I would like to start by saying, Thank You.
There is an understanding in the archaic world of BBS's, NT 4, and all the rest of the "out-dated" communication and networking software, that if a system can be accessed it can be hacked.
Sys-Ops dealt with this as best they could by monitoring how their system was used personaly. Now, if it cannot be written into a script it does not happen. People who run high profile systems have been spoiled by the assumption that they can place the burden of security on an anti-virus prog. or late-breaking security update/patch.
The burden of security is on the people who run and use the software.
I agree. There comes a point when a programmer, or company, becomes responsible for the holes in their product.
I can understand that you can't write anything un-hackable, but come on. These piece of crap OS's by MicroSoft that we're seemingly forced to use are totaly worthless.
I just think that we need better product, not more laws to keep anyone from missuseing knowledge.
It is also widely known to the readers of many of those books that many times the code snipets do not work properly. Sure, I have based some of my work of examples in books, but by the time I was done there wasn't a single line of the original code left, because it didn't work as well as I needed it to. This, as I see it is worse than theft of textbook code could ever be. Linux, as everyone here should know, is based on average programmers sending in their code for recognition, and for that same orginization (or maybe I'm missinformed) to use code without giveing credit seems like a slap in the face to myself and everyone else who has supported the development of Linux.
I agree that Microsoft can set whatever price they want. However, from what I've seen so far (and I don't think it will change anytime soon) every time they come out with an 'upgrade' it's worse than the product before it.
Yes, I do have to admit that for the time being MSWindows is the best operating system out there that can be used for nearly everything and by nearly everyone, but I will not go as far as to say that just because it's newer that it is better.
I am running on a 400mhz system on windows 95, and have found no reason to upgrade in the seven years I've used it (95, not the 400mhz). The only system differance that I am aware of with newer versions is the more recent crashes and security holes.
Again this is just my oppinion, and I'm sure that most people don't agree, and MS hates me for not rushing out to buy something that there is no need for.
Slashdot Mirror
"They are very reliable. When you need them to perform in front of a camera, they do."
Does anyone else remeber one of the first public peeks at Win98. If memory serves it blue screened while Gates was talking about it...
I would like to start by saying, Thank You. There is an understanding in the archaic world of BBS's, NT 4, and all the rest of the "out-dated" communication and networking software, that if a system can be accessed it can be hacked. Sys-Ops dealt with this as best they could by monitoring how their system was used personaly. Now, if it cannot be written into a script it does not happen. People who run high profile systems have been spoiled by the assumption that they can place the burden of security on an anti-virus prog. or late-breaking security update/patch. The burden of security is on the people who run and use the software.
I can understand that you can't write anything un-hackable, but come on. These piece of crap OS's by MicroSoft that we're seemingly forced to use are totaly worthless.
I just think that we need better product, not more laws to keep anyone from missuseing knowledge.
It is also widely known to the readers of many of those books that many times the code snipets do not work properly. Sure, I have based some of my work of examples in books, but by the time I was done there wasn't a single line of the original code left, because it didn't work as well as I needed it to. This, as I see it is worse than theft of textbook code could ever be. Linux, as everyone here should know, is based on average programmers sending in their code for recognition, and for that same orginization (or maybe I'm missinformed) to use code without giveing credit seems like a slap in the face to myself and everyone else who has supported the development of Linux.
I agree that Microsoft can set whatever price they want. However, from what I've seen so far (and I don't think it will change anytime soon) every time they come out with an 'upgrade' it's worse than the product before it. Yes, I do have to admit that for the time being MSWindows is the best operating system out there that can be used for nearly everything and by nearly everyone, but I will not go as far as to say that just because it's newer that it is better. I am running on a 400mhz system on windows 95, and have found no reason to upgrade in the seven years I've used it (95, not the 400mhz). The only system differance that I am aware of with newer versions is the more recent crashes and security holes. Again this is just my oppinion, and I'm sure that most people don't agree, and MS hates me for not rushing out to buy something that there is no need for.
it had music?