never spreads across the desktop any more than it does now, or whether it eats away at Microsofts monopoly slowly but surely (as I believe it's doing right now), it's all good. If corporate America never wises up and adopts Linux in order to avoid shitty MS software and ridiculous EULAs, well, do I give a rat's ass? Not in the least. Let the morons have their Windows.
Well, I suppose if you're a complete fuckwit you just might think that Windows is stable and secure. Or that the stability/security in any way compares to Linux. But this presupposes the 'fuckwit' premise, which pretty much invalidates any observation you might claim.
Of course, an apologist, Microsoft employee masquerading as a slashdotter, or a BillyG "I want to blow the Big Geek" fanatic would deliberately make false claims for a variety of reasons. An asshole, on the other hand (say, some 19-year-old loser with the handle "pussy is money"), might do so just because they're arrogant little twits with no practical, real-world experience in the industry servicing Windows and Linux machines year after year. Those of us who do have experience with thousands of machines over a decade or so would laugh our asses off at the claim that that Microsoft doesn't write shitty, buggy software as a matter of course, and that in terms of stability and security any OS they put out couldn't hope to compare to Linux.
Hey, but when do real-world facts and experiences ever bother assholes? Especially young assholes?
What's really funny is that there are enough MS employees moderating on slashdot at the moment that you were jacked up to a score of '5'.
Nothing says "clueless college boy" like seeing the phrase "get over it". Ad nauseum. It ain't new, kid, and you aren't even close to original by repeating what ten thousand other idiot college boys have said before you.
If you aren't a college boy...hey, it's time to stop wearing your baseball cap backwards. In the world of grownups you look like a moron. Both literally and figuratively.
The idea here, a rather corporate one, is that everything must be owned by someone - even concepts (e.g., Amazon and one-click shopping). While bound to appeal to those motivated by greed, intellectually it's bloody fucking hilarious - primarily because only the incredibly stupid could actually attribute any worth to the notion, or allow some of the patents that have made it through the PTO.
Add two things that are automatically excluded from patents:
- concepts. You can't patent a concept. Period. Too bad if you don't like it. Move to some other country, eh?
- things of natural origin. Can't patent the discovery of natural objects, like genetic code. You didn't make it, all you did was stumble across it.
- anything funded by public money. All things funded in any way by public money, no matter how small, become public domain.
Remove these two things and you eliminate 99% of all the bad patents out there. Not only that, you return the patenting system to what it was originally intended to be, i.e., a way to protect an inventor of a technological, material product long enough for him to make a buck off that product before everyone else copied it.
Anything else is bullshit, from my point of view. Just a way for lawyers and non-creative corporate mouth-breathers to stuff more money into their wallets.
These objections apply to every p2p or pseudo-p2p service I've ever tried. It's a problem with how the tech is employed by clueless users, not the tech itself.
Remember who we're catering to: people who're too stupid to get on IRC and grab their porn and music via DCC. Think about that for a moment.
Slashdot Mirror
Why does it need to be less autocratic? Just because you say so? Do you have any evidence whatsoever that your 'democracy' would do a better job than the current system? Or are you just pulling political strawmen out of your ass?
If you don't like the way things are done, you have the option of using some other OS. So stop your bitching and do it already - that's how you vote. You do *not* get to change the way things are done just because you're pissed that *you* aren't the one in charge, or because you're jealous that it isn't your name that's attached to a major OS.
Max
Linux has become bigger than Linus.
The people who usually spout this sort of crap are the ones who're pissed off that they aren't Linus. Ever claiming that Linus needs to relinquish control for reason X if Linux is to flourish/do well on the desktop/become ready for corporate America - whatever. It all boils down to the fact that Linus is in charge, and they aren't.
If you don't like the way Linus does things, there are other operating systems out there that might be more your style. BeOS, FreeBSD, AtheOS, etc. But these all suffer from the same problem, don't they? I mean, somebody else is in charge - not you.
Max
Once again we have the raving Windows lunatics screaming about how restricting access to a *private* mailing list is somehow "arrogant", "elitist", "asinine", and a host of other colorful descriptors simply because the restriction deals with *their* mail utility - Outlook.
Let's review, shall we? Putting aside the fact that Outlook is a crock of poorly-written shit, these enraged jerk-offs seem to completely ignore the fact that the mailing list is - dare we say it? - private. Repeat that to yourselves, you outraged loons - priiiiivvaaaate. As in, the guy owns the show, he makes the rules, you either comply or take your marbles elsewhere.
Somehow, somewhere, some Windows-using twits have gotten the idea that if they're denied a private service then they have cause to bitch, complain, whine, and generally act like 9-year-olds whose parents say "no" to the candy bar in the store. To the casual observer it's both hilarious and annoying, as well as a bit mystifying - at what point did these yahoos decide that they have a god-given right to impose themselves anywhere they please? Or were these folks just born complete fuckwits with no sense of private property?
Well, guess what. In some places you just aren't wanted. That isn't arrogant, that isn't elitist, it's just the way things go. I have a website complete with forum that only allows users with a password access - does that mean I'm being elitist simply because I won't give you the password? If you think so, then don't be surprised if you look into the mirror and find the word "LOSER" tattooed on your forehead.
Of course, in this case the guy makes it painfully easy to get on to the mailing list, practically giving you a step-by-step on how to go about it with a minimum of effort. No where near as restrictive as I am with my own property - my website and my forum, to do with as I please.
His mailing list. To do with as *he* pleases. Same as you can, if you can master the basics of setting up one in the first place.
Like I said, if you don't like it take your marbles elsewhere. You don't have a right to demand entry, or worse - to demand entry on your terms. It ain't your property, it ain't a democracy, you don't have a vote nor do you deserve one.
Max
That's kind of the point. When I write code and release it under the GPL, I'm very much aware that I'm limiting how *you* can use *my* code.
Let's get that straight, shall we? *MY* code - not *your* code. If you don't like it, write your own damned code.
Simple enough.
Max
No, that's called choice. His game, his rules. Either play by those rules or stop your whining.
Max
The simple fact is that you don't have the right to force him to do anything. His mailing list, his rules. You don't like it, too goddamned bad. You don't have any standing to complain about the issue, especially when you could easily comply with the rules (e.g., load Eudora, for chrissakes) and play along with the rest of the folks on the list.
I don't like it when people send me Word attachments, but hey - that's their choice. It's also *my* choice to throw them away unanswered, as I always do. Thems the breaks.
Max
While teaching middle school students aged 11-14 I found they had no more difficulty installing SuSe Linux than Windows. In fact, the kids were quick to grasp the fact that you could mess with Linux a great deal more than you could with Windows and were always surprising me - both with what they learned and the nifty practical jokes they pulled.
That, and their absolute fascination with TuxRacer....
Seems to me that the people who have the most problems with Linux are those whose brains have already pickled. The young don't see the installation or use of Linux as any more of a chore than Windows, and learn a great deal more from it. It's the old and lazy who can't seem to wrap their brains around anything other than the shitty Windows OS they've been using for years.
But do you really expect anything different?
Max
Linux isn't just as vulnerable, and you mentioned the reason: in order to install a piece of spyware you really need to be running as root. Anything else won't do the job.
Furthermore it's painfully easy to spot spyware in a system where you can readily see and disable everything that runs at boot. There's no place for spyware to 'hide'.
The same cannot be said for Windows.
Max
Try hiring tech support that exhibits some small ability to actually problem solve. Tech support at the University level is some of the worst I've ever seen; and even more appalling, these pseudo-geeks actually think they're savvy. I've run into more obnoxious, arrogant little fools in University tech departments than in any private company, their idiocy only exceeded by their contempt for the people they supposedly support.
Max
So many complaints, and for what? Hasn't anyone noticed that TV has generally sucked dick since its invention? Hey, so it's going to suck dick even more - big surprise!
Think about it: the average American thinks that "Seinfield" is the height of programming. The average American spends 3 hours a day in front of the tube doing...absolutely nothing. Not a criticism, mind you, what you do with your leisure time is your business; but if you're one of those Americans snorting the media version of cocaine then hasn't the commercial 'cut' already left a blood trail across your nasal passages?
And you think another 3 minutes of commercials in your three-hour allotment is really going to make a difference? Will you honestly stop watching episode 87 of "Seinfeld" for the 126th time just because you lose 30 seconds of it? Tell me another....
Max
Computing is both an art and a science. It is not a work of fiction.
Apparently you've never worked at a shop that employs MCSE's.
Max
A blow job usually does it for me.
Max
Betcha this game still won't measure up anywhere close to Betrayal at Krondor, either for gameplay or story.
So far as I can see, the only advance in 11 years has been graphics. Everything else has been dumbed down to the stupidest, most violent player.
Max
I'm also an adult with a day job and a family, and that means limited time for games (pretty much after everyone else has gone to sleep). And yet I want *longer* games with more paths to be taken and many different outcomes. I don't give a rats ass if I can only play an hour a day three or four times a week and it takes all year to complete the game; that just means less money wasted on the (primarily) trash that sells today.
So here's a vote from the camp that doesn't want to complete a game in one long weekend.
Max
A damn good thing the government is stepping in, seeing as how the parents stepped out a long time ago....
Put the blame where it belongs.
Max
Which explains why so many adults are such fucking assholes, and so many kids - aren't.
Uh huh.
Max
Fool, AOL got to where it's at today through criminal misrepresentation of business and accounting practices that date back to its founding. Until AOL merged with Time-Warner *it had never made a profit*, yet it consistently reported that it had, driving its stock prices to many times what they were actually worth. Their accounting practices were so criminal that the SEC fined them $3 million - the largest fine allowed by law, and the first time in history that such a fine has been levied against any company. In addition, SEC investigators urged a criminal investigation of Case and other company executives, alleging that they knew of these criminal activities and encouraged them.
Only the fact that Case was a personal friend of Bill Clinton protected AOL. And such a good job was done that the stock - actually close to valueless - rose so high in price they were able to buy out Time-Warner.
AOL is the biggest snake-oil job in business history. They have never played fair and most likely never will. There is nothing whatsoever redeeming about the company, its activities, its history, or its bastard executives. If you want Spawn of Satan(TM), Steve Case ranks right up there with Bill Gates. It's just a matter of choosing which devil you want reaming you in the ass.
Max
Laws are neither required nor practical. Aside from the obvious idiocy of attempting to enforce nation-specific laws world-wide, the issue is more of a technical one than anything else. DoS attacks are so easy because the system currently supports such activities even when launched by complete morons using basic programs stolen from others. The kiddies aren't even required to know how the program works; they simply launch the sucker and sit back to enjoy the ensuing carnage.
The only way these attacks will be prevented is to change the way communications occur between machines on the internet. The current system, while nicely redundant and easy to employ, is virtually devoid of security features or accountability (i.e., identifying the source of attacks). Worse, most ISPs aren't at all interested in putting out the energy to track down attacks made by their own users and shutting them down. How many script kiddies would remain in the DoS business if an ISP sent a bill home to their parents in the tens of thousands of dollars for massive misuse of system resources? That would do more to put a stop to teen twits than anything else, I think, at least in countries where such bills are enforceable.
Of course, the fact that certain unnamed operating systems practically beg to be exploited doesn't help much....
Max
Exactly why does Linux need more credibility? Who, exactly, will this nebulous 'credibility' benefit? Certainly not me, who uses Linux right now and is quite content with the development process in the kernel, GUIs, and apps. So far as I can see, acquisition of Redhat by AOL will do absolutely nothing to improve the quality of Linux or any associated software.
Seems to me that the only people who believe this kind of tripe are the ones convinced that Linux is somehow 'at war' with Windows and needs corporate backing to prosecute hostilities across the desktop. Why is this a good thing? If you don't like Windows (like yours truly, who only uses it for games) then you can always use Linux on your home system. Who gives a shit what other people choose to install?
Linux will spread on its own power, in its own time. Whether it never spreads across the desktop any more than it does now, or whether it eats away at Microsofts monopoly slowly but surely (as I believe it's doing right now), it's all good. If corporate America never wises up and adopts Linux in order to avoid shitty MS software and ridiculous EULAs, well, do I give a rat's ass? Not in the least. Let the morons have their Windows.
Max
Especially when that fear is based upon feeding your family in a shitty economy.
Dick.
Max
Well, I suppose if you're a complete fuckwit you just might think that Windows is stable and secure. Or that the stability/security in any way compares to Linux. But this presupposes the 'fuckwit' premise, which pretty much invalidates any observation you might claim.
Of course, an apologist, Microsoft employee masquerading as a slashdotter, or a BillyG "I want to blow the Big Geek" fanatic would deliberately make false claims for a variety of reasons. An asshole, on the other hand (say, some 19-year-old loser with the handle "pussy is money"), might do so just because they're arrogant little twits with no practical, real-world experience in the industry servicing Windows and Linux machines year after year. Those of us who do have experience with thousands of machines over a decade or so would laugh our asses off at the claim that that Microsoft doesn't write shitty, buggy software as a matter of course, and that in terms of stability and security any OS they put out couldn't hope to compare to Linux.
Hey, but when do real-world facts and experiences ever bother assholes? Especially young assholes?
What's really funny is that there are enough MS employees moderating on slashdot at the moment that you were jacked up to a score of '5'.
Max
Get over it. We have no privacy to begin with.
Nothing says "clueless college boy" like seeing the phrase "get over it". Ad nauseum. It ain't new, kid, and you aren't even close to original by repeating what ten thousand other idiot college boys have said before you.
If you aren't a college boy...hey, it's time to stop wearing your baseball cap backwards. In the world of grownups you look like a moron. Both literally and figuratively.
Max
The idea here, a rather corporate one, is that everything must be owned by someone - even concepts (e.g., Amazon and one-click shopping). While bound to appeal to those motivated by greed, intellectually it's bloody fucking hilarious - primarily because only the incredibly stupid could actually attribute any worth to the notion, or allow some of the patents that have made it through the PTO.
Add two things that are automatically excluded from patents:
- concepts. You can't patent a concept. Period. Too bad if you don't like it. Move to some other country, eh?
- things of natural origin. Can't patent the discovery of natural objects, like genetic code. You didn't make it, all you did was stumble across it.
- anything funded by public money. All things funded in any way by public money, no matter how small, become public domain.
Remove these two things and you eliminate 99% of all the bad patents out there. Not only that, you return the patenting system to what it was originally intended to be, i.e., a way to protect an inventor of a technological, material product long enough for him to make a buck off that product before everyone else copied it.
Anything else is bullshit, from my point of view. Just a way for lawyers and non-creative corporate mouth-breathers to stuff more money into their wallets.
I can already hear the screams of apologists....
Max
That's "billllyuns and billllyuns...."
Max
These objections apply to every p2p or pseudo-p2p service I've ever tried. It's a problem with how the tech is employed by clueless users, not the tech itself.
Remember who we're catering to: people who're too stupid to get on IRC and grab their porn and music via DCC. Think about that for a moment.
Max