"Someone once said to me, 'cultivate your own garden,'" Hughes says. "I said, I'm going to use a microprocessor as a hoe and a modem as a wheelbarrow."
The way I see it, an OS is just a program. Applications compiled to run on an OS are basically just "plugins." Programming languages are used to make programs, but programming languages are not, in themselves, programs. There are strong relations, to be sure, but they aren't the same thing.
The thing about a virus(worm/trojan/etc) that doesn't self-propogate is that it won't spread very far. Assuming this is real, if they wanted it to be effective they'd have to make it aggressive. So in my opinion, any measures they could take that would do any good (for them) would be overstepping their bounds.
The main confusion behind.NET is the fact that services, applications, and libraries have the name. When you see Visual Studio.NET, C#.NET, VB.NET, etc., you think "Hey,.NET must be a development tool." Then you see Passport.NET, and think "No,.NET must be a service." Then you see Windows.NET and think ".NET must be a buzzword."
While there are "similar if not better" products for linux, they are NOT the industry standard. Students need to be exposed to what's in the real world.
The real world, and industry standards, are only what people accept them to be. Suppose, for a moment, that someone wrote a worm. This worm infected different operating systems, then propogated to other computers. If the computer were MicroSoft Windows based, the worm would propogate, then wreak havoc on it's system. Suppose also that this is a very powerful virus, like that Goodtimes one that spread a while back, and it destroys all media containing MS Windows. AutoCAD, medical software, and all the rest would quickly be ported to another operating system, such as Mac OSX, and life would go on. Then MS comes back and releases a new version of Windows, but nobody buys it because it's not the "industry standard" anymore.
Even if people could look past the recent SuperDeadlyWorm attack, it wouldn't matter that MS has a "superior product" if everything ran on a different architecture.
My problem with this isn't that MS is the standard, it's that a company who is known to abuse monopoly status is the standard. If we had a government of tyrants who had an iron grip on all civilization, wouldn't you want a change from the "standard?"
I'm not saying I believe MS to be a conglomerate of tyrants. I just believe that MS has proven itself unworthy of holding the position of power it now has, and that a change is far overdue. I hate namecalling, but if you think Microsoft is just fine where it is, then I have a name for you. Ostrich.
I think the original poster knew this, but his point is.. "Prove it."
Linus could have wrote it for that reason, which would make it for financial gain. It would be very difficult to prove that anything you do is or isn't eventually going to turn into something for commercial/individual financial gain. It's a very open definition.
From the SSSCA: Sec. 104: Adoption of Security System Standards
[Summary: The private sector has 12 months to agree on a standard, or the Secretary of Commerce will step in. Industry groups that can participate: "representatives of interactive digital device manufacturers and representatives of copyright owners." If industry can agree, the secretary will turn their standard into a regulation; if not, normal government processes apply and NTIA takes the lead.
So what happens if the industry agrees on a standard "nothing"?
Slashdot Mirror
"Someone once said to me, 'cultivate your own garden,'" Hughes says. "I said, I'm going to use a microprocessor as a hoe and a modem as a wheelbarrow."
And use MS Windows as fertilizer?
MicroSoft could say "Hey, look at how often Linux crashes now!"
The way I see it, an OS is just a program. Applications compiled to run on an OS are basically just "plugins."
Programming languages are used to make programs, but programming languages are not, in themselves, programs. There are strong relations, to be sure, but they aren't the same thing.
The thing about a virus(worm/trojan/etc) that doesn't self-propogate is that it won't spread very far. Assuming this is real, if they wanted it to be effective they'd have to make it aggressive. So in my opinion, any measures they could take that would do any good (for them) would be overstepping their bounds.
Only 10% of the computers were really infected. But they were FAST computers, so they count as 95%.
The main confusion behind .NET is the fact that services, applications, and libraries have the name. .NET, C#.NET, VB.NET, etc., you think "Hey, .NET must be a development tool." .NET, and think "No, .NET must be a service." .NET and think ".NET must be a buzzword."
When you see Visual Studio
Then you see Passport
Then you see Windows
Windows XP and Office XP are (supposed to be) piracy free, yet they're more expensive than their predecessors. Go figure.
While there are "similar if not better" products for linux, they are NOT the industry standard. Students need to be exposed to what's in the real world.
The real world, and industry standards, are only what people accept them to be. Suppose, for a moment, that someone wrote a worm. This worm infected different operating systems, then propogated to other computers. If the computer were MicroSoft Windows based, the worm would propogate, then wreak havoc on it's system. Suppose also that this is a very powerful virus, like that Goodtimes one that spread a while back, and it destroys all media containing MS Windows. AutoCAD, medical software, and all the rest would quickly be ported to another operating system, such as Mac OSX, and life would go on. Then MS comes back and releases a new version of Windows, but nobody buys it because it's not the "industry standard" anymore.
Even if people could look past the recent SuperDeadlyWorm attack, it wouldn't matter that MS has a "superior product" if everything ran on a different architecture.
My problem with this isn't that MS is the standard, it's that a company who is known to abuse monopoly status is the standard.
If we had a government of tyrants who had an iron grip on all civilization, wouldn't you want a change from the "standard?"
I'm not saying I believe MS to be a conglomerate of tyrants. I just believe that MS has proven itself unworthy of holding the position of power it now has, and that a change is far overdue.
I hate namecalling, but if you think Microsoft is just fine where it is, then I have a name for you.
Ostrich.
I think the original poster knew this, but his point is.. "Prove it."
Linus could have wrote it for that reason, which would make it for financial gain. It would be very difficult to prove that anything you do is or isn't eventually going to turn into something for commercial/individual financial gain. It's a very open definition.
From the SSSCA:
Sec. 104: Adoption of Security System Standards
[Summary: The private sector has 12 months to agree on a standard, or the Secretary of Commerce will step in. Industry groups that can participate: "representatives of interactive digital device manufacturers and representatives of copyright owners." If industry can agree, the secretary will turn their standard into a regulation; if not, normal government processes apply and NTIA takes the lead.
So what happens if the industry agrees on a standard "nothing"?