No, they work. I built a computer running W2K for my father in law. He is one of those types that if he gets spam or sees a banner ad talking about "free" software he'll try it. The system was constantly being infected with spyware and other crap. I'd tell him time and time again NOT to download or install anything. I finally got sick of it and locked down his account. He's been completely spyware free for about two years.
So what's your idea then? Should Dell ship you (the person the user is going to call - just like your father in law obviously does - each time they need something new) inside each computer box? =]
I'm asking that because they can't start to sell crippled computers and expect to make a profit each year.
Anyway, that's not my point. You answered option number one (crippled computer) with an interesting yet case-specific history. My point is about option number two: passwords. If we are going to give a free-to-use as in "my stuff" computer to the user, routine password prompts ate not a good practice.
...exactly what I said in my previous post: least-priviledged admin-password-asking security systems are useless for home users.
Make a user type his password n times a week and he'll type it in every single dialog window that asks for his password. Even the malicious ones.
So now you have your user enclosed inside an annoying stainless steel safe, except for the fact that it isn't safe at all, because he'll yell the door code at anyone standing outside.
Home users don't need annoying internal security. They need transparent outside access security. That's all. Give an annoying security tool to someone who is only interested in bein left alone to use his computer, and he'll break it in a minute.
Face it, people: users will always want to be in charge of their computer, to install the latest (card/3d/simulation/fishing) game, "multimedia" tutorial or whatever. So now you have two choices: 1. Give them a crippled (no admin access) computer and they'll give you the finger. 2. Give them the admin password and they'll render it useless.
And no, this is not a matter of education. Even the most experienced geek can get distracted and annoyed as hell with password prompts. Create a security system that gives you routinely security prompts and they're going to be... routine.
What we need to fix is the way computers execute applications. We need a secure list of routine applications and procedures and a secure code signing system. A system where funny-cat-game is really from a company that was previously-approved by -SOME SERVICE-. So that way we'll only have important security prompts at important situations.
No, this is not the solution for most security-related problems, but it's a rough notion of the direction we should be heading at: create a system, any system, that allows the computer to stop asking (the home user) passwords all the time.
Whenever I wanted to change/install something, a nice prompty would come up asking for my password to give it the proper priviliges.
That's non-security. Make a user type his password n times a week and he'll type it in every single dialog window that asks for his password. Even the malicious ones.
So now you have your user enclosed inside an annoying stainless steel safe, except for the fact that it isn't safe at all, because he'll yell the door code at anyone standing outside.
Home users don't need annoying internal security. They need transparent outside access security. That's all. Give an annoying security tool to someone who is only interested in bein left alone to use his computer, and he'll break it in a minute.
Face it, people: users will always want to be in charge of their computer, to install the latest (card/3d/simulation/fishing) game, "multimedia" tutorial or whatever. So now you have two choices: 1. Give them a crippled (no admin access) computer and they'll give you the finger. 2. Give them the admin password and they'll render it useless.
What drives me crazy is all the programmers I've known who make the connection "I'm socially awkward and like computers, so I am a misunderstood genius and I'm better than everybody!"
Couldn't agree more. The basica problem with these people is that they are not able to do some self-criticism.
If they started to give out modules that provided certain functionality, is it possible, that apache, through Wine, or some other interface, could make use of these components? Imagine having apache run.Net or ASP web applications. It may make the switch to Apache, and maybe eventually Linux cheaper and easier for many companies. Many companies have lots of money invested in.Net and ASP web applications.
This article (mostly because of the submitter's text) is a great disservice to technical information:
This kind of modularity is a part of IIS since its first version.
ASP.NET is already implemented as a module, in all ASP.NET-supporting IIS versions.
About your question: I'm not sure if ASP.NET can run on mod_isapi without too much trouble, but you can always try it, if you want to: ISAPI Apache module.
Anyway, Covalent already provides us with a.NET-ready version of Apache 2.0 for Linux.
This is what apache did with modules ages ago and webmin did years ago aswell. Although all of it seems to be good what MS is doing, it is late with a few years again.
UPS builds their own trucks, or rather has trucks designed to their specs built by Morgan Olson.
You just quoted a case where they build their own trucks and at the same time, they don't (Morgan Olson does). UPS does not build its own trucks, they buy it from a third-party who happens to listen to their desires a little bit more than GM or Ford would do for the common man.
That's definitely not the building truck business. They're just truck consumers.
If I see someone getting pickpocketed and I can aid them in getting their money back,... What am I going to do? Stand idly by and not say anything?
Yes, you can help the old lady getting her money back. You can even arrest the mugger, based on citizen arrest laws. But you can't commit another crime, even if the victim is the original criminal itself. Translation: you can get the money back, you can even beat him while practicing self-defence, but you can't beat the crap out of him once he is on the floor, screaming for mercy.
Oh clever little troll, I see you've managed to get modded up. While I do not consider myself one of these fans you so graciously pity, I would hold them above you for they certainly would not judge someone doing something they found odd since they know of the perception that society holds of them.
I'm sorry, but: NO. While it's pretty obvious that this guy is acting like a jerk, the nerd (not only SW fans) "group" if far from having fair attitudes regarding people's differences.
Most nerds like to theorize about how they're so "intelligent" and "special", while all the smiling people at school are "futile" and "ignorant". Instead of looking at his own problems (where social inability is the worse one of them), and try to fix them, the nerd creates its own reality distortion field, where he is the big genius of mankind and the rest of the world is just wrong.
And, with the risk of being modded down, I say: try to argue with a (nerdy) SW/Iron Maiden fan, exposing your own different (from them) cultural and musical tastes. Some of them might not act weird in front of you, but most of them will start thinking you're just another "futile wrong person" that doesn't share their cultural superiority.
The funny part is that all these "superior" truth-carrying nerds are just sheep in the hands of nerd-directed brands.
OpenSource, FreeSoftware (I know, there are differences,...) or whatever are just names we give to the act/task/idea of applying a well known set of ideologies into the world of software.
OpenSource it is NOT about the invention of "collaboration", "voluntarism" or anything. All these ideas existed long before the first line of OSS code was written. So you can't "apply OpenSource" on something that is not Source Code, because it would just be "sharing" or some other name anyone might invent to the act/task/idea of applying the concept of publicy sharing knowledge to a specific area of human knowledge.
Bearded MIT nerds were NOT the fisrt human beings to share knowledge with others, and NOT the first to talk about the need to share stuff in some special occasions.
Ex: "Alpinism" is the "-ism" for climbing a mountain (not necessarily in the Alps). It's just a name that gives a special meaning to an obvious task, in this case, climbing something. Am I an Alpinist if I climb a tree? Hell no. Different application, different name.
What are they thinking! Airing this at 6:30 PM EST! CSpan has just ensured that nobody on the west coast will see this. Or, is that what they are aiming for?
From the submitter: C-Span will be broadcasting the lecture live at 6:30 PM EST, and also has archives of previous lectures..
Well, if it's a LIVE broadcasting, I'm pretty sure that C-Span will have to air it at whatever time the lecture will be happening. =]
Most people here would be pretty happy if Google all of the sudden started to abuse it's #1 status by "banning" people from their lists whenever they wanted to.
Most argumentation here is based on "Google should teach them a lesson" and "If you're banned from Google, you don't exist anymore".
Brings some real interesting questions about average-Slashdotter's position regarding monopolies and power abuse.
"If we like you and you're abusing those nasty evil big corporations, we'll support your actions". Some geeks here look more brainwashed than the average Scientology freak.
Don't be so confident that human stupidity is going away anytime soon. Bible-thumping fundies will just be replaced by some other group of ignorant buffoons, who would rather believe any kind of comfortable fantasy rather than an uncomfortable truth.
You mean, like the "I'm better than everyone else because I'm a geek who advocates free software" people? I'm using them as an example because is much easier for these people to pretend that there is something wrong with the rest of the world, than it is to look at their own problems. And it's also the kind of example that fits very well in a website like Slashdot.
My point is that ignorant (even if they know something about computers, law, medicine or whatever) people are always going to gather in groups that live in some kind of holier-than-thou fantasy.
The problem with these people is the lack of a very important ability: self-criticism. Most of them have some really problematic issues that they just can't face, like having no friends at all in high school, having a worse job than your liberal-devil-owned brother/friend, yadda, yadda, yadda. They just turn blind to all of these issues and start living in this twisted and sick fantasy where they are some kind of super heroes trying to save the world from the evil people that have everything (friends, girlfriends, money, intelligence,...) they always wanted.
Jesus is just one of the tools these people use for this kind of obscure way of living. Religion has no fault here, stupid people are the ones we should be blaming.
I believe that there is only two kinds of people in the world: normal people and inferior people. The inferior kind are the ones who just can't accept that no one is better than the rest of the world. They can't accept equality, they can't get along with diversity. When they believe that they are better than everyone else, they're actually proving that they're actually inferior.
I really believe that the source of this behavior is hate, and that any kind of decision or ideology motivated by this kind of feeling should be automatically redirected to/dev/null. Some people think that they're better than the liberal guy across the street (or the guy reported in the newspaper who earns 1000k a year in this closed software company) because they're just... jealous. They haven't made the life accomplishments they dreamed of and now they need someone/something to blame for their problems. Otherwise, they would need abilities like self-criticism and we all know that this is just bad, right?:)
BTW: these are just my goofy opinions about the world. No scientific stuff or "facts" here, folks.:)
Since then, we have K3B and the new Gnome whatchamacallit, that both do the same thing, better, support more formats, and are not hindered by little things like CSS.... Sooo, how seriously can they be taking this product?
Well. The K3B development group is really serious about Nero: they kind of copied almost every single GUI item out of Nero's interface.
My point? You can't compare a clone with the real thing. Unless OSS apps start to really innovate instead of just being cheap knock-offs, you can't just ditch the proprietary side of software development.
Companies like Adaptec and Nero are the ones who created all the CD-Writing GUI abstraction that we recognise as "CD-Writing Software" today. So this kind of "we are better than everyone" attitude of yours is not valid. At all.
What if someone paid to purchase Microsoft Office, and chose to run it on Linux using Wine?
Then this someone will just have to RTFA: The spokesperson said users who are not running Windows XP or Windows 2000 natively can still download updates for Microsoft Office from the Office Update Web site..
MSSQL? You're joking, right? If you knew anything about wikipedia, you'd know how laughable that suggestion is. Oracle would be nice, but I'm not sure they'd hand over a license for free -- and oracle is certainly not a hands-free db engine.
Your hate for Microsoft/love for open-source is turning you blind.
Real databases can corrupt data, of course. The last batch of transactions is the most vulnerable to corruption in case of server failure.
But, in a real database, it is not going to completely destroy the database as a whole, just the last pieces of data. Things will just keep working, you'll only be out of a small fraction (the last one) of your data.
About MS-SQL not being able to handle Wikimedia, you should first look at tpc.org before making false assumptions based on wishful toughts of your anti-MS zealotry dream. And you must not forget that they currently use MySQL, wich is inferior to MS-SQL in all possible characteristics.
As a convicted monopolist, Microsoft must play by a different set of rules than everyone else, like, say, Google, which has never been convicted of anything in the US (and quite IMHO bugus trademark violations in France).
What about IBM? It's a "convicted monopolist" too. Why aren't you people complaining about their actions?
The anti-trust law doesn't work like that. The government has not filed MS under a different company category, where they "can't do bad stuff". You have to break a specific law and then lose the final trial to be "convicted" of anything you have done. There is no such thing as this "eternal convict status" that you people apply to Microsoft.
When a company is convicted of anything, they can pay a fine or they can have some of their actions regulated (like EU did in the Media Player case) to fix the damages the company caused. Again, it is not an eternal condemnation. It's a court decision related to a specific issue of either the past or the present, to protect society in the future (and also to fix damages caused in the past). But it's still related (as in "you did it so you must pay for it") to the past or present time.
So it's not up to you to scream "convicted monopolist! convicted monopolist" every time they do something you don't like. They have to actually break a law or a regulation to be punished for their actions.
When they stop selling Windows copies in EU without Media Player removed, you can surely scream "convicted monopolist", but not when they have done something that is not forbidden by the law or by a court order.
Native-looking, yes, but portable? Not likely. Qt gives you an environment where you develop the application once and it works with less effort on the other supported platforms.
Yes, that is the point of QT: A large clientele does not want to be locked into a platform controlled by a monopoly, because it means handing the future of your enterprise over to the control of someone else, whose interests do not correspond to those of the enterprise.
A large clientele also just wants something that works. Actually not, they want the best stuff they can have for their money.
Except that (unless they've changed it recently) they specifically prohibit you from doing this. If you develop non-GPL code you must do it on the commercial version. The non-GPL version is licensed on a per-seat basis, so you can't have all of your developers using the GPL version and a single build machine running the commercial version.
Qt on Windows is useless for new developments. Licensing might be a good choice for low seat-count projects, where rewriting is not an option and cross-platform compatibility is mandatory.
New Windows-only developments can just use Visual Studio Express, for free, to develop native-looking applications.
Have you ever heard of running in an emulator? Well that's what's happening there.
No, it is not. It is a fully native x86 Windows System running WindowBlinds. It's just a Windowing theme system.
The website-provided description for your "Mac OS picture": "ObjectBar 0.3 Alpha, WindowBlinds 2.1, EuroCalculator and ColorPad running on this Mac OS 7 inspired desktop.".
For anyone curious about this issue, the subdomain "pcdesktops.emuunlim.com" is dedicated to WindowBlinds screenshot sections. The full URL to the screenshot is here.
I think the issue is that your right to bare arms is just incase the government turns bad and everyone needs to overthrow them - if guns can be disabled like this on mass with a single high altitude nuclear blast for example, it would pretty much negate any chance of an armed uprising..
Yourre not going to overthrow a government with a handgun, are you? =]
Slashdot Mirror
I'm asking that because they can't start to sell crippled computers and expect to make a profit each year.
Anyway, that's not my point. You answered option number one (crippled computer) with an interesting yet case-specific history. My point is about option number two: passwords. If we are going to give a free-to-use as in "my stuff" computer to the user, routine password prompts ate not a good practice.
Ideas, anyone?
...exactly what I said in my previous post: least-priviledged admin-password-asking security systems are useless for home users. Make a user type his password n times a week and he'll type it in every single dialog window that asks for his password. Even the malicious ones.
So now you have your user enclosed inside an annoying stainless steel safe, except for the fact that it isn't safe at all, because he'll yell the door code at anyone standing outside.
Home users don't need annoying internal security. They need transparent outside access security. That's all. Give an annoying security tool to someone who is only interested in bein left alone to use his computer, and he'll break it in a minute.
Face it, people: users will always want to be in charge of their computer, to install the latest (card/3d/simulation/fishing) game, "multimedia" tutorial or whatever. So now you have two choices: 1. Give them a crippled (no admin access) computer and they'll give you the finger. 2. Give them the admin password and they'll render it useless.
And no, this is not a matter of education. Even the most experienced geek can get distracted and annoyed as hell with password prompts. Create a security system that gives you routinely security prompts and they're going to be... routine.
What we need to fix is the way computers execute applications. We need a secure list of routine applications and procedures and a secure code signing system. A system where funny-cat-game is really from a company that was previously-approved by -SOME SERVICE-. So that way we'll only have important security prompts at important situations.
No, this is not the solution for most security-related problems, but it's a rough notion of the direction we should be heading at: create a system, any system, that allows the computer to stop asking (the home user) passwords all the time.
So now you have your user enclosed inside an annoying stainless steel safe, except for the fact that it isn't safe at all, because he'll yell the door code at anyone standing outside.
Home users don't need annoying internal security. They need transparent outside access security. That's all. Give an annoying security tool to someone who is only interested in bein left alone to use his computer, and he'll break it in a minute.
Face it, people: users will always want to be in charge of their computer, to install the latest (card/3d/simulation/fishing) game, "multimedia" tutorial or whatever. So now you have two choices: 1. Give them a crippled (no admin access) computer and they'll give you the finger. 2. Give them the admin password and they'll render it useless.
- This kind of modularity is a part of IIS since its first version.
- ASP.NET is already implemented as a module, in all ASP.NET-supporting IIS versions.
About your question: I'm not sure if ASP.NET can run on mod_isapi without too much trouble, but you can always try it, if you want to: ISAPI Apache module.Anyway, Covalent already provides us with a
This is what apache did with modules ages ago and webmin did years ago aswell. Although all of it seems to be good what MS is doing, it is late with a few years again.
IIS is module-based (ISAPI) since the beginning.
UPS builds their own trucks, or rather has trucks designed to their specs built by Morgan Olson.
You just quoted a case where they build their own trucks and at the same time, they don't (Morgan Olson does). UPS does not build its own trucks, they buy it from a third-party who happens to listen to their desires a little bit more than GM or Ford would do for the common man.
That's definitely not the building truck business. They're just truck consumers.
That's what a vigilante does.
Most nerds like to theorize about how they're so "intelligent" and "special", while all the smiling people at school are "futile" and "ignorant". Instead of looking at his own problems (where social inability is the worse one of them), and try to fix them, the nerd creates its own reality distortion field, where he is the big genius of mankind and the rest of the world is just wrong.
And, with the risk of being modded down, I say: try to argue with a (nerdy) SW/Iron Maiden fan, exposing your own different (from them) cultural and musical tastes. Some of them might not act weird in front of you, but most of them will start thinking you're just another "futile wrong person" that doesn't share their cultural superiority.
The funny part is that all these "superior" truth-carrying nerds are just sheep in the hands of nerd-directed brands.
OpenSource, FreeSoftware (I know, there are differences, ...) or whatever are just names we give to the act/task/idea of applying a well known set of ideologies into the world of software.
OpenSource it is NOT about the invention of "collaboration", "voluntarism" or anything. All these ideas existed long before the first line of OSS code was written. So you can't "apply OpenSource" on something that is not Source Code, because it would just be "sharing" or some other name anyone might invent to the act/task/idea of applying the concept of publicy sharing knowledge to a specific area of human knowledge.
Bearded MIT nerds were NOT the fisrt human beings to share knowledge with others, and NOT the first to talk about the need to share stuff in some special occasions.
Ex: "Alpinism" is the "-ism" for climbing a mountain (not necessarily in the Alps). It's just a name that gives a special meaning to an obvious task, in this case, climbing something. Am I an Alpinist if I climb a tree? Hell no. Different application, different name.
Actually, this has been available in Windows XP
It was also included in Windows 2000.
Well, if it's a LIVE broadcasting, I'm pretty sure that C-Span will have to air it at whatever time the lecture will be happening. =]
Chill out, they archive their boardcasts.
Most people here would be pretty happy if Google all of the sudden started to abuse it's #1 status by "banning" people from their lists whenever they wanted to.
Most argumentation here is based on "Google should teach them a lesson" and "If you're banned from Google, you don't exist anymore".
Brings some real interesting questions about average-Slashdotter's position regarding monopolies and power abuse.
"If we like you and you're abusing those nasty evil big corporations, we'll support your actions". Some geeks here look more brainwashed than the average Scientology freak.
My point is that ignorant (even if they know something about computers, law, medicine or whatever) people are always going to gather in groups that live in some kind of holier-than-thou fantasy.
The problem with these people is the lack of a very important ability: self-criticism. Most of them have some really problematic issues that they just can't face, like having no friends at all in high school, having a worse job than your liberal-devil-owned brother/friend, yadda, yadda, yadda. They just turn blind to all of these issues and start living in this twisted and sick fantasy where they are some kind of super heroes trying to save the world from the evil people that have everything (friends, girlfriends, money, intelligence,
Jesus is just one of the tools these people use for this kind of obscure way of living. Religion has no fault here, stupid people are the ones we should be blaming.
I believe that there is only two kinds of people in the world: normal people and inferior people. The inferior kind are the ones who just can't accept that no one is better than the rest of the world. They can't accept equality, they can't get along with diversity. When they believe that they are better than everyone else, they're actually proving that they're actually inferior.
I really believe that the source of this behavior is hate, and that any kind of decision or ideology motivated by this kind of feeling should be automatically redirected to
BTW: these are just my goofy opinions about the world. No scientific stuff or "facts" here, folks.
Just two examples: Nero K3B.
My point? You can't compare a clone with the real thing. Unless OSS apps start to really innovate instead of just being cheap knock-offs, you can't just ditch the proprietary side of software development.
Companies like Adaptec and Nero are the ones who created all the CD-Writing GUI abstraction that we recognise as "CD-Writing Software" today. So this kind of "we are better than everyone" attitude of yours is not valid. At all.
What's wrong with drilling a hole in the SVHS tape? Why is this guy damaging expensive hardware instead of hacking the tape?
And why the hell is he not using DVD-R for his digital video needs?
Real databases can corrupt data, of course. The last batch of transactions is the most vulnerable to corruption in case of server failure.
But, in a real database, it is not going to completely destroy the database as a whole, just the last pieces of data. Things will just keep working, you'll only be out of a small fraction (the last one) of your data.
About MS-SQL not being able to handle Wikimedia, you should first look at tpc.org before making false assumptions based on wishful toughts of your anti-MS zealotry dream. And you must not forget that they currently use MySQL, wich is inferior to MS-SQL in all possible characteristics.
The anti-trust law doesn't work like that. The government has not filed MS under a different company category, where they "can't do bad stuff". You have to break a specific law and then lose the final trial to be "convicted" of anything you have done. There is no such thing as this "eternal convict status" that you people apply to Microsoft.
When a company is convicted of anything, they can pay a fine or they can have some of their actions regulated (like EU did in the Media Player case) to fix the damages the company caused. Again, it is not an eternal condemnation. It's a court decision related to a specific issue of either the past or the present, to protect society in the future (and also to fix damages caused in the past). But it's still related (as in "you did it so you must pay for it") to the past or present time.
So it's not up to you to scream "convicted monopolist! convicted monopolist" every time they do something you don't like. They have to actually break a law or a regulation to be punished for their actions.
When they stop selling Windows copies in EU without Media Player removed, you can surely scream "convicted monopolist", but not when they have done something that is not forbidden by the law or by a court order.
And that's what
New Windows-only developments can just use Visual Studio Express, for free, to develop native-looking applications.
The website-provided description for your "Mac OS picture": "ObjectBar 0.3 Alpha, WindowBlinds 2.1, EuroCalculator and ColorPad running on this Mac OS 7 inspired desktop.".
For anyone curious about this issue, the subdomain "pcdesktops.emuunlim.com" is dedicated to WindowBlinds screenshot sections. The full URL to the screenshot is here.
Thank God they're not saying boxii. With the italic and stuff. =]