Overrated? I think I must have angered a mod troll. I said nothing above that should have been taken as irrelevant to the "conversation". All I stated was a simple plan as to how you could succeed in providing software while satisfying your customers/users. Please don't mod down when you disagree. It's so... what's the word? Petty.
But you have made the fatal error of measuring success by the methodology used to amass profit. This is common. The correct approach is for every employee in a company to know and understand the technology that is being sold. It is also essential that lines of communication are kept open from the top all the way to the bottom regrading the product/project. Then at the top, decisions are made about how best to take the collective knowledge and the product/project and use it to make your customers/users happy. This typically involves primarily satisfying the needs of your users. If you do this, then the profits/user share will rise and you will be unstopable. If you focus soley on what makes money, you might succeed, but not without a lot of unhappy but locked in customers/users. When was the last time you heard someone say that Microsoft products actually make them happy and do what they want without any headaches? On the other hand, witness Mozilla's Firefox and how just being a decent program has grown user share quickly.
Am I precient or what? I just finished writing a gripe piece in my latest JE about how technologically challenged management is the cause of all technological flaws today. Check out my JEs and look for the "GRIPE" subject.
Microsoft and Intel are finally catching up to where DEC was back in 1992. DEC Alpha + OpenVMS = no such thing as a buffer overflow and 64 bit processing as well. Whatever happened to the future again?;P
That's pretty much my sentiment. I can secure any OS as long as I take the proper precautions, so OS doesn't really matter. It's 50% admin abilities and 50% target OS integrity.
The original thread last week was specifically addressing web servers. I argued that I could take a Windows server (even though I'm not an MS fan and don't trust their security) and secure it properly so that it would be just as secure as any other well implemented web server. The [ahem] "conversation" devolved into issues regarding desktops, etc... My main point still stands though. If you know what you're doing, you can put any OS online as a web server and have it be secure even if it is Windows/IIS.
Regarding any OS for desktop use, I would never put them directly online. They should be behind a hardware firewall of some kind as well as a local software firewall. With servers, I trust most *nixes to be able to handle directly on the internet connections more securely. For example, I've been using a Linux based firewall since 2001 with no problem. But it's highly customized and has NO external services running. No telnet, web, ssh, nothing. The only way to access it is via a serial console cable. That cable is plugged into another box that is on my network and that box is only accessible via a secure encrypted tunnel to specific IP addresses. I feel confident that this setup is just as secure as OpenBSD because there is little that anyone can do to get into the box. And in the even that they did, there is little they can do once they are on the box.
This is totally false. If there's a bug that's exploitable as a remote hole and a malicious fellow discovers it before you, even if you're the most competent sysadmin on earth, you're still screwed.
This is where I got with the troll. However, what you said is also false. If I set up a Windows box and do *everything possible* to secure it, then it can be 100% secure. The primary things I would do with a Windows box would be:
1. Patch it up to the latest SP/hotfix level 2. Turn off all unneeded services 3. Put it behind a decent firewall (dedicated hardware or a *nix firewall) 4. Make sure to set up auditing both within the OS and on the firewall that traffic passes through 5. External IDS, etc...
With a very few exceptions, there is nothing that can get past this kind of setup. Even if an exploit of, say, IIS happens but I only allow port 80 traffic in, then there is no way that an attacker can do much with that box. 100% secure by most non-paranoid definitions. By a paranoid definition, NO OS is secure. I don't trust OpenBSD 100% just because it has a secure track record. In fact I would say that I wouldn't trust an OpenBSD installation unless I completely recompiled everything from source myself. I don't trust software that is behind the latest version because older stuff tends to have holes in it no matter how much it's audited.
I was looking forward to The Humane Environment (THE). It looked rather promising. I'm sure it will continue development, but without the man who actually had a good grasp on UI technology and THE behind it, the development is likely to go the wrong way. Imagine what would have happened if Stallman's Emacs was given over to Bill Gates to manage. We'd have wound up with a really hard to use word processor the also does calendaring, web browsing, e-mail composition, and a whole host of other things + Clippy. Oh wait... Beyond this, it must really suck for his family since he is of far more signifigance to them than he will ever be even to people who think he was a UI genius (myself inluded).
...due to the heavy trolling I got last week regarding my comment that OS security and usability are 50% admin skill and 50% OS distributor integrity.
I'm learning more and more that OpenBSD definitely needs an admin that is more highly skilled admin than most Windows or Linux admins. I've definitely made progress in my implementing of OpenBSD, but I still say that my axiom holds true (see my SIG): With most OSes, if you have a competent admin, then you can have a secure system. OpenBSD might up the ante with oddball features to ensure security, but until those are implemented in other mainstream systems, they don't apply. Additionally, you really need to have very strong Unix skill to use OpenBSD, so it flies right in the face of my theory. Where most OSes would have the admin skills required at 50% competency, OpenBSD requires something more on the order of 80% competency in order to get a usable box.
This is exacty why I will NEVER look at MS code ever. The software patent problem aside, I want to be sure that anything I write will be free of legal and corporate entanglements. This is why I work for a non-profit organization as well. As I like to say:
1. Your computer (CPU, RAM, etc...) is the wood, nails and screws 2. The GNU tool chain (gcc, ld, make, etc...) are the hammer, saw and screwdrivers 3. YOUR OWN IDEAS and the resultant code are the blueprints
I don't see anyone hauling off DIY folks to court because they are making furniture, dog houses or modding their living spaces because their work resembles the work of a large corporation. If that ever happens, it's time to go to war againt an unjust government... Keep in mind, I'm always free to use my carpentry skills to make a coffee table for instance. In fact, I could even make it resemble one that I saw in an ad. As long as I'm not slapping my name or their name on it and selling it, I'm within my rights. As soon as they are suing me for using my own tools and supplies for my own personal use (even if that use is in the workplace), they are out of bounds.
...but I'm going to come right out and say I'm n ot a B5 fan. Give me any Star Trek movie over a B5 movie any day. That's not saying much as the last few Trek movies have been pretty bad. Hmmm... I wonder if there will be a Star Trek Voyager movie...;P
Were I work, we have an iPlanet (SunOne) Messaging server with support that costs us $15,000 a year no matter how little or how uch we use it. But, every time I've called, even though we're supposed to have four hour response, it's more like 24 hour response at best and can take up to a week sometimes before getting a response even with repeated calls. Once you finally do get to technical support, most of the time the answer is, "Oh. This is something that hasn't been fixed yet. It should be in a patch at some point in the future". For example, iPlanet Messaging server's web mail feature (Messenger Express) uses Javascript and some temp files in the browser's cache directory to perform certain functions. Well... we now have a problem where all of our Windows XP SP2 clients running IE can't use those functions due to security changes in IE. Sun said that we can override what MS has implemented, but MS's KB says, to NOT disable this feature as it's a pretty big hole. We chose to stay safe and not disable the feature which means our users cannot use certain major feature in web mail. Sun also said that there is a change that we can make to some Messenger code, but they don't recommend it as it will likeyl break our ability to upgrade to the next version of SunOne Messaging server. The final answer? Wait until we have a patch. That is apparently the safest thing to do, so our users are hosed now until that patch comes out. This has been happening since the advent of SP2. Not a patch in sight yet... So you call this good tech support? Because I sure don't. And all the other companies are the same.
Oracle support sucks ass because they make it very hard to set up a SEVERITY 1 issue unless you are on your production box. Well, what if an upgrade you are planning on your production box, relies on the upgrade that you are doing on your test box and it's crunch time? That's what happened to me. I had to open the case as less severe than I wanted. Once I went through a few phone calls and e-mail messages, and showed them that this problem existed on the production box, but relied on the outcome of our upgrade to the test box to resolve they finally upped it to SEVERITY 1. I was supposed to leave work at 5:00PM, but I didn't get a call back so I called repeatedly to find out that US support centers had closed! The support person said, "Yeah they're all closed for the day, wit for the to call you tomorrow". !!! WTF??!!! I lost it and told him that this had been bumped up to SEVERITY 1 and I was assured of a call within 30 minutes. He paused then said, "Oh... yeah. I see it here now. Yeah, someone will be calling you back in another 30 minutes or so". ANOTHER FUCKING 30 MINUTES!!!? I do finally get the call and wind up resolving the problem with tech support after only a 20 minute chat with a support person in Australia. If I would have gotten SEVERITY 1 at 3:00PM when I placed the call, I would have been done no later than 4:30PM. As it was, this "glorious" support with Oracle wound up keeping me at work until 8:00PM. That's not my idea of good support. I hate support which is why I try to avoid proprietary software whenever possible. The level of support I get from our paid contracts is never as good as the level of support I can get for free from the free/open source camp.
...now mostly in shuffle mode. The oddest thing I've noticed is that sometimes XMMS has a tendency to play two songs in a row by the same exact artist. What's more is that sometimes it will play a song by a particular band and the very next song will be a song from a solo project by a member of that band! But I don't think it has anything to do with XMMS.org setting up a "two play" feature or anything. I think it has more to do with how my music is filed and the algorithm that they use to randomize the music. For example, here's what happened today:
Track 1: Japan - Visions of China Track 2: David Sylvian (former vocalist for Japan) - Wave
Track 1: The Thompson Twins (TT) - We Are Detectives Track 2: Babble (New project by former TT members) - Just Like You
Track 1: Thomas Dolby - Airwaves Track 2: Ryuichi Sakamoto (feat T. Dolby) - Field Work
Track 1: Depeche Mode - Shake the Disease Track 2: Depeche Mode - Knocking on Death's Door (from a soundtrack that is unrelated to DM otherwise)
This happens all the time, but I still don't think it's XMMS doing anything intentional. Usually when this happens, I've loaded my 'all.m3u' playlist which contains all 7000+ songs I have stored on my server. The songs are all stored in artist folders first, and then albums within the artist folders. In total, I have about 346 artist folders. The only thing I can figure is that XMMS must use some kind of folder proximity algorithm which is succeptible to the way I've organized my music and therefore less random. Either that, or it's all quantum physics and my observation of the music quanta (ie. listening to the waves) is altering the other quanta through entanglement and I'm mental energy is shifting bits in my PC which cause XMMS to play "two fers" almost 80% of the time.;P
I think the main issue with what he's suggesting is that if the emulation/virtualization layer you are running Linux under doesn't have access to the device, it doesn't matter much that Windows does. Unless he's talking about a true API that would be the complete reverse of Wine (run Linux/*nix apps under Windows with complete access to all supported hardware), I don't see how this could work. Using Cygwin, I still have found limitations. You can't compile one of the Wireless (802.11a/b/g) applications for *nix under Cygwin and actually use it with a Windows driver supported wireless NIC. Or... you can't use an application that can communicate with SCSI under Linux in Cygwin. Or... you can't compile and run a 3D accelerated Linux app (game, etc...) under Cygwin and expect it to use the ATI or NVidia drivers you have installed in Windows. So MS would have to expend a great deal of resources to absorb *nix functionality into their OS that takes advantage fo their drivers. The flipside to all of this is that I think Windows has been getting more "Unixy" over time, but they just approach it from a different perspective (kind of a backwards one at times and visionary at others).
...we should be able to charge the advertisers for their use of our eyes. We own our eyes. They belong to us and any use of our eyes against our own wishes (ie, advertising free life) should be able to earn us money. After all, this is capitalist America where the dollar is all that counts!!! Let's start invoicing advertisers for the smount of times they use our eye's services. Right now... I'm not seeing any ads on/. thanks to my/etc/hosts file redirecting all ad servers to a web server on my intranet.:)
Before the advent of 3D acceleration and OpenGL, there was... 2D acceleration. X can, in fact provide 2D acceleration if there is a driver for your display adapter's chipset. Trust me, there is a HUGE difference between using a generic X driver one that is specific to your chipset and it has nothing to do with 3D. Stop being an idiot Mr. Troll.
ATI's 512 Megs of RAM makes no difference when compared to 256 Megs of RAM. NVidia's 512 Megs of RAM makes all the difference in the world to a Linux user like me. When you're dealing with a superior technology (Linux, NVidia, ALSA, etc...), hardware is always going to be the main factor. When you're dealing with inferior technology they are going to implement as much as they can in software (Hello ATI). Flame on dudes...
Have you verified that your display adapter ("video card" in lay terms) supports acceleration in X vs. Windows? If you're running with the VESA, SVGA or FB (framebuffer) X drivers, you will see some sluggish performance. On the other hand, if you have a well supported card that does acceleration, the performance in X can beat Windows on the same hardware.
The "slowness" of X has nothing to do with X, but it has to do with your choice of GUI that you put on top of it. (Remember kids: X is NOT a GUI) Also the "network" aspect of X is a non-issue for local display since X doesn't use the network to display local client applications. Shared Memory baby! The myth that running a local application will route the display over your network needs to die an ugly but quick death. It just isn't true.
Have you seen E17? It really looks great. I compiled and ran it on a PII dual CPU box and it ran nice and smoothly over SSH tunneled VNC!:) The only problem with it right now is that many major features are missing (it's devel so what can you expect?). You can't iconify apps yet, and there is no complete app panel to launch your apps with. But there are some beautiful animations in the WM and the basic dead panel that put it at the very least on par with Mac OS X.
Perhaps the inhabitants of that galaxy don't want us accessing their sensitive data and have employed a matter firewall? Meanwhile we're like sitting ducks in the universe...
And so is anyone that actually listens to FM radio anymore.;P Unless you are using a transmitter to broadcast your iPod to an FM reciever, but then that would be redundant, wouldn't it?;P;P
Laugh! It's funny!
ROR!!! LOL!!!111 President Bush Reads a Book!!!
on
Blink, Take 2
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
From the original review:
Similarly, an authority figure can dress and behave in a particular fashion to influence subordinates. Warren G. Harding made overwhelmingly positive first impressions throughout his political career, although he is considered by historians to be one of the worst American presidents. Despite his consistently lackluster performance, his attractive bearing and appearance camouflaged his shortcomings.
So tha[tt] explains how Bush pulls off his illusion. He must have read this book! I guess some of us must be impervious to the way he dresses and acts since I don't feel like he has made many positive moves.;P
Slashdot Mirror
So you like screwing other people over for your own benefit? Thanks, but I'll pass.
Yeah... but it's requirements were always lower than Windows. After all Emacs is a pretty nice OS. ;P
Could it be? Is John Gilmore "The Man who Japed"? ;P If you "get this" you are cool.
Overrated? I think I must have angered a mod troll. I said nothing above that should have been taken as irrelevant to the "conversation". All I stated was a simple plan as to how you could succeed in providing software while satisfying your customers/users. Please don't mod down when you disagree. It's so... what's the word? Petty.
But you have made the fatal error of measuring success by the methodology used to amass profit. This is common. The correct approach is for every employee in a company to know and understand the technology that is being sold. It is also essential that lines of communication are kept open from the top all the way to the bottom regrading the product/project. Then at the top, decisions are made about how best to take the collective knowledge and the product/project and use it to make your customers/users happy. This typically involves primarily satisfying the needs of your users. If you do this, then the profits/user share will rise and you will be unstopable. If you focus soley on what makes money, you might succeed, but not without a lot of unhappy but locked in customers/users. When was the last time you heard someone say that Microsoft products actually make them happy and do what they want without any headaches? On the other hand, witness Mozilla's Firefox and how just being a decent program has grown user share quickly.
Am I precient or what? I just finished writing a gripe piece in my latest JE about how technologically challenged management is the cause of all technological flaws today. Check out my JEs and look for the "GRIPE" subject.
Microsoft and Intel are finally catching up to where DEC was back in 1992. DEC Alpha + OpenVMS = no such thing as a buffer overflow and 64 bit processing as well. Whatever happened to the future again? ;P
That's pretty much my sentiment. I can secure any OS as long as I take the proper precautions, so OS doesn't really matter. It's 50% admin abilities and 50% target OS integrity.
The original thread last week was specifically addressing web servers. I argued that I could take a Windows server (even though I'm not an MS fan and don't trust their security) and secure it properly so that it would be just as secure as any other well implemented web server. The [ahem] "conversation" devolved into issues regarding desktops, etc... My main point still stands though. If you know what you're doing, you can put any OS online as a web server and have it be secure even if it is Windows/IIS.
Regarding any OS for desktop use, I would never put them directly online. They should be behind a hardware firewall of some kind as well as a local software firewall. With servers, I trust most *nixes to be able to handle directly on the internet connections more securely. For example, I've been using a Linux based firewall since 2001 with no problem. But it's highly customized and has NO external services running. No telnet, web, ssh, nothing. The only way to access it is via a serial console cable. That cable is plugged into another box that is on my network and that box is only accessible via a secure encrypted tunnel to specific IP addresses. I feel confident that this setup is just as secure as OpenBSD because there is little that anyone can do to get into the box. And in the even that they did, there is little they can do once they are on the box.
This is where I got with the troll. However, what you said is also false. If I set up a Windows box and do *everything possible* to secure it, then it can be 100% secure. The primary things I would do with a Windows box would be:
1. Patch it up to the latest SP/hotfix level
2. Turn off all unneeded services
3. Put it behind a decent firewall (dedicated hardware or a *nix firewall)
4. Make sure to set up auditing both within the OS and on the firewall that traffic passes through
5. External IDS, etc...
With a very few exceptions, there is nothing that can get past this kind of setup. Even if an exploit of, say, IIS happens but I only allow port 80 traffic in, then there is no way that an attacker can do much with that box. 100% secure by most non-paranoid definitions. By a paranoid definition, NO OS is secure. I don't trust OpenBSD 100% just because it has a secure track record. In fact I would say that I wouldn't trust an OpenBSD installation unless I completely recompiled everything from source myself. I don't trust software that is behind the latest version because older stuff tends to have holes in it no matter how much it's audited.
I was looking forward to The Humane Environment (THE). It looked rather promising. I'm sure it will continue development, but without the man who actually had a good grasp on UI technology and THE behind it, the development is likely to go the wrong way. Imagine what would have happened if Stallman's Emacs was given over to Bill Gates to manage. We'd have wound up with a really hard to use word processor the also does calendaring, web browsing, e-mail composition, and a whole host of other things + Clippy. Oh wait... Beyond this, it must really suck for his family since he is of far more signifigance to them than he will ever be even to people who think he was a UI genius (myself inluded).
...due to the heavy trolling I got last week regarding my comment that OS security and usability are 50% admin skill and 50% OS distributor integrity.
I'm learning more and more that OpenBSD definitely needs an admin that is more highly skilled admin than most Windows or Linux admins. I've definitely made progress in my implementing of OpenBSD, but I still say that my axiom holds true (see my SIG): With most OSes, if you have a competent admin, then you can have a secure system. OpenBSD might up the ante with oddball features to ensure security, but until those are implemented in other mainstream systems, they don't apply. Additionally, you really need to have very strong Unix skill to use OpenBSD, so it flies right in the face of my theory. Where most OSes would have the admin skills required at 50% competency, OpenBSD requires something more on the order of 80% competency in order to get a usable box.
This is exacty why I will NEVER look at MS code ever. The software patent problem aside, I want to be sure that anything I write will be free of legal and corporate entanglements. This is why I work for a non-profit organization as well. As I like to say:
1. Your computer (CPU, RAM, etc...) is the wood, nails and screws
2. The GNU tool chain (gcc, ld, make, etc...) are the hammer, saw and screwdrivers
3. YOUR OWN IDEAS and the resultant code are the blueprints
I don't see anyone hauling off DIY folks to court because they are making furniture, dog houses or modding their living spaces because their work resembles the work of a large corporation. If that ever happens, it's time to go to war againt an unjust government... Keep in mind, I'm always free to use my carpentry skills to make a coffee table for instance. In fact, I could even make it resemble one that I saw in an ad. As long as I'm not slapping my name or their name on it and selling it, I'm within my rights. As soon as they are suing me for using my own tools and supplies for my own personal use (even if that use is in the workplace), they are out of bounds.
...but I'm going to come right out and say I'm n ot a B5 fan. Give me any Star Trek movie over a B5 movie any day. That's not saying much as the last few Trek movies have been pretty bad. Hmmm... I wonder if there will be a Star Trek Voyager movie... ;P
Were I work, we have an iPlanet (SunOne) Messaging server with support that costs us $15,000 a year no matter how little or how uch we use it. But, every time I've called, even though we're supposed to have four hour response, it's more like 24 hour response at best and can take up to a week sometimes before getting a response even with repeated calls. Once you finally do get to technical support, most of the time the answer is, "Oh. This is something that hasn't been fixed yet. It should be in a patch at some point in the future". For example, iPlanet Messaging server's web mail feature (Messenger Express) uses Javascript and some temp files in the browser's cache directory to perform certain functions. Well... we now have a problem where all of our Windows XP SP2 clients running IE can't use those functions due to security changes in IE. Sun said that we can override what MS has implemented, but MS's KB says, to NOT disable this feature as it's a pretty big hole. We chose to stay safe and not disable the feature which means our users cannot use certain major feature in web mail. Sun also said that there is a change that we can make to some Messenger code, but they don't recommend it as it will likeyl break our ability to upgrade to the next version of SunOne Messaging server. The final answer? Wait until we have a patch. That is apparently the safest thing to do, so our users are hosed now until that patch comes out. This has been happening since the advent of SP2. Not a patch in sight yet... So you call this good tech support? Because I sure don't. And all the other companies are the same.
Oracle support sucks ass because they make it very hard to set up a SEVERITY 1 issue unless you are on your production box. Well, what if an upgrade you are planning on your production box, relies on the upgrade that you are doing on your test box and it's crunch time? That's what happened to me. I had to open the case as less severe than I wanted. Once I went through a few phone calls and e-mail messages, and showed them that this problem existed on the production box, but relied on the outcome of our upgrade to the test box to resolve they finally upped it to SEVERITY 1. I was supposed to leave work at 5:00PM, but I didn't get a call back so I called repeatedly to find out that US support centers had closed! The support person said, "Yeah they're all closed for the day, wit for the to call you tomorrow". !!! WTF??!!! I lost it and told him that this had been bumped up to SEVERITY 1 and I was assured of a call within 30 minutes. He paused then said, "Oh... yeah. I see it here now. Yeah, someone will be calling you back in another 30 minutes or so". ANOTHER FUCKING 30 MINUTES!!!? I do finally get the call and wind up resolving the problem with tech support after only a 20 minute chat with a support person in Australia. If I would have gotten SEVERITY 1 at 3:00PM when I placed the call, I would have been done no later than 4:30PM. As it was, this "glorious" support with Oracle wound up keeping me at work until 8:00PM. That's not my idea of good support. I hate support which is why I try to avoid proprietary software whenever possible. The level of support I get from our paid contracts is never as good as the level of support I can get for free from the free/open source camp.
...now mostly in shuffle mode. The oddest thing I've noticed is that sometimes XMMS has a tendency to play two songs in a row by the same exact artist. What's more is that sometimes it will play a song by a particular band and the very next song will be a song from a solo project by a member of that band! But I don't think it has anything to do with XMMS.org setting up a "two play" feature or anything. I think it has more to do with how my music is filed and the algorithm that they use to randomize the music. For example, here's what happened today:
;P
Track 1: Japan - Visions of China
Track 2: David Sylvian (former vocalist for Japan) - Wave
Track 1: The Thompson Twins (TT) - We Are Detectives
Track 2: Babble (New project by former TT members) - Just Like You
Track 1: Thomas Dolby - Airwaves
Track 2: Ryuichi Sakamoto (feat T. Dolby) - Field Work
Track 1: Depeche Mode - Shake the Disease
Track 2: Depeche Mode - Knocking on Death's Door (from a soundtrack that is unrelated to DM otherwise)
This happens all the time, but I still don't think it's XMMS doing anything intentional. Usually when this happens, I've loaded my 'all.m3u' playlist which contains all 7000+ songs I have stored on my server. The songs are all stored in artist folders first, and then albums within the artist folders. In total, I have about 346 artist folders. The only thing I can figure is that XMMS must use some kind of folder proximity algorithm which is succeptible to the way I've organized my music and therefore less random. Either that, or it's all quantum physics and my observation of the music quanta (ie. listening to the waves) is altering the other quanta through entanglement and I'm mental energy is shifting bits in my PC which cause XMMS to play "two fers" almost 80% of the time.
I think the main issue with what he's suggesting is that if the emulation/virtualization layer you are running Linux under doesn't have access to the device, it doesn't matter much that Windows does. Unless he's talking about a true API that would be the complete reverse of Wine (run Linux/*nix apps under Windows with complete access to all supported hardware), I don't see how this could work. Using Cygwin, I still have found limitations. You can't compile one of the Wireless (802.11a/b/g) applications for *nix under Cygwin and actually use it with a Windows driver supported wireless NIC. Or... you can't use an application that can communicate with SCSI under Linux in Cygwin. Or... you can't compile and run a 3D accelerated Linux app (game, etc...) under Cygwin and expect it to use the ATI or NVidia drivers you have installed in Windows. So MS would have to expend a great deal of resources to absorb *nix functionality into their OS that takes advantage fo their drivers. The flipside to all of this is that I think Windows has been getting more "Unixy" over time, but they just approach it from a different perspective (kind of a backwards one at times and visionary at others).
...we should be able to charge the advertisers for their use of our eyes. We own our eyes. They belong to us and any use of our eyes against our own wishes (ie, advertising free life) should be able to earn us money. After all, this is capitalist America where the dollar is all that counts!!! Let's start invoicing advertisers for the smount of times they use our eye's services. Right now... I'm not seeing any ads on /. thanks to my /etc/hosts file redirecting all ad servers to a web server on my intranet. :)
Before the advent of 3D acceleration and OpenGL, there was... 2D acceleration. X can, in fact provide 2D acceleration if there is a driver for your display adapter's chipset. Trust me, there is a HUGE difference between using a generic X driver one that is specific to your chipset and it has nothing to do with 3D. Stop being an idiot Mr. Troll.
ATI's 512 Megs of RAM makes no difference when compared to 256 Megs of RAM. NVidia's 512 Megs of RAM makes all the difference in the world to a Linux user like me. When you're dealing with a superior technology (Linux, NVidia, ALSA, etc...), hardware is always going to be the main factor. When you're dealing with inferior technology they are going to implement as much as they can in software (Hello ATI). Flame on dudes...
Have you verified that your display adapter ("video card" in lay terms) supports acceleration in X vs. Windows? If you're running with the VESA, SVGA or FB (framebuffer) X drivers, you will see some sluggish performance. On the other hand, if you have a well supported card that does acceleration, the performance in X can beat Windows on the same hardware.
The "slowness" of X has nothing to do with X, but it has to do with your choice of GUI that you put on top of it. (Remember kids: X is NOT a GUI) Also the "network" aspect of X is a non-issue for local display since X doesn't use the network to display local client applications. Shared Memory baby! The myth that running a local application will route the display over your network needs to die an ugly but quick death. It just isn't true.
Have you seen E17? It really looks great. I compiled and ran it on a PII dual CPU box and it ran nice and smoothly over SSH tunneled VNC! :) The only problem with it right now is that many major features are missing (it's devel so what can you expect?). You can't iconify apps yet, and there is no complete app panel to launch your apps with. But there are some beautiful animations in the WM and the basic dead panel that put it at the very least on par with Mac OS X.
Perhaps the inhabitants of that galaxy don't want us accessing their sensitive data and have employed a matter firewall? Meanwhile we're like sitting ducks in the universe...
And so is anyone that actually listens to FM radio anymore. ;P Unless you are using a transmitter to broadcast your iPod to an FM reciever, but then that would be redundant, wouldn't it? ;P ;P
Laugh! It's funny!
Similarly, an authority figure can dress and behave in a particular fashion to influence subordinates. Warren G. Harding made overwhelmingly positive first impressions throughout his political career, although he is considered by historians to be one of the worst American presidents. Despite his consistently lackluster performance, his attractive bearing and appearance camouflaged his shortcomings.
So tha[tt] explains how Bush pulls off his illusion. He must have read this book! I guess some of us must be impervious to the way he dresses and acts since I don't feel like he has made many positive moves. ;P