Just though I'd chip in and say that, for my money, k3b is the best fronted for a CD-burning program on any platform (Linux, WinXX, Mac). I love how the new version (0.7.5) integrates with KDE's contextual menus to let you burn a file or folder on a CD by right-clicking on it...The UI of the program proper is intuitive, pretty (penguins by Ayo) and comprehensive without being confusing. A very nice program indeed.
Sorry for the shameless (but still on-topic) intermission.
Mod the parent up. The only thing I can add is, I feel both secure and worried of living in Canada right now. Secure because, despite the fact that our constitution sometimes lack with regards to yours, at least are civil liberties and basic rights are not as heavily threatened here as they are in the States. Worried because, being next door to the superpower and being part the North America, the U.S. can pressure our country into taking similar measures - I wouldn't be surprised if Ottawa followed suit on the WiFi thing. This is unacceptable. I hope you guys wake up before 2004 and reclaim that government of yours, at least a little, before 1984 stops being a subtle, 20-year late metaphor.
Well, all the more reason for me wanting Quebec to separate and join the European Union!;-)
Actually, Quicktime movies can be played native by the new version of MPlayer...I figure it will be included in the next distros or so (with perhaps a dowload for the codecs - I'm not sure on the legal details about their distribution). Xine can already play Quicktime movies, just not those who use the Sorenson codec.
After doing a little research, it seems that the study was indeed commissioned by MS...the more the reason to doubt its objectivity (see the second paragraph in this Infoworld story. Meanwhile, you might want to look at another study - probably no more objective (but no less either) since it was commissioned by IBM. Still, the numbers are interesting: TCO for Linux comes at about half that of Windows. Seems a Linux adminstrator can handle 4 times as more servers as an MSCE, which accounts for most of the difference (even though the Linux admin is paid more).
You're totally right. I will read it, and then I'll discredit it!;-) Seriously, I will read it - I'm just surprised that the IDC would disagree on MS on that point (in their recent leaked memo, MS admitted that the TCO was was their Achilles' heel, and the area where they would have to put the most "communication" efforts.
I just found out about this last night, too! I haven't been a moderator for very long, and it didn't occur to me that you couldn't moderate threads in which you participated. Makes sense, though. That said, I agree with your (now obliterated) moderation!
They found that companies that use Linux tend to spend more on IT staff than companies that use Windows.
Well, right away you can tell that the study is flawed: it could only be that companies that use Linux are more IT-oriented that those who don't, i.e. have higher IT needs. The only thing that this study seems to prove is that companies that use Linux have bigger IT staffs - to deduce that therefore Linux has a TCO is to take a leap of faith, as nothing proves that if those same companies switched to Windows they would actually have smaller IT staffs...perhaps they would need even bigger IT staffs!
The only valid study would be to check companies who switched from Windows to Linux (and vice versa) and compare the size of their IT staff (assuming that their IT needs haven't changed substantially). Another good yardstick would be to compare the ratio of IT staff employees to the number of servers and workstation managed, as I've heard from a few knowledgable sysadmins that it takes less IT people to manage a Linux network than a Windows network of similar size...What I know for sure is that the only server at our job that has yet to crash this year is the Linux mail server - while all the other Windows server have failed at one time or another.
Well, of course I'm right, and they're wrong! What other explanation is there?
Seriously, I'm not totally convinced of IDC's methodology. Of course, if people are used to using Windows, an unfamiliar environment will seem more "complex." Now, if they were to take complete computer Newbies and sit them down of both Windows and Linux (a newbie-friendly Distro, such as Mandrake, Lycoris, or even OEone) and give them a few simple tasks to accomplish, then we could have a true indication of the OSes complexities. My guess is that they'd come up pretty much equal.
I also believe, but I could be mistaken, that the IDC study didn't take into account the last versions of Mandrake and Red Hat, nor did it look at "windows-friendly" distros such as Lycoris, Lindows or Xandros.
Now, perhaps you should consider trusting your own opinions. What I said is from personal experience: I find Mandrake 9.0 as easy to use and setup as Windows. If I understand you well, you're saying that you need someone else to tell you what to think? No wonder you find Linux complicated...
Well, switch to Mandrake, then! Seriously, I'm pretty sure there's a similar way to do it in RedHat...and as for using FVWM95, that certainly wasn't the default Window Manager. So of course, if you don't follow defaults, then you're going to find that Linux is more complicated than Windows...
So, let me rephrase what I said: Mandrake Linux is as easy (if not easier) to use and administer than Windows. The point is, there is a learning curve when installing a new OS. Things are different, but that doesn't mean that it's "more difficult".
Gee, I wouldn't know, my installer did it automatically...
If not, I just select K menu --> Configuration --> Mandrake Control Center and then click on the pretty widgets in the Network section. Or, alternately, type "draknet" on the command line (its faster).
People who criticize Linux for its difficulty obviously havent looked at one of the main distros in a while. Linux is now as easy (if not easier, considering there's less reboots) as Windows to set up and use. Different, perhaps, but as easy.
I wouldn't be surprised if this story was another MS fabrication...
Knowing MS, the would. Or, rather, knowing some Linux zealots, the case would be made that for Microsoft, based on past practices, any two pieces of software on the same CD and distributed under the same license can be assumed to be parts of the same OS.
I don't think they'd succeed in making that case unless GPL'd code found itself inside actual Windows components. Even then, only those components would be GPL'd. Even though Windows looks like a monolithic monster, it is like other OSes under the hood, i.e. made up of components that work together but are separate. The GPL allows for coexistence with proprietary software, as long as they're not integrated togeter - that's why there's a warning when a non-GPL module (such as NVIDIA's driver) is loaded into the GPL kernel. At this point they become integrated and it "taints" the kernel. Anyway, all of this is pure speculation, so it's kind of pointless. But fun!:-)
I'm currently looking for a good secondary OS, to wean myself away from Windows. Linux isn't quite there yet (OO isn't quite up to snuff--and from what little I saw of it, kOffice is neither), but as soon as I boot into Linux & burn a CD, I'll give Be a try.
Well, I know this is going to sound bad after bitching against MS (I'm not above a few contradictions myself!), but have you though about using MS Office 2000 with Linux? With Codeweaver's Crossover, it works as well as it does in Windows...Open Office is pretty good, but it loads slow. Koffice still has the MS Office compatibility issue to solve, however. For burning CDs in Linux, I recommend the excellent k3b - it's one of the best CD-burning software around, for any OS. Period.
Yeah, Be was pretty cool (even though, when I tried it, it wouldn't recognize my ethernet card, which I thought was kind of weird). But, in another twisted testimony to the GPL's strength, Be failed because it was a proprietary OS, and therefore its fate was tied to that of the company who owned it, who could go under - unlike "free" OSes, who can survive any of its distributors' bankrupcies! But I hear there are efforts to revive Be from its ashes - I hope they succeed, as we need more good OSes to promote diversity and a healthy competition of feature and performance.
Wrong. If MS were to make cygwin part of windows, thus using GPL'd code, the FSF could (and very well might) take them to court and force compliance with the terms of the GPL--anyone who got a copy of that version of windows would get the source code to _the entire product._
Not true, at least not true if they were to bundle Cygwin along with Windows (which they would never do, seeing as it would be an admission that open-source software was actually worth the trouble), even if it was on the same CD-ROM. They would only have to distribute the source code for Cygwin, and they wouldn't be able to prevent anyone from redistributing that code or the binaries derived from it. However, it would not "contaminate" the rest of the programs (including the OS) it was bundled with. That's the GPL.
Now if MS was to integrate Cygwin inside Windows, so that it was an integral part of it, then Windows would become GPL'd.
Now, all that said--I personally can't stand the "root" structure of Linux/UNIX/wherever the hell it came from.[...]Forcing "mount points" and a superuser named "root" just make things more complex than necessary
Well, I disagree. That complexity is entirely transparent to the end user with modern distros, but it's actually quite elegant once you get it. I have grown to love the structure of the Unix filesystem, despite the initial puzzlement you get coming from MS space.
Anyway, we're not going to agree on this since you have an obvious anti-Linux bias, but just to come back on something you said earlier, all the Linux users I know are not switching over, because they don't want to buy expensive proprietary hardware (that's not always well-engineered...remember the cube?). And some are not sysadmins...like me: I'm mostly a desktop user, and I can tell you that with the latest KDE incarnations, Linux is ready for the desktop. I haven't ruled out buying a Mac OS X boxen in the future, however, that wouldn't be "switching" but just an addition to my multi-OS home network. I agree with the philosophy of free software, and the fact that it now rivals proprietary software is testimony to the power of that ideal. At the same time, I respect those who choose a different license and will not refrain from using their software.
Let's all try to get along...I'm personally getting tired of those condescending OS X users who look down on Linux despite the great progress it has made, and is still making at a breakneck pace (fortunately, they're a minority). Instead, we should all stand united as Unix or at least alternate OS users. If the enemy is the Monopoly, then the goal is Diversity. That includes Linux, the BSDs, OS X, BeOS (if it can get back from the dead), commerical Unices, and even Windows, as long as its market share drops below 50%...
Are you sure it's not the compiler? I have had the same problem with VMWare, but I have a feeling it's not the kernel that's at fault, but rather gcc 3.X (which they say is not supported). Not that I really care, now that Codeweaver's Crossover runs Office and Quicken, I don't use VMWare anymore.
Funny, last time I installed a Windows Service Pack it did not upgrade MS Office nor Photoshop...Upgrading a kernel won't break apps, though you might need to recompile/reinstall certain "module" drivers (NVIDA for example). For an "avid" supporter of Linux, you don't seem very balanced or accurate in your critique of the system. Odd. Of course, you could also be a MS plant trying to sow discord among the faithful...I'm sure there are quite a few around here. Hey, if I had billions to spare I'd sure hire a few people to spread FUD on the web sites associated with the "competition."
Actually, there was a Lagaffe film...man did it suck! Maybe out of some copyright issues, the characters didn't have their real name (Gaston himself was renamed "G.").
As you can see from the IMDB page, it didn't have that much of an impact...
Re:The Sims Online + some form of Sim CIty
on
Virtual Simerica
·
· Score: 2
Whenever I used to see a pop-up ad, I was so annoyed that I actually made a point of not buying this product, and sometimes even went as far as to discourage those around me not to buy this product.
Ever since I've been using a browser that block pop-up ads, I have probably been a better customer. Your product will once again cause misguided advertisers to lose my business. I'll make sure to point this out to any web site I come across that uses your product.
Banner ads are the most that 95% of Web users will accept. Anything that "pops up" is found annoying by the great majority of Web users. The negative reinforcement can only be detrimental to business - you're only hurting those you want to help.
Also consider that, if you keep wantonly calling people like me thieves, you're liable to get sued for libel.
I don't know about you guys, but I'm going to write them an e-mail saying that, when I see a pop-up, I am so annoyed that I actually make a point of not buying the product. Therefore, they are actually hurting sales (as far as I'm concerned) by forcing me to see those pop-ups. I'll also make sure to resend this letter to any web site dumb enough to use their product (and I'll tell them that, too!)
Oh, BTW, I did skim through the link you provided. However, it seemed to me to have gone through a couple of PR filters before being marked "approved for publication". Of COURSE it's going to be favorable towards Microsoft - it's posted on their site for that very purpose. You are either very naive or a paid MS shill.
I use both Linux and Win2K every day. Every single day (well, no Win2K during the weekends). Do you? Tell me after that who's the better judge as to which is more stable under normal, day-to-day conditions...
Funny, you didn't answer my questions...are you so brainwashed by Bill Gates that you won't consider for a second that FreeBSD might be more stable and efficient than Win2K?
In this document you'll find how untrue so much of what was written in the stolen document. No scripting support in windows 2000 because it also includes a GUI? Are you fucking stupid or what?
If there is "so much" that is untrue in the document, then why do you give a SINGLE (debatable) example? Wouldn't your point have been better served by providing other examples of what is "untrue" in it?
They moved because Windows 2000 was faster and more efficient. It is obviously stable as any honest person running W2K/XP can tell you.
Faster and more efficient than FreeBSD? For a server? I don't know about this one, but on the NetCraft surveys all I see are *BSD OSes (with the occasionnal OS X), but I've never seen a single W2K system. Now why would that be, if they are more stable, faster and efficient than FreeBSD? Wishing it so doesn't make it so...
It's not MS bashing, it's warning people of a dangerous bug/vulnerability so they can be better prepared to deal with it.
Despite, what's wrong with bashing a 40-billion quasi-monopoly that dominates the OS and Office markets while doing its best to destroy the competition by spreading FUD and distributing payolas around? Vocal criticism and boycotting are the sole weapons of consumers in facing this juggernaut, and you'd want us to forfeit these as well? Are you a MS employee or shareholder? If not, then why does MS-bashing annoy you so much? In my view, MS has more than deserved all the bashing it can get!
It's not about anger, it's about vigilance and fairness. I may run Linux, but - like many here I imagine - I'm also the de facto Windows Support guy for family members and non-technical friends. So I want/need to stay informed of severe Microsoft vulnerabilities.
To tell you the truth, it's been a while since I've no longer needed stories such as these to convince me that Linux is more secure than Windows...there's no "anger" left (I don't thing there ever was - outrage and disdain, yes, but no anger), just a desire to be informed so that I can better protect my windows-using loved ones...
Slashdot Mirror
Just though I'd chip in and say that, for my money, k3b is the best fronted for a CD-burning program on any platform (Linux, WinXX, Mac). I love how the new version (0.7.5) integrates with KDE's contextual menus to let you burn a file or folder on a CD by right-clicking on it...The UI of the program proper is intuitive, pretty (penguins by Ayo) and comprehensive without being confusing. A very nice program indeed.
Sorry for the shameless (but still on-topic) intermission.
It's because of people like him who copy DVDs that the prices for media are on the rise in practically every country on Earth.
They are? Funny, I though they were going down...
Mod the parent up. The only thing I can add is, I feel both secure and worried of living in Canada right now. Secure because, despite the fact that our constitution sometimes lack with regards to yours, at least are civil liberties and basic rights are not as heavily threatened here as they are in the States. Worried because, being next door to the superpower and being part the North America, the U.S. can pressure our country into taking similar measures - I wouldn't be surprised if Ottawa followed suit on the WiFi thing. This is unacceptable. I hope you guys wake up before 2004 and reclaim that government of yours, at least a little, before 1984 stops being a subtle, 20-year late metaphor.
;-)
Well, all the more reason for me wanting Quebec to separate and join the European Union!
Actually, Quicktime movies can be played native by the new version of MPlayer...I figure it will be included in the next distros or so (with perhaps a dowload for the codecs - I'm not sure on the legal details about their distribution). Xine can already play Quicktime movies, just not those who use the Sorenson codec.
After doing a little research, it seems that the study was indeed commissioned by MS...the more the reason to doubt its objectivity (see the second paragraph in this Infoworld story. Meanwhile, you might want to look at another study - probably no more objective (but no less either) since it was commissioned by IBM. Still, the numbers are interesting: TCO for Linux comes at about half that of Windows. Seems a Linux adminstrator can handle 4 times as more servers as an MSCE, which accounts for most of the difference (even though the Linux admin is paid more).
You're totally right. I will read it, and then I'll discredit it! ;-) Seriously, I will read it - I'm just surprised that the IDC would disagree on MS on that point (in their recent leaked memo, MS admitted that the TCO was was their Achilles' heel, and the area where they would have to put the most "communication" efforts.
Peace.
I just found out about this last night, too! I haven't been a moderator for very long, and it didn't occur to me that you couldn't moderate threads in which you participated. Makes sense, though. That said, I agree with your (now obliterated) moderation!
They found that companies that use Linux tend to spend more on IT staff than companies that use Windows.
Well, right away you can tell that the study is flawed: it could only be that companies that use Linux are more IT-oriented that those who don't, i.e. have higher IT needs. The only thing that this study seems to prove is that companies that use Linux have bigger IT staffs - to deduce that therefore Linux has a TCO is to take a leap of faith, as nothing proves that if those same companies switched to Windows they would actually have smaller IT staffs...perhaps they would need even bigger IT staffs!
The only valid study would be to check companies who switched from Windows to Linux (and vice versa) and compare the size of their IT staff (assuming that their IT needs haven't changed substantially). Another good yardstick would be to compare the ratio of IT staff employees to the number of servers and workstation managed, as I've heard from a few knowledgable sysadmins that it takes less IT people to manage a Linux network than a Windows network of similar size...What I know for sure is that the only server at our job that has yet to crash this year is the Linux mail server - while all the other Windows server have failed at one time or another.
Well, of course I'm right, and they're wrong! What other explanation is there?
Seriously, I'm not totally convinced of IDC's methodology. Of course, if people are used to using Windows, an unfamiliar environment will seem more "complex." Now, if they were to take complete computer Newbies and sit them down of both Windows and Linux (a newbie-friendly Distro, such as Mandrake, Lycoris, or even OEone) and give them a few simple tasks to accomplish, then we could have a true indication of the OSes complexities. My guess is that they'd come up pretty much equal.
I also believe, but I could be mistaken, that the IDC study didn't take into account the last versions of Mandrake and Red Hat, nor did it look at "windows-friendly" distros such as Lycoris, Lindows or Xandros.
Now, perhaps you should consider trusting your own opinions. What I said is from personal experience: I find Mandrake 9.0 as easy to use and setup as Windows. If I understand you well, you're saying that you need someone else to tell you what to think? No wonder you find Linux complicated...
Well, switch to Mandrake, then! Seriously, I'm pretty sure there's a similar way to do it in RedHat...and as for using FVWM95, that certainly wasn't the default Window Manager. So of course, if you don't follow defaults, then you're going to find that Linux is more complicated than Windows...
So, let me rephrase what I said: Mandrake Linux is as easy (if not easier) to use and administer than Windows. The point is, there is a learning curve when installing a new OS. Things are different, but that doesn't mean that it's "more difficult".
And, by posting this comment, you voided any moderation you might have done to other comments for this story...
Gee, I wouldn't know, my installer did it automatically...
If not, I just select K menu --> Configuration --> Mandrake Control Center and then click on the pretty widgets in the Network section. Or, alternately, type "draknet" on the command line (its faster).
People who criticize Linux for its difficulty obviously havent looked at one of the main distros in a while. Linux is now as easy (if not easier, considering there's less reboots) as Windows to set up and use. Different, perhaps, but as easy.
I wouldn't be surprised if this story was another MS fabrication...
Knowing MS, the would. Or, rather, knowing some Linux zealots, the case would be made that for Microsoft, based on past practices, any two pieces of software on the same CD and distributed under the same license can be assumed to be parts of the same OS.
:-)
I don't think they'd succeed in making that case unless GPL'd code found itself inside actual Windows components. Even then, only those components would be GPL'd. Even though Windows looks like a monolithic monster, it is like other OSes under the hood, i.e. made up of components that work together but are separate. The GPL allows for coexistence with proprietary software, as long as they're not integrated togeter - that's why there's a warning when a non-GPL module (such as NVIDIA's driver) is loaded into the GPL kernel. At this point they become integrated and it "taints" the kernel. Anyway, all of this is pure speculation, so it's kind of pointless. But fun!
I'm currently looking for a good secondary OS, to wean myself away from Windows. Linux isn't quite there yet (OO isn't quite up to snuff--and from what little I saw of it, kOffice is neither), but as soon as I boot into Linux & burn a CD, I'll give Be a try.
Well, I know this is going to sound bad after bitching against MS (I'm not above a few contradictions myself!), but have you though about using MS Office 2000 with Linux? With Codeweaver's Crossover, it works as well as it does in Windows...Open Office is pretty good, but it loads slow. Koffice still has the MS Office compatibility issue to solve, however. For burning CDs in Linux, I recommend the excellent k3b - it's one of the best CD-burning software around, for any OS. Period.
Yeah, Be was pretty cool (even though, when I tried it, it wouldn't recognize my ethernet card, which I thought was kind of weird). But, in another twisted testimony to the GPL's strength, Be failed because it was a proprietary OS, and therefore its fate was tied to that of the company who owned it, who could go under - unlike "free" OSes, who can survive any of its distributors' bankrupcies! But I hear there are efforts to revive Be from its ashes - I hope they succeed, as we need more good OSes to promote diversity and a healthy competition of feature and performance.
Peace!
Wrong. If MS were to make cygwin part of windows, thus using GPL'd code, the FSF could (and very well might) take them to court and force compliance with the terms of the GPL--anyone who got a copy of that version of windows would get the source code to _the entire product._
Not true, at least not true if they were to bundle Cygwin along with Windows (which they would never do, seeing as it would be an admission that open-source software was actually worth the trouble), even if it was on the same CD-ROM. They would only have to distribute the source code for Cygwin, and they wouldn't be able to prevent anyone from redistributing that code or the binaries derived from it. However, it would not "contaminate" the rest of the programs (including the OS) it was bundled with. That's the GPL.
Now if MS was to integrate Cygwin inside Windows, so that it was an integral part of it, then Windows would become GPL'd.
Now, all that said--I personally can't stand the "root" structure of Linux/UNIX/wherever the hell it came from.[...]Forcing "mount points" and a superuser named "root" just make things more complex than necessary
Well, I disagree. That complexity is entirely transparent to the end user with modern distros, but it's actually quite elegant once you get it. I have grown to love the structure of the Unix filesystem, despite the initial puzzlement you get coming from MS space.
Anyway, we're not going to agree on this since you have an obvious anti-Linux bias, but just to come back on something you said earlier, all the Linux users I know are not switching over, because they don't want to buy expensive proprietary hardware (that's not always well-engineered...remember the cube?). And some are not sysadmins...like me: I'm mostly a desktop user, and I can tell you that with the latest KDE incarnations, Linux is ready for the desktop. I haven't ruled out buying a Mac OS X boxen in the future, however, that wouldn't be "switching" but just an addition to my multi-OS home network. I agree with the philosophy of free software, and the fact that it now rivals proprietary software is testimony to the power of that ideal. At the same time, I respect those who choose a different license and will not refrain from using their software.
Let's all try to get along...I'm personally getting tired of those condescending OS X users who look down on Linux despite the great progress it has made, and is still making at a breakneck pace (fortunately, they're a minority). Instead, we should all stand united as Unix or at least alternate OS users. If the enemy is the Monopoly, then the goal is Diversity. That includes Linux, the BSDs, OS X, BeOS (if it can get back from the dead), commerical Unices, and even Windows, as long as its market share drops below 50%...
Are you sure it's not the compiler? I have had the same problem with VMWare, but I have a feeling it's not the kernel that's at fault, but rather gcc 3.X (which they say is not supported). Not that I really care, now that Codeweaver's Crossover runs Office and Quicken, I don't use VMWare anymore.
P.S. Ferme ta gueule de merde, sale enculé.
Funny, last time I installed a Windows Service Pack it did not upgrade MS Office nor Photoshop...Upgrading a kernel won't break apps, though you might need to recompile/reinstall certain "module" drivers (NVIDA for example). For an "avid" supporter of Linux, you don't seem very balanced or accurate in your critique of the system. Odd. Of course, you could also be a MS plant trying to sow discord among the faithful...I'm sure there are quite a few around here. Hey, if I had billions to spare I'd sure hire a few people to spread FUD on the web sites associated with the "competition."
Actually, there was a Lagaffe film...man did it suck! Maybe out of some copyright issues, the characters didn't have their real name (Gaston himself was renamed "G."). As you can see from the IMDB page, it didn't have that much of an impact...
You mean sinsimilla?
Here's the letter I sent. Please feel free to copy or adapt it and send it to:
general@anti-leech.com
Whenever I used to see a pop-up ad, I was so annoyed that I actually made a point of not buying this product, and sometimes even went as far as to discourage those around me not to buy this product.
Ever since I've been using a browser that block pop-up ads, I have probably been a better customer. Your product will once again cause misguided advertisers to lose my business. I'll make sure to point this out to any web site I come across that uses your product.
Banner ads are the most that 95% of Web users will accept. Anything that "pops up" is found annoying by the great majority of Web users. The negative reinforcement can only be detrimental to business - you're only hurting those you want to help.
Also consider that, if you keep wantonly calling people like me thieves, you're liable to get sued for libel.
I don't know about you guys, but I'm going to write them an e-mail saying that, when I see a pop-up, I am so annoyed that I actually make a point of not buying the product. Therefore, they are actually hurting sales (as far as I'm concerned) by forcing me to see those pop-ups. I'll also make sure to resend this letter to any web site dumb enough to use their product (and I'll tell them that, too!)
Oh, BTW, I did skim through the link you provided. However, it seemed to me to have gone through a couple of PR filters before being marked "approved for publication". Of COURSE it's going to be favorable towards Microsoft - it's posted on their site for that very purpose. You are either very naive or a paid MS shill.
I use both Linux and Win2K every day. Every single day (well, no Win2K during the weekends). Do you? Tell me after that who's the better judge as to which is more stable under normal, day-to-day conditions...
Funny, you didn't answer my questions...are you so brainwashed by Bill Gates that you won't consider for a second that FreeBSD might be more stable and efficient than Win2K?
In this document you'll find how untrue so much of what was written in the stolen document. No scripting support in windows 2000 because it also includes a GUI? Are you fucking stupid or what?
If there is "so much" that is untrue in the document, then why do you give a SINGLE (debatable) example? Wouldn't your point have been better served by providing other examples of what is "untrue" in it?
They moved because Windows 2000 was faster and more efficient. It is obviously stable as any honest person running W2K/XP can tell you.
Faster and more efficient than FreeBSD? For a server? I don't know about this one, but on the NetCraft surveys all I see are *BSD OSes (with the occasionnal OS X), but I've never seen a single W2K system. Now why would that be, if they are more stable, faster and efficient than FreeBSD? Wishing it so doesn't make it so...
It's not MS bashing, it's warning people of a dangerous bug/vulnerability so they can be better prepared to deal with it.
Despite, what's wrong with bashing a 40-billion quasi-monopoly that dominates the OS and Office markets while doing its best to destroy the competition by spreading FUD and distributing payolas around? Vocal criticism and boycotting are the sole weapons of consumers in facing this juggernaut, and you'd want us to forfeit these as well? Are you a MS employee or shareholder? If not, then why does MS-bashing annoy you so much? In my view, MS has more than deserved all the bashing it can get!
It's not about anger, it's about vigilance and fairness. I may run Linux, but - like many here I imagine - I'm also the de facto Windows Support guy for family members and non-technical friends. So I want/need to stay informed of severe Microsoft vulnerabilities.
To tell you the truth, it's been a while since I've no longer needed stories such as these to convince me that Linux is more secure than Windows...there's no "anger" left (I don't thing there ever was - outrage and disdain, yes, but no anger), just a desire to be informed so that I can better protect my windows-using loved ones...