EXACTLY..There is no good reason that I could think of for Gnome to use.NET in future versions. I just don't understand it, it'll always, always be a catch up game. ALWAYS, everyone around here is ranting about yeah, it's cool, I'll love to work with it.. Then work with it on windows because that's where it will always work, you'll be behind using MONO and not only that but should Microsoft decide that it's time to do their own thing interoperability is lost and then someone with vision is going to have to reverse engineer or come up with their own stuff for the MONO project. All this is, is a waste of time and code.
I think you're too fucking stupid to see the bigger picture. This has absolutely nothing to do with the technology. THE API is sound, it's a great idea and I support the design. I DO NOT support Microsoft, EVER, they've fucked too many people over period and I forsee this to be just a waste of time. Microsoft WILL extend this API for their own needs and lock out everyone else once they have what they feel to be enough market share. At that point all of what you said above goes into the fucking garbage. This is NOT a company that wants inteoprability thats why.NET/C# was thought up in the first place. So they could do whatever they want and answer to no one. Don't people learn from the past, hasn't anyone learned that no matter how nice Microsoft is or seems to be they want this whole internet thing in their back pocket? Slashdotters may be stupid, but they aren't blind to history. Microsoft will take this.NET thing, leave Ximian as the company offering their opensource part of the deal, steal market-share (mono will still behind) and once they've got enough.. It's over.. So mono will become what java is now in it's most basic form.
You can get fucked if you want to.. I've seen a long list of companies that have been fucked by microsoft and will not wait in line for my turn.
Interesting.. Miguel seems to differ with you from this interview. I could be wrong I don't know, lemme read it again. Welp, you discuss with Miguel the difference of opinion you two have.
Very broad? Do me a favor and name ONE piece of software that Microsoft has created that hasn't had a major security flaw in it at some point. Now Microsoft has some excellent designs I never said they didn't (of course I never said they did). However design and implementation are totally two different things. Hell I'm thinking of a design right now in my head of the Ultimate operating system; implementation is the hard part. As for the NT security model I wouldn't be able to comment there, as I've never used NT for much of anything.
Security problems are largely a result of poor implementation and poor practice. However maybe you haven't seen CERT digests or read about Microsoft security flaws, they aren't just poor implementation in most cases, it's absolute incompetence. As for mono, if you would read my post again I never talked about their implementation as much as I'm talking about someone assuming it's secure. Also if you continue reading you will see I'm not talking about the mono implementation much at all except to say we'll basically have to wait and see. I'm talking about the.NET applications from either Microsoft or whereever they come from.
On what basis do you make this claim? Since when did Microsoft own ECMA?
Have you been living under a rock for the past decade? When has microsoft ever played fair with standards? ummmmm never? So what they submitted to a standards body.. how is that going to prevent them from playing unfairly??
1. Submit standard
2. Screw standard add our own shit
3. Lock everyone else out
4. MONO(.NET) == JAVA for linux
What have you acheived in the long run? I can understand using mono for.net stuff (interoperability of course).. When I first heard of the project I had no qualms with it.. I knew that it'd also be behind if Microsoft made changes and if they made extensions that it'd be the samba/ntfs/etc/etc/etc game all over. I have no problem with people spending time doing absolutely what I feel to believe is dumb stuff.. Sometimes it'll help me down the line, sometimes it's just dumb stuff but adding dumb stuff to gnome which I've programmed for, used and debug is not acceptable. I'm with anyone who wants to fork gnome at that point.
Wrong wrong wrong.. If only it worked in real life like that Netscape would be more than what it is today.
It's more like when the fat bastard bar owner (Microsoft) comes down to the basement and gets into it with Tyler Durden (Miguel) only to have a beat up and bloddied Tyler crawl on top of him... bleeding all over his face crying... 'what the fuck it's not supposed to be like this.. I saw it in fight club'.
The original poster didn't miss any point, maybe you want to read the post again. The jist is that Microsoft and anything they do is usually not secure in comparison to many other alternatives. That said.NET won't be any different, the API no, the implementation of the API on anything; who knows at this point. From their track record I'd have to agree with the original poster. It is important to not just say "because Miguel is doing it" that it will be secure.. Especially since he's not gonna be the one implementing and designing programs behind that and especially since these programs etc etc are gonna be most likely coming from windows, I'm sure Microsoft is gonna gladly prepackage stuff at that with the whole webservices end.
Miguel? Do you have any idea of what type of fire you are playing with? Seriously, what you plan on doing is taking a large chunk of gnome users and kindly giving them to Microsoft in their battle to control EVERYTHING there is to control. Listen, if this came of it's own because of need then I would have no problem with it. Especially if it came from the free software movement or other companies/monopolists who weren't convicted of abusing said monopoly. The problem I DO have is that simply this may make things easier in short term but in long term horrible for the industry. The infrastructure of what we call the internet today (application wise) is built with many different, compilers, archs and setups; it works and it might not be efficient but it allows for choice. What.NET plans to do is basically eliminate choice in the long run.
Can't you see that Microsoft isn't doing this to be nice, they aren't even doing this for web services. They are doing this to own the whole goddamn thing. The internet, what developers develop in, how things operate.. EVERYTHING!! And you are gonna sit there and honestly interview with someone on some bullshit about how this is good for you/us/me/developers because it makes things easier and that Gnome 4.0 will support this. This is Microsoft getting out of the OS business and into a much larger market. If they become the standard (standard meaning widely used) this will set off World War 3.. Everyone trying to break ties with Microsoft will again have no choice but to follow a standard they created and will no doubt make proprietary extensions too breaking said standard submitted to the ECMA when their standard+extensions becomes standard (widely used) you are fucking OWNED.
I hope this doesn't happen because if it does, you'll be known as the fucking typhoid mary in the free software movement.
"MS =.NET taking over the world, using dumbasses and tiny amounts of cash in retrospect as pawns and they are too blind to see me coming.. man I'm good"
per se.. It's really the greediness and selfish of the companies said scientiests/researchers work for that are the ones not promoting the sharing. Just as in the computer industry there are probably NDA's that need to be signed etc. It's always been like this in the scientific industry except for the fact that scientists had alot more platforms to share their research and did so, simply to better science. Those scientists are either retired or for the most part teaching from my own deduction. The new upcoming breed don't seem to follow what was common practice from the 30's-70's.. Also when scientists DO get access to facilities that allow them to research (invite people etc, the whole 9 yds) there are alot of University lawyers and industry lawyers that prevent who gets invited and who actually hears about it. The amount of scientists sharing information has really changed, I blame it on lawyers.
Re:Why I didn't buy from Loki
on
Last Word on Loki
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Then why are you complaining? Your comment is redundant and if I was a moderator I'd mark you as a troll. If you didn't like the games thats fine but if you wanted MORE games, different types of games and the option to run games on Linux then you should of coughed up some cash and bought a game and given it to someone who wanted it. Your comment says Loki couldn't have done anything about the choice of games to port and then on the same hand you scold them with the suggestions of ports you would of liked to see.
Avid game player yes, avid linux user; I'd seriously question that. It seems to me that an avid linux user (I'd assume we are talking about someone who uses linux all the time) would prefer to have games natively ported to Linux. This whole idea of dual-booting to windows to play games makes me sick. It requires that I have a Microsoft license for windows and it also requires that I buy games for windows, which means I'm supporting the windows platform which god strike me down hasn't happened in 8 years and will never fucking happen again.
Alot of you really need to either shut the fuck up about Microsoft all together or stop supporting them, put your money where your mouth is and bite the bullet and the industry will respond accordingly.. Bend over for the industry and they will fuck you.. Convient for them, convient for you obviously. Don't be a hypocrite, there is nothing worst. Lets not get into the right tool for the right job because for me Linux is the right tool for the right job in all areas. But you fucking dual-booters really need to NOT comment because you do absolutely nothing to help the primary goal of more native linux ports infact you do exactly the opposite, you help more native window ports.
1. Accessing several different websites at the time
I usually have about 6-7 different websites loaded at once, some have banner ad's that change, some don't.
2. Port forwarding to computers using different operating systems
I am allowed to have my own internal network, that is not illegal and because I add a machine that uses their service that port forwards for whatever reason; It's my port, I'll do with it as I please. So long as I don't abuse their service in any manner according to their "Abuse Legislation".
3. SMTP headers containing references to domain names used only by the LAN
See response to 2.
I really don't know how comcast plans to do it. I'm not a customer and wont ever become one but I'd really love to hear from comcast how they plan to do this because it would be revolutionary in hacking and spying on internal networks. Does anyone work for comcast?
How exactly are they going to do this?? I mean NAT isn't really something you can look at it. The same ip is beind used just by different systems behind the NAT server.
Does anyone have any info on exactly how they plan to do this?
... On this thread regarding "Why don't you just dual boot". I've got 4 loki games I bought from loki simply because I don't use windows. I don't want to support Microsoft (a company found to be a monopoly which abuses its power mind you). In their quest to basically control what I do with my computer, control what I do online, and control what I do with my career because I like computers. Not only that but I don't care how many games there are for windows if it means I have to pay for a windows license I will not do it. I'm very pleased companies like ID are making ports available and so I support them, I supported Loki.. and I will continue to support any company who will please me with such pleasures as games for Linux. I never used to buy ID games, ever.. I used to just get a copy from a friend but now that they port to Linux I've bought their quake2 set, quake3 and rtcw and will continue to buy from them because they make good games and are now porting to my platform.
I wish this new slashdot crowd would stop being so goddamn "wishy-washy" and make a decision or stay with windows because most of your posts are absolute dribble; "Stand for something, or fall for anything" is what they say. Most of you just fall for anything.
"I am willing to bet that the need for transparent networking, while really freaking cool and useful, has deminished greatly in recent years"
So tell me why XP has support for this now. Infact Microsoft toots on a horn about the ability to do this. X has had exactly what you say people aren't interested in for years now. Why would Microsoft add this support to XP if people didn't want it?
Why?, X does all of that already with the use of extensions not only that but it does a good job at it.
I know alot of people seem to think X is what makes their systems run slow or it's hard to setup etc. Maybe it is a little hard to setup (IMHO it's rather easy even from a compile) but the truth of the matter is X does a brilliant job at what it does. It's a server which allows clients (programs that you use) to connect to it. It will never have the latest drivers for the new whiz-bang cards out but other than that I don't see much of a problem with it, not to mention that it's original design still holds true up to today.
This has to be one of the nets few great soap operas. BERNARD DUDE!! KEEP IT UP!! You'll be the first person in history to be blacklisted from the internet all together!!!
Ummm would you like to explain how that would be done? Flash can create the script file maybe but having it executed by the user?? Exactly how do you plan on doing something like that?
Flash is a plugin that has to be installed as a user.. considering it'd be install in lets say the netscape plugin directory as root even there isn't much else that a script file could do. Not to mention having flash create a script file somewhere and then having it executed. I can't even think of a way to do this, it makes no sense.
I truly don't feel bad for these companies at all, and I'm not blaming anything or anyone but when you start introducing scripting languages on top of a certain operationg system you put yourself at danger. This will keep happening to people honestly start taking security seriously. I'm not trying to troll or shed bad light on Microsoft or Windows(tm) at all. I'm just stating the facts and calling the plays as I see them.
Simple, the first victim touched the keyboard and then wiped their nose, this allowed the Anthrax spores to be spread through the nasal cavity. It's really a brilliant way to distribute Anthrax if you have a specific target. How many times a day does one touch a keyboard in his/her work place and how many times does the same person wipe their nose?
For me, I'm always at my keyboard and probably wipe my nose very infrequently and I might even do it without noticing but the Anthrax spores will still be there for a while it's not like they die off in 5 minutes so I eventually will wipe my nose and be infected by Anthrax.
But this does more to help MS than it does Linux, since it will remove yet another barrier to exit for people running Linux on servers. (Run C# and.Net on Linux, and it's easier to convert to Windows.) And remember, MS has concluded that Linux is not a threat on the desktop, but a very serious threat on servers. (I agree with both parts of that, FWIW.)
No it doesn't, it helps Linux simply because that barrier you talk of doesn't exist. If I can run C# and.Net on Linux and not worry about having to PAY for it then I will simply use linux. I mean it just makes alot more economical sense for me to get the same stuff and not have to pay for it.
As for open source not innovating, in the realm of UI type of applications I agree whole-heartedly but everyone seems to forget who did what first. Things like the internet itself, tcp/ip protocols, ftp, multi-tasking, apache, C all these things that allow the internet and desktops to function the way they do today were developed a long time ago on unix platforms. Microsoft innovated none of it and have made their money primarily in the UI app sector (IE: Office). Once we start seeing some innovation in that sector then and only then will people switch. It's not about performance or stability or any of that. It's about easy use with "cool" features.
Re:Why does everyone get their panties in a knot?
on
GNOME 3.16 Released
·
· Score: 2
Use what works for you, if Microsoft works then so be it. They've never worked properly for me even windows 2000 would crash every month or so which isn't acceptable for me. However they do get the desktop right but it will never look as nice as gnome. Plus gnome is functional for me even though I hate some of the ways things are done as of late..
"For another thing, the AIM protocol IS completely documented by AOL-- at least to the point where you can create a basic AIM clone using just that documentation."
My facts are straight.. The protocol IS NOT OPENLY documented, why not talk to some of the authors of gaim or kinkatta. You obviously don't know how many times their have been issues simply because the protocol is not openly documented granted the parts they open are so that non-windows platforms get BASIC functionality and that's even a problem for AOL; again ask the gaim authors specifically.
The security issue is in the windows client, I understood that; it's only a matter of time before the issue is with the protocol because of the above. People like you (at least from what your comment suggest) scare me because you'll settle for something like having a protocol that transfers data (whether public or private) and that millions of people use; insecure with closed parts and basic functionality.
Ok, pretend you don't know now. Good. I'm glad you feel safer, by the way where do you want these pr0n images? I was gonna make a directory for them in C:\pr0n\anal and all that other shit taken up space has to be removed. Infact I might as well start fresh and get some new stuff on here..
Slashdot Mirror
EXACTLY..There is no good reason that I could think of for Gnome to use .NET in future versions. I just don't understand it, it'll always, always be a catch up game. ALWAYS, everyone around here is ranting about yeah, it's cool, I'll love to work with it.. Then work with it on windows because that's where it will always work, you'll be behind using MONO and not only that but should Microsoft decide that it's time to do their own thing interoperability is lost and then someone with vision is going to have to reverse engineer or come up with their own stuff for the MONO project. All this is, is a waste of time and code.
I think you're too fucking stupid to see the bigger picture. This has absolutely nothing to do with the technology. THE API is sound, it's a great idea and I support the design. I DO NOT support Microsoft, EVER, they've fucked too many people over period and I forsee this to be just a waste of time. Microsoft WILL extend this API for their own needs and lock out everyone else once they have what they feel to be enough market share. At that point all of what you said above goes into the fucking garbage. This is NOT a company that wants inteoprability thats why .NET/C# was thought up in the first place. So they could do whatever they want and answer to no one. Don't people learn from the past, hasn't anyone learned that no matter how nice Microsoft is or seems to be they want this whole internet thing in their back pocket? Slashdotters may be stupid, but they aren't blind to history. Microsoft will take this .NET thing, leave Ximian as the company offering their opensource part of the deal, steal market-share (mono will still behind) and once they've got enough.. It's over.. So mono will become what java is now in it's most basic form.
You can get fucked if you want to.. I've seen a long list of companies that have been fucked by microsoft and will not wait in line for my turn.
Interesting.. Miguel seems to differ with you from this interview. I could be wrong I don't know, lemme read it again. Welp, you discuss with Miguel the difference of opinion you two have.
Very broad? Do me a favor and name ONE piece of software that Microsoft has created that hasn't had a major security flaw in it at some point. Now Microsoft has some excellent designs I never said they didn't (of course I never said they did). However design and implementation are totally two different things. Hell I'm thinking of a design right now in my head of the Ultimate operating system; implementation is the hard part. As for the NT security model I wouldn't be able to comment there, as I've never used NT for much of anything.
.NET applications from either Microsoft or whereever they come from.
Security problems are largely a result of poor implementation and poor practice. However maybe you haven't seen CERT digests or read about Microsoft security flaws, they aren't just poor implementation in most cases, it's absolute incompetence. As for mono, if you would read my post again I never talked about their implementation as much as I'm talking about someone assuming it's secure. Also if you continue reading you will see I'm not talking about the mono implementation much at all except to say we'll basically have to wait and see. I'm talking about the
We will see in the longrun how this turns out.
On what basis do you make this claim? Since when did Microsoft own ECMA?
.net stuff (interoperability of course).. When I first heard of the project I had no qualms with it.. I knew that it'd also be behind if Microsoft made changes and if they made extensions that it'd be the samba/ntfs/etc/etc/etc game all over. I have no problem with people spending time doing absolutely what I feel to believe is dumb stuff.. Sometimes it'll help me down the line, sometimes it's just dumb stuff but adding dumb stuff to gnome which I've programmed for, used and debug is not acceptable. I'm with anyone who wants to fork gnome at that point.
Have you been living under a rock for the past decade? When has microsoft ever played fair with standards? ummmmm never? So what they submitted to a standards body.. how is that going to prevent them from playing unfairly??
1. Submit standard
2. Screw standard add our own shit
3. Lock everyone else out
4. MONO(.NET) == JAVA for linux
What have you acheived in the long run? I can understand using mono for
"The worst that could happen is it could lead to one-platform binaries"
.NET and Mono..
All of that makes sense except it totally defeats the purpose of
Explain to me the point of Mono again, plugin and run on diff systems is it?? Interoperability?? Ahh ok..
Wrong wrong wrong.. If only it worked in real life like that Netscape would be more than what it is today.
It's more like when the fat bastard bar owner (Microsoft) comes down to the basement and gets into it with Tyler Durden (Miguel) only to have a beat up and bloddied Tyler crawl on top of him... bleeding all over his face crying... 'what the fuck it's not supposed to be like this.. I saw it in fight club'.
I don't love getting ass raped.
The original poster didn't miss any point, maybe you want to read the post again. The jist is that Microsoft and anything they do is usually not secure in comparison to many other alternatives. That said .NET won't be any different, the API no, the implementation of the API on anything; who knows at this point. From their track record I'd have to agree with the original poster. It is important to not just say "because Miguel is doing it" that it will be secure.. Especially since he's not gonna be the one implementing and designing programs behind that and especially since these programs etc etc are gonna be most likely coming from windows, I'm sure Microsoft is gonna gladly prepackage stuff at that with the whole webservices end.
Miguel? Do you have any idea of what type of fire you are playing with? Seriously, what you plan on doing is taking a large chunk of gnome users and kindly giving them to Microsoft in their battle to control EVERYTHING there is to control. Listen, if this came of it's own because of need then I would have no problem with it. Especially if it came from the free software movement or other companies/monopolists who weren't convicted of abusing said monopoly. The problem I DO have is that simply this may make things easier in short term but in long term horrible for the industry. The infrastructure of what we call the internet today (application wise) is built with many different, compilers, archs and setups; it works and it might not be efficient but it allows for choice. What .NET plans to do is basically eliminate choice in the long run.
.NET taking over the world, using dumbasses and tiny amounts of cash in retrospect as pawns and they are too blind to see me coming.. man I'm good"
Can't you see that Microsoft isn't doing this to be nice, they aren't even doing this for web services. They are doing this to own the whole goddamn thing. The internet, what developers develop in, how things operate.. EVERYTHING!! And you are gonna sit there and honestly interview with someone on some bullshit about how this is good for you/us/me/developers because it makes things easier and that Gnome 4.0 will support this. This is Microsoft getting out of the OS business and into a much larger market. If they become the standard (standard meaning widely used) this will set off World War 3.. Everyone trying to break ties with Microsoft will again have no choice but to follow a standard they created and will no doubt make proprietary extensions too breaking said standard submitted to the ECMA when their standard+extensions becomes standard (widely used) you are fucking OWNED.
I hope this doesn't happen because if it does, you'll be known as the fucking typhoid mary in the free software movement.
"MS =
per se.. It's really the greediness and selfish of the companies said scientiests/researchers work for that are the ones not promoting the sharing. Just as in the computer industry there are probably NDA's that need to be signed etc. It's always been like this in the scientific industry except for the fact that scientists had alot more platforms to share their research and did so, simply to better science. Those scientists are either retired or for the most part teaching from my own deduction. The new upcoming breed don't seem to follow what was common practice from the 30's-70's.. Also when scientists DO get access to facilities that allow them to research (invite people etc, the whole 9 yds) there are alot of University lawyers and industry lawyers that prevent who gets invited and who actually hears about it. The amount of scientists sharing information has really changed, I blame it on lawyers.
Then why are you complaining? Your comment is redundant and if I was a moderator I'd mark you as a troll. If you didn't like the games thats fine but if you wanted MORE games, different types of games and the option to run games on Linux then you should of coughed up some cash and bought a game and given it to someone who wanted it. Your comment says Loki couldn't have done anything about the choice of games to port and then on the same hand you scold them with the suggestions of ports you would of liked to see.
Avid game player yes, avid linux user; I'd seriously question that. It seems to me that an avid linux user (I'd assume we are talking about someone who uses linux all the time) would prefer to have games natively ported to Linux. This whole idea of dual-booting to windows to play games makes me sick. It requires that I have a Microsoft license for windows and it also requires that I buy games for windows, which means I'm supporting the windows platform which god strike me down hasn't happened in 8 years and will never fucking happen again.
Alot of you really need to either shut the fuck up about Microsoft all together or stop supporting them, put your money where your mouth is and bite the bullet and the industry will respond accordingly.. Bend over for the industry and they will fuck you.. Convient for them, convient for you obviously. Don't be a hypocrite, there is nothing worst. Lets not get into the right tool for the right job because for me Linux is the right tool for the right job in all areas. But you fucking dual-booters really need to NOT comment because you do absolutely nothing to help the primary goal of more native linux ports infact you do exactly the opposite, you help more native window ports.
All that is true.. and all of that is also preventable in openbsd/freebsd/linux/solaris.
You can have tcp follow RFC 1948 and use sequence number generation, "unique-per-connection-ID".
It can be turned on in most of the os's above.. I think it's defaulted in most of the os's above as well maybe except for solaris and linux.
1. Accessing several different websites at the time
I usually have about 6-7 different websites loaded at once, some have banner ad's that change, some don't.
2. Port forwarding to computers using different operating systems
I am allowed to have my own internal network, that is not illegal and because I add a machine that uses their service that port forwards for whatever reason; It's my port, I'll do with it as I please. So long as I don't abuse their service in any manner according to their "Abuse Legislation".
3. SMTP headers containing references to domain names used only by the LAN
See response to 2.
I really don't know how comcast plans to do it. I'm not a customer and wont ever become one but I'd really love to hear from comcast how they plan to do this because it would be revolutionary in hacking and spying on internal networks. Does anyone work for comcast?
How exactly are they going to do this?? I mean NAT isn't really something you can look at it. The same ip is beind used just by different systems behind the NAT server.
Does anyone have any info on exactly how they plan to do this?
... On this thread regarding "Why don't you just dual boot". I've got 4 loki games I bought from loki simply because I don't use windows. I don't want to support Microsoft (a company found to be a monopoly which abuses its power mind you). In their quest to basically control what I do with my computer, control what I do online, and control what I do with my career because I like computers. Not only that but I don't care how many games there are for windows if it means I have to pay for a windows license I will not do it. I'm very pleased companies like ID are making ports available and so I support them, I supported Loki.. and I will continue to support any company who will please me with such pleasures as games for Linux. I never used to buy ID games, ever.. I used to just get a copy from a friend but now that they port to Linux I've bought their quake2 set, quake3 and rtcw and will continue to buy from them because they make good games and are now porting to my platform.
I wish this new slashdot crowd would stop being so goddamn "wishy-washy" and make a decision or stay with windows because most of your posts are absolute dribble; "Stand for something, or fall for anything" is what they say. Most of you just fall for anything.
"I am willing to bet that the need for transparent networking, while really freaking cool and useful, has deminished greatly in recent years"
So tell me why XP has support for this now. Infact Microsoft toots on a horn about the ability to do this. X has had exactly what you say people aren't interested in for years now. Why would Microsoft add this support to XP if people didn't want it?
Why?, X does all of that already with the use of extensions not only that but it does a good job at it.
I know alot of people seem to think X is what makes their systems run slow or it's hard to setup etc. Maybe it is a little hard to setup (IMHO it's rather easy even from a compile) but the truth of the matter is X does a brilliant job at what it does. It's a server which allows clients (programs that you use) to connect to it. It will never have the latest drivers for the new whiz-bang cards out but other than that I don't see much of a problem with it, not to mention that it's original design still holds true up to today.
This has to be one of the nets few great soap operas. BERNARD DUDE!! KEEP IT UP!! You'll be the first person in history to be blacklisted from the internet all together!!!
Ummm would you like to explain how that would be done? Flash can create the script file maybe but having it executed by the user?? Exactly how do you plan on doing something like that?
Flash is a plugin that has to be installed as a user.. considering it'd be install in lets say the netscape plugin directory as root even there isn't much else that a script file could do. Not to mention having flash create a script file somewhere and then having it executed. I can't even think of a way to do this, it makes no sense.
I truly don't feel bad for these companies at all, and I'm not blaming anything or anyone but when you start introducing scripting languages on top of a certain operationg system you put yourself at danger. This will keep happening to people honestly start taking security seriously. I'm not trying to troll or shed bad light on Microsoft or Windows(tm) at all. I'm just stating the facts and calling the plays as I see them.
Simple, the first victim touched the keyboard and then wiped their nose, this allowed the Anthrax spores to be spread through the nasal cavity. It's really a brilliant way to distribute Anthrax if you have a specific target. How many times a day does one touch a keyboard in his/her work place and how many times does the same person wipe their nose?
For me, I'm always at my keyboard and probably wipe my nose very infrequently and I might even do it without noticing but the Anthrax spores will still be there for a while it's not like they die off in 5 minutes so I eventually will wipe my nose and be infected by Anthrax.
But this does more to help MS than it does Linux, since it will remove yet another barrier to exit for people running Linux on servers. (Run C# and .Net on Linux, and it's easier to convert to Windows.) And remember, MS has concluded that Linux is not a threat on the desktop, but a very serious threat on servers. (I agree with both parts of that, FWIW.)
.Net on Linux and not worry about having to PAY for it then I will simply use linux. I mean it just makes alot more economical sense for me to get the same stuff and not have to pay for it.
No it doesn't, it helps Linux simply because that barrier you talk of doesn't exist. If I can run C# and
As for open source not innovating, in the realm of UI type of applications I agree whole-heartedly but everyone seems to forget who did what first. Things like the internet itself, tcp/ip protocols, ftp, multi-tasking, apache, C all these things that allow the internet and desktops to function the way they do today were developed a long time ago on unix platforms. Microsoft innovated none of it and have made their money primarily in the UI app sector (IE: Office). Once we start seeing some innovation in that sector then and only then will people switch. It's not about performance or stability or any of that. It's about easy use with "cool" features.
Use what works for you, if Microsoft works then so be it. They've never worked properly for me even windows 2000 would crash every month or so which isn't acceptable for me. However they do get the desktop right but it will never look as nice as gnome. Plus gnome is functional for me even though I hate some of the ways things are done as of late..
"For another thing, the AIM protocol IS completely documented by AOL-- at least to the point where you can create a basic AIM clone using just that documentation."
My facts are straight.. The protocol IS NOT OPENLY documented, why not talk to some of the authors of gaim or kinkatta. You obviously don't know how many times their have been issues simply because the protocol is not openly documented granted the parts they open are so that non-windows platforms get BASIC functionality and that's even a problem for AOL; again ask the gaim authors specifically.
The security issue is in the windows client, I understood that; it's only a matter of time before the issue is with the protocol because of the above. People like you (at least from what your comment suggest) scare me because you'll settle for something like having a protocol that transfers data (whether public or private) and that millions of people use; insecure with closed parts and basic functionality.
Ok, pretend you don't know now. Good. I'm glad you feel safer, by the way where do you want these pr0n images? I was gonna make a directory for them in C:\pr0n\anal and all that other shit taken up space has to be removed. Infact I might as well start fresh and get some new stuff on here..