No. It's being ACCURATE. But the Frothing Mac-Loonies don't like that do they. Fudging facts, misrepresentation, and outright lying are just fine, so long as their horse "wins", right?
In any case, at least it uses a lot of FreeBSD code for the UNIX kernel personality running on Mach. So considering that the UNIX personality IS a BSD derivative, then I suppose even by your standards it is UNIX, is it not?
No. How many times do I have to repeat myself. BSD == UNIX. Isn't this one of the reasons that The Open Group is taking Apple into court right now?
God. What's with the mindset (using "mind" rather loosely), that if you repeat bullshit long enough, it'll eventually become true?
There's all sorts of people just queueing up to take a whack at her (SCO).
If Novell's correct, SCO just had ANOTHER enormous hole blown in it's argument/case (as if the several dozen holes already in place weren't enough to hemmorage it to death).
My reaction to this is somewhat akin to a sentiment expressed a very large, very incomprehensible Cimmerian, circa the Hyborean Age (a.k.a. 1982), to his god.
Something along the lines of:
"To hell with you! I'll do it myself!"
While government money would have made a massive contribution towards the project, and the cash will be sorely missed, if DARPA wants to take their ball and go home, FUCK THEM.
This isn't going to stop the development of OpenBSD. Hell, it isn't even going to slow it down (because they'll still be proceeding at the same pace they were prior to this grant nonsense).
So OpenBSD will continue to evolve. And the government can go kiss Theo's situpon.
It's interesting that so many true believers rise to the bait yet again. Don't you people have any faith?
No. They haven't gotten their fill of rabid purchase justification yet.
You've got a whole group of people out there who bought their systems, not to use them as the tools that they are, but as a personal statement or some other pathetically meaningless symbolic reason.
Now, if it WERE true (or even just suspected of being true) that Macs are crap, and that Apple was tanking, they'd feel pretty foolish for hitching themselves to a falling star. Because it damages the "statement" they were trying to make, and makes them look like the idiots they are.
So they go off on rants about how their "horse" is the best. And they have a pathological need to trumpet it at each and every turn. Just to stave off any nagging doubts in their own mind.
So they're not so much trying to convince YOU that they made a wise purchase decision. They're trying like hell to convince THEMSELVES.
Suppose, however, that your works, from today on, are a great success. And you make millions.
Now, in 80-100 years, do you reasonably expect to be alive and able to collect on royalties?
And what do you think about any organizations/corporations formed to protect your work in your lifetime benefitting from the copyrights after your death?
Should someone, other than the author himself/herself be allowed to milk the public on these works ad-infinitum?
Okay, they're using Digital TV and HDTV interchangeably in the article.
Sorry, but they're two separate formats.
Digital TV is simply a standard analog program that's been digitally compressed.
Standard DTV (a.k.a. Standard Defintion Television) SUCKS!. You get all the artifacting and ugliness that you'd get from standard analog. On top of that, you get all the artifacting from digital compression. And the two have a cumulative effect.
The whole reason the broadcasters like it is because they can compress
HDTV is something else entirely.
Speaking from a PC-centric POV, and having attended lots of LAN parties. Because it's a pain in the nuts hooking up all the cable and lugging everything with you.
Not to mention the fact that, for the most part, external components:
Cost more
Require additional power connectors
Are a damned nuisance when space is limited.
Reliability and ease of use? Surely you jest!
on
Build Your Own Mac
·
· Score: 2
Reliability?
My main system is a P3 550 (was a 450 until a buddy just up and consigned a faster proc over to me). I've owned/used the system for approximately 4 years now.
Outside of rebooting for system software upgrades, hardware upgrades, and physically moving the system between the three places I've lived in that time frame (as well as to LAN parties), my system has had approximately 1 DAY.
Including the above, I've had approximately 5 days worth of downtime in 4 years.
That may not be 5 9's, but it's pretty damn respectable for a Windows box. 0.3% downtime.
Do you have any Macs with that kind of uptime?
And don't even get me started on my Linux server.
Ease of use? Face it. Ease of use became a moot point with the introduction of Windows95.
Plus, the fact that when most Mac-heads talk about ease of use nowadays, what they're really talking about is familiarity. If you're more familiar with the Mac interface, it's easier for you to use than the Windows UI. And vice-versa.
Try actually READING my post instead of REACTING to it.
If you wish to make something publicly accessible, and someone utilizes it for other-than-benign purposes, why should you be held responsible for THEIR actions?
See the example about giving the guy a burger and Coke at a block party again.
Suing someone because they had their charitable action subverted is BULLSHIT. It arises, no doubt, from the desire to find a scapegoat. And any scapegoat will do for you, right?
So, because there's the POSSIBILITY that someone COULD, or IS using my open network to facilitate terrorism is enough to convict me now?
Guilt by association. I love it.
So, because there's the possibility that one of my guests at a neighborhood barbecue or block party COULD BE a terrorist, that I should be held liable because I was giving aid and comfort (gave him a burger off the grill and a Coke out of the cooler), right?
And just because I COULD go berserk with a cleaver and chop a few people down to hamburger, I shouldn't be allowed near sharp objects right?
And because I COULD go blind watching TV, I shouldn't be allowed to do that.
And because I COULD be run over by a car, walking down the street, I should never leave my house.
The earth COULD drop into the sun tomorrow! So why should I give a damn about doing anything productive today?
It's called "taking a point to the ludicrous extreme". And the original point is already fairly ludicrous.
I also call it "overbearing".
Only an idiot thinks they can make the world completely safe, which is what these jackboots are trying to do.
Life is a series of risks. Some of them educated, some not. If we take reasonable, non-invasive action, and educate people as to some of the ultimate extremes of what could happen, you've allowed them to make an educated decision about their risks.
Rather than simply removing people's rights, and acting in a manner which has no bearing on common sense. Because of a POSSIBILITY.
How is it living in that Black and White world of yours?
Since I look at white light as an amalgam of the entire visible spectrum, to be utilized when I need it, great.
Don't tell me you honestly believe that tired old saw about basic GUI functionality being easier on a Mac than it is on a PC! That stopped being true, what? 5-6 years ago?
Stop living in the past.
Oh yeah. And if you wanna flame me, do it from your use account.
The first big thing is maintenance: if my mac blows up, I can fix it.
So you're saying that if a PC blows up, that a knowledgeable PC user couldn't fix it? Maybe I should go back and tell all the machines I've worked on to stop working, simply because it violates your precept?
I could give a RATS ASS about how the P4 can spank the pants off of a G4- to me, that speed is completely negated by the atrocious Windows interface
Funny, I find the Mac interface obtuse and annoying as hell. My productivity on Mac systems is less than HALF what it is on a Windows system.
Usability is a function of familiarity, not an innate value.
Also, this argument is complete bullshit for another reason. The interfaces here are Photoshop, AfterEffects, Premier, etc. They do NOT vary all that much between Mac and Windows versions. Some of the window buttons look a bit different, and the window border may look a bit different. Otherwise, functionally, they're nearly identical. This is the first point you missed.
Also as part of useability is applications- Media 100 DOES make PC boards, but Final Cut Pro and DVD Studio Pro
Look back. See that thing behind you? That's the OTHER point you missed.
This article was not about Wintel is faster than Mac.
The article is saying If you're in a shop that runs these specific apps on a very regular, or full-time basis, then the PC is the better value.
So, bringing up FCP, or DVD-SP means DICK. Because the people looking at the article and making a purchase decision based on app/suite performance are NOT going to be using FCP or DVD-SP.
It's about a PC being faster than a Mac in the given suite of apps tested with.
IE, if you're a shop that's running lots of running AE, Photoshop, etc, and power is what you need, you'd be an absoloute MORON to go out and spend half a grand more on a DP-Mac when a single-CPU P4 3.06Ghz machine will suck the doors off it.
Not only did they use benchmarks intentionally optimized for dual processors on the Intel platform but not on the Mac, they even lied about the price for the Mac.
Try to catch the falling clue. They used identical versions of software. They weren't benchmarking the software. They were determining which systems performed better for a given software loadout.
So, if you're using that specific suite of programs, of COURSE it behooves you to use the more powerful platform.
They didn't use something like FCP because:
FCP is MAC ONLY. (Note: Kinda hard to bench it on a PC. But Mac-heads attempt it anyhoo.
"Mac gets X on FCP! Since the PC can't run FCP, it gets zero! Macs are faster! WOO!" And similar idiocies.
They don't USE FCP.
First they list it as over $3900, then admit it to be about $3600.
Wow. He displays journalistic integrity! And gets castigated!
He happened to find the Mac at a LOWER price around the time of the article being published. So he edited the article to account for the lower price. WOW! What a bad person!
And the price of the model has dropped again SINCE the article was published. OH NO! Now I feel SO cheated that I put together a P3 system 4 years ago for about $1500, and can now get the exact same hardare TODAY for a whopping $300!
The only performance that counts is yours, not the machines.
Okay. You take a 486 with 4MB of EDO RAM and a 2MB Trident card.
I'll take a dual Xeon 2.8 with 2 gigs of DDR SDRAM, and an nVidia Quadro II.
We'll both run WindowsXP.
WHOOPS! XP won't run on there. Howsabout Windows 2K
WHOOPS! 2K won't run on there. Howsabout Windows ME?
WHOOPS! ME won't run on there. Howsabout Windows 98?
WHOOPS! 98 won't run on there either! You take Windows 95. I'll stick with XP. XP is bulkier. So it'll slow me down more. Right?
Now, let's see how "productive" YOU are compared to me! The only performance that counts is yours, not the machine's. Right?
I care that I have to lose a half a day trying to figure out why my CD-RW no longer records. And then give up and just buy another CD-RW, losing a few more hours.
And this differs from you losing the CD-RW on your Mac HOW? The majority of decent PC hardware is no more failure-prone than any Mac hardware. Nor does the MS OS randomly "lose" devices anymore. Update your knowledge a good 3-4 years.
Or that my settings suddenly change for no reason.
Again, update your knowledge. While Windows is an insecure excuse for an OS, in a straight production environment it VERY stable.
Or that my computer sends pornography to everyone on my email list without me knowing about it.
In a production environment, you're going to have the system locked down on a network. And there's also ways to protect yourself. Additionally, it's not as if Mac is immune to something similar happening. It's not. Yoru argument is simply that it's less attacked than Windows.
But PCs account for what? 97% of all home/office/workstation computers shipped? And Mac accounts for most of the other 3%.
So does this mean that pogo sticks are a better form of conveyance than cars, because more cars are stolen every year than pogo sticks?
Or that my system freezes once a week.
Up till OS X, Mac systems given lots of hard use required reboots a lot more often than once a week. And, indeed, XP systems in a production (not server) environment don't necessarily require a reboot unless hardware and certain low-level software are added.
Prior to application of security updates 48 hours ago, my Win2K box went approximately 960-odd hours (40 days) since its last reboot. Which, incidentally, was ALSO for patches and updates.
And I repeat. Update your knowledge. You're operating under the assumption that everyone still uses Windows 95.
So I'm supposed to settle for a machine that runs 1/2 to 1/3 the speed of a high-end PC, pay over half a grand MORE, and put up with an OS UI that I can't stand and am less productive on?
Just because I don't want to run Windows, because of some idiotic brand loyalty/hatred?
1: I'd like to know which companies they asked. 2: I'd like to know what sort of involvement those companies actually have in Linux. 3: Exactly how big were some of these companies? For a 100 seat company, yeah, the cost factor is somewhat negligible. However, for a 1000-10,000+ seat company, the licensing issue becomes quite a chunk of change. You can't tell me that support staff for Linux is going to cost more than support staff for Windows PLUS the cost of a site license. 4: What exactly are each of these task categories they divided things up into? 5: How can they make a 5-year comparison with Linux? Win2K hasn't been our 5 years. Are they guestimating? Or are they talking about WinNT4 as well? 6: Have they taken into account upgrades from WinNT4, all the downtime from various worms, virii, etc? 7: How does this compare to the fact that the majority of OSS apps being used under Linux are essentially free upgrades forever?
Slashdot Mirror
Not Blofeld.
No. It's being ACCURATE. But the Frothing Mac-Loonies don't like that do they. Fudging facts, misrepresentation, and outright lying are just fine, so long as their horse "wins", right?
In any case, at least it uses a lot of FreeBSD code for the UNIX kernel personality running on Mach. So considering that the UNIX personality IS a BSD derivative, then I suppose even by your standards it is UNIX, is it not?
No. How many times do I have to repeat myself. BSD == UNIX. Isn't this one of the reasons that The Open Group is taking Apple into court right now?
God. What's with the mindset (using "mind" rather loosely), that if you repeat bullshit long enough, it'll eventually become true?
"My needs dictate that I have a fast and easy to use UNIX system."
Then why the hell are you using a Mac?
A BSD-derivative == UNIX.
There's all sorts of people just queueing up to take a whack at her (SCO).
If Novell's correct, SCO just had ANOTHER enormous hole blown in it's argument/case (as if the several dozen holes already in place weren't enough to hemmorage it to death).
OUCH!
Serious cash to a college student. But unabashed chump-change to the RIAA.
Nice to see that they're morally "flexible" (read BANKRUPT) enough to make this sort of accomodation though.
My reaction to this is somewhat akin to a sentiment expressed a very large, very incomprehensible Cimmerian, circa the Hyborean Age (a.k.a. 1982), to his god.
Something along the lines of:
"To hell with you! I'll do it myself!"
While government money would have made a massive contribution towards the project, and the cash will be sorely missed, if DARPA wants to take their ball and go home, FUCK THEM.
This isn't going to stop the development of OpenBSD. Hell, it isn't even going to slow it down (because they'll still be proceeding at the same pace they were prior to this grant nonsense).
So OpenBSD will continue to evolve. And the government can go kiss Theo's situpon.
Not when their spellchecker is as atrocious as your is.
True Apple does have licensing as well, but it's not near as arduous as Microsoft's
Go back and reread their licensing agreements again.
and Apple supports open source far more than Microsoft ever has or ever will.
Yeah. They nabbed their OS from an open source project, and closed the source for their port.
They nabbed the source for a browser from an open source project, and closed the source for their port.
Wowsers! Wish "I" could get THAT kinda support!
**NOT!**
Thanks for not having the courage to flame me as yourself.
Note: I didn't write this as a bash against all Mac users. Merely the rabid fanboys who buy Macs for reasons other than "it does what they need".
Again, a computer is a tool. Granted, a very nice tool. But still, just a tool.
It's the high pullitoutofyourassium diet. It's gotta be.
It's interesting that so many true believers rise to the bait yet again. Don't you people have any faith? No. They haven't gotten their fill of rabid purchase justification yet. You've got a whole group of people out there who bought their systems, not to use them as the tools that they are, but as a personal statement or some other pathetically meaningless symbolic reason. Now, if it WERE true (or even just suspected of being true) that Macs are crap, and that Apple was tanking, they'd feel pretty foolish for hitching themselves to a falling star. Because it damages the "statement" they were trying to make, and makes them look like the idiots they are. So they go off on rants about how their "horse" is the best. And they have a pathological need to trumpet it at each and every turn. Just to stave off any nagging doubts in their own mind. So they're not so much trying to convince YOU that they made a wise purchase decision. They're trying like hell to convince THEMSELVES.
And how many people are going to read the article and keep on screaming about how "their" platform is "the best".
Gotta love "Betamax vs VHS" arguments.
Suppose, however, that your works, from today on, are a great success. And you make millions.
Now, in 80-100 years, do you reasonably expect to be alive and able to collect on royalties?
And what do you think about any organizations/corporations formed to protect your work in your lifetime benefitting from the copyrights after your death?
Should someone, other than the author himself/herself be allowed to milk the public on these works ad-infinitum?
Okay, they're using Digital TV and HDTV interchangeably in the article. Sorry, but they're two separate formats. Digital TV is simply a standard analog program that's been digitally compressed. Standard DTV (a.k.a. Standard Defintion Television) SUCKS!. You get all the artifacting and ugliness that you'd get from standard analog. On top of that, you get all the artifacting from digital compression. And the two have a cumulative effect. The whole reason the broadcasters like it is because they can compress HDTV is something else entirely.
Speaking from a PC-centric POV, and having attended lots of LAN parties. Because it's a pain in the nuts hooking up all the cable and lugging everything with you.
Not to mention the fact that, for the most part, external components:
Reliability?
My main system is a P3 550 (was a 450 until a buddy just up and consigned a faster proc over to me). I've owned/used the system for approximately 4 years now.
Outside of rebooting for system software upgrades, hardware upgrades, and physically moving the system between the three places I've lived in that time frame (as well as to LAN parties), my system has had approximately 1 DAY.
Including the above, I've had approximately 5 days worth of downtime in 4 years.
That may not be 5 9's, but it's pretty damn respectable for a Windows box. 0.3% downtime.
Do you have any Macs with that kind of uptime?
And don't even get me started on my Linux server.
Ease of use? Face it. Ease of use became a moot point with the introduction of Windows95.
Plus, the fact that when most Mac-heads talk about ease of use nowadays, what they're really talking about is familiarity. If you're more familiar with the Mac interface, it's easier for you to use than the Windows UI. And vice-versa.
but when they try to pull this kind of crap with the numbers, they are losing even *more* credibility among the tech-savvy crowd
With the "tech savvy" crowd? Try "with the crowd that actually knows basic addition and subtraction"!
Essentially, anyone beyond second grade (or beyond the 12th grade in the public school system).
Try actually READING my post instead of REACTING to it.
If you wish to make something publicly accessible, and someone utilizes it for other-than-benign purposes, why should you be held responsible for THEIR actions?
See the example about giving the guy a burger and Coke at a block party again.
Suing someone because they had their charitable action subverted is BULLSHIT. It arises, no doubt, from the desire to find a scapegoat. And any scapegoat will do for you, right?
So, because there's the POSSIBILITY that someone COULD, or IS using my open network to facilitate terrorism is enough to convict me now?
Guilt by association. I love it.
So, because there's the possibility that one of my guests at a neighborhood barbecue or block party COULD BE a terrorist, that I should be held liable because I was giving aid and comfort (gave him a burger off the grill and a Coke out of the cooler), right?
And just because I COULD go berserk with a cleaver and chop a few people down to hamburger, I shouldn't be allowed near sharp objects right?
And because I COULD go blind watching TV, I shouldn't be allowed to do that.
And because I COULD be run over by a car, walking down the street, I should never leave my house.
The earth COULD drop into the sun tomorrow! So why should I give a damn about doing anything productive today?
It's called "taking a point to the ludicrous extreme". And the original point is already fairly ludicrous.
I also call it "overbearing".
Only an idiot thinks they can make the world completely safe, which is what these jackboots are trying to do.
Life is a series of risks. Some of them educated, some not. If we take reasonable, non-invasive action, and educate people as to some of the ultimate extremes of what could happen, you've allowed them to make an educated decision about their risks.
Rather than simply removing people's rights, and acting in a manner which has no bearing on common sense. Because of a POSSIBILITY.
Since I look at white light as an amalgam of the entire visible spectrum, to be utilized when I need it, great.
Don't tell me you honestly believe that tired old saw about basic GUI functionality being easier on a Mac than it is on a PC! That stopped being true, what? 5-6 years ago?
Stop living in the past.
Oh yeah. And if you wanna flame me, do it from your use account.
The first big thing is maintenance: if my mac blows up, I can fix it.
So you're saying that if a PC blows up, that a knowledgeable PC user couldn't fix it? Maybe I should go back and tell all the machines I've worked on to stop working, simply because it violates your precept?
I could give a RATS ASS about how the P4 can spank the pants off of a G4- to me, that speed is completely negated by the atrocious Windows interface
Funny, I find the Mac interface obtuse and annoying as hell. My productivity on Mac systems is less than HALF what it is on a Windows system.
Usability is a function of familiarity, not an innate value.
Also, this argument is complete bullshit for another reason. The interfaces here are Photoshop, AfterEffects, Premier, etc. They do NOT vary all that much between Mac and Windows versions. Some of the window buttons look a bit different, and the window border may look a bit different. Otherwise, functionally, they're nearly identical. This is the first point you missed.
Also as part of useability is applications- Media 100 DOES make PC boards, but Final Cut Pro and DVD Studio Pro
Look back. See that thing behind you? That's the OTHER point you missed.
This article was not about Wintel is faster than Mac.
The article is saying If you're in a shop that runs these specific apps on a very regular, or full-time basis, then the PC is the better value.
So, bringing up FCP, or DVD-SP means DICK. Because the people looking at the article and making a purchase decision based on app/suite performance are NOT going to be using FCP or DVD-SP.
It's not about a PC being faster than a Mac.
It's about a PC being faster than a Mac in the given suite of apps tested with.
IE, if you're a shop that's running lots of running AE, Photoshop, etc, and power is what you need, you'd be an absoloute MORON to go out and spend half a grand more on a DP-Mac when a single-CPU P4 3.06Ghz machine will suck the doors off it.
Not only did they use benchmarks intentionally optimized for dual processors on the Intel platform but not on the Mac, they even lied about the price for the Mac.
Try to catch the falling clue. They used identical versions of software. They weren't benchmarking the software. They were determining which systems performed better for a given software loadout.
So, if you're using that specific suite of programs, of COURSE it behooves you to use the more powerful platform.
They didn't use something like FCP because:
"Mac gets X on FCP! Since the PC can't run FCP, it gets zero! Macs are faster! WOO!"
And similar idiocies.
First they list it as over $3900, then admit it to be about $3600.
Wow. He displays journalistic integrity! And gets castigated!
He happened to find the Mac at a LOWER price around the time of the article being published. So he edited the article to account for the lower price. WOW! What a bad person!
And the price of the model has dropped again SINCE the article was published. OH NO! Now I feel SO cheated that I put together a P3 system 4 years ago for about $1500, and can now get the exact same hardare TODAY for a whopping $300!
Hello? Light dawning in the swamp there?
Okay. You take a 486 with 4MB of EDO RAM and a 2MB Trident card.
I'll take a dual Xeon 2.8 with 2 gigs of DDR SDRAM, and an nVidia Quadro II.
We'll both run WindowsXP.
WHOOPS! XP won't run on there. Howsabout Windows 2K
WHOOPS! 2K won't run on there. Howsabout Windows ME?
WHOOPS! ME won't run on there. Howsabout Windows 98?
WHOOPS! 98 won't run on there either! You take Windows 95. I'll stick with XP. XP is bulkier. So it'll slow me down more. Right?
Now, let's see how "productive" YOU are compared to me! The only performance that counts is yours, not the machine's. Right?
I care that I have to lose a half a day trying to figure out why my CD-RW no longer records. And then give up and just buy another CD-RW, losing a few more hours.
And this differs from you losing the CD-RW on your Mac HOW? The majority of decent PC hardware is no more failure-prone than any Mac hardware. Nor does the MS OS randomly "lose" devices anymore. Update your knowledge a good 3-4 years.
Or that my settings suddenly change for no reason.
Again, update your knowledge. While Windows is an insecure excuse for an OS, in a straight production environment it VERY stable.
Or that my computer sends pornography to everyone on my email list without me knowing about it.
In a production environment, you're going to have the system locked down on a network. And there's also ways to protect yourself. Additionally, it's not as if Mac is immune to something similar happening. It's not. Yoru argument is simply that it's less attacked than Windows.
But PCs account for what? 97% of all home/office/workstation computers shipped? And Mac accounts for most of the other 3%.
So does this mean that pogo sticks are a better form of conveyance than cars, because more cars are stolen every year than pogo sticks?
Or that my system freezes once a week.
Up till OS X, Mac systems given lots of hard use required reboots a lot more often than once a week. And, indeed, XP systems in a production (not server) environment don't necessarily require a reboot unless hardware and certain low-level software are added.
Prior to application of security updates 48 hours ago, my Win2K box went approximately 960-odd hours (40 days) since its last reboot. Which, incidentally, was ALSO for patches and updates.
And I repeat. Update your knowledge. You're operating under the assumption that everyone still uses Windows 95.
That's the difference between a Mac & PC.
Only in your imagination.
So I'm supposed to settle for a machine that runs 1/2 to 1/3 the speed of a high-end PC, pay over half a grand MORE, and put up with an OS UI that I can't stand and am less productive on?
Just because I don't want to run Windows, because of some idiotic brand loyalty/hatred?
What's Applescript for "Fuck That Noise"?
1: I'd like to know which companies they asked.
2: I'd like to know what sort of involvement those companies actually have in Linux.
3: Exactly how big were some of these companies? For a 100 seat company, yeah, the cost factor is somewhat negligible. However, for a 1000-10,000+ seat company, the licensing issue becomes quite a chunk of change. You can't tell me that support staff for Linux is going to cost more than support staff for Windows PLUS the cost of a site license.
4: What exactly are each of these task categories they divided things up into?
5: How can they make a 5-year comparison with Linux? Win2K hasn't been our 5 years. Are they guestimating? Or are they talking about WinNT4 as well?
6: Have they taken into account upgrades from WinNT4, all the downtime from various worms, virii, etc?
7: How does this compare to the fact that the majority of OSS apps being used under Linux are essentially free upgrades forever?