Thought the same thing. My laptop have only been booted once when i installed Ubuntu and has been hibernating ever since. At home first time in months my desktop was rebooted was yesterday when i changed my mobo. I agree, this boot time thing must be some windows thingy.
Then Windows would be labaled as a weapon of mass destruction.
Frankly, this is non news as there are thousands of ways to just crash a browser or just hang it. It is an entirely other issue with the bugs that lets you crash a full windows computer because of an IE bug. If it crashes other apps or the computer its bad but this is just about wrongly written web pages.
Microsoft has themselves made bad decisions in giving out bad best practices. Changing them in the eleventh our dont make it right. Blaming users for viruses and worms that gets in without user intervention is so wrong i dont know where to begin even.
And how will they know how to protect from theese exploits wich no one knows about? If they had a solution it would be in Windows today. Since they do sell their OS as a secure OS they would be very dishonest if they got out and sold a product to secure the already secure OS. Or wasnt the OS secure from the beginning and they just lied about its security? However you spin it its still wrong.
Well if he is just bashing maybe you could explain why spyware and antivirus can own a windows box so easy? I would love a good explanation with some facts.
I can nothing but agree with what Dvorak says, It is pretty disturbing that the company that lets the malware in also charges you money for fixing it. I do not think antivirus is any real solution either but one that comes from Microsofts unwillingness to fix the problem. Thus a void was created wich was filled by other companies. To see Microsoft trying to take over that market is obnoxious. They should have fixed the underlying design problems in Windows that lets all the malware in, not slap a new layer ontop of the old broken one.
Lets not forget that antivirus has a big problem. For it to recognize a virus someone must first dissect it and then create a signature. If someone would do 1000 versions of the same viruses you still have to dissect them all and create signatures for them. The hole that lets them in is still there and nothing is really fixed. All antivirus really helps against is getting a fix out for a specific virus in the wild until the vendor has time to fix the hole. If the vendor doesnt fix the hole quickly its pretty useless and creates and endless battle.
The antivirus companies ofcourse like this, and endless revenue stream. When Microsoft enters this market it creates a huge conflict of interest. This is why i agree with Dvorak. Now, im off to take a hot shower and cry trough the night.....
If we mimic Windows XP people will be lost when they are used to Windows Vista etc. I sure agree that care needs to be taken to make things simple but it dont think cloning Windows is the answer. Making a copy of somthing that hard to use is wasted. I am a network admin and i see the difficulties people have with Windows everyday. Windows XP totally blows their world apart since they are used to Windows 98. Same thing will happen with Windows Vista.
The solution would be to think long and hard about whats the best way to do things and then stick to it since change seems to be the biggest problem. Just dont change to much and try to KISS.
There arent that many parts i feel must be changed in Linux. For mass adoption a common third party package format for Linux applications would probably do the trick. Make it easy to install applications and drivers that arent managed by the dists repos. Other than that i really cant think of something thats hard to do on Linux.
1. While i can agree on the first one i think the solution is to tighten the core OS, not apply a second layer to stop the exploits that shouldnt exist in the first place. Antivirus is just a band-aid solution for a deeper problem. If you can track malware you also probably knows why it got in in the first place. The OS vendor should be focusing on why theese malware get in in the first place. Anything a virus can do a hacker can do better and without detection.
2. If you have antimalware detection operating at a high level it itself is suspectable to hacking. Its better to run it with read only priveliges and the ability to stop files from getting written or read. It should never have full rights to the OS. If you already have a virus its much to late. Cleaning and detecting viruses is really two different things.
3. If you dont patch that hole you have an endless stream of different approaches to get into the same hole. The only solution is to plug the hole. Everything else is just a temporary solution.
4.I cant but agree. But if you look at the Antivirus industry it has yet to come up with a solution that solves the problem. All it can do is solve each specific malware on its own. It does not save you from manual attacks or new attacks. Its just and endless subscription wich is what i think is the goal with antivirus solutions. As long as the OS vendor doesnt plug the holes youre stuck in an endless payola.
I dont even know what an ad is about one second after i have closed a site. My head just filter everything not relevant out when im searching for or gathering information. I do use adblock, flashblock and every possible filter to stop wasting bandwidth. And about magazines, i dont buy the ones filled with ads. If i pay for a magazine i dont want half of it to be crammed with "bye me!" everywhere.
I always thought that Linux and the distros is made by people for people, thats really the best explanation for the numbers of distros out there. The goal of linux (if such can exist) is not to replace Windows. Thats why you can never get a free Windows from Linux unless you, yes you, get your thumb out of the dark smelly place and start coding one yourself. Linux is not and will probably never be a drop in replacement for Windows. Even if the community was to mimic every possible bit in the UI all we would have accomplished was a free Windows UI clone for the people that likes how windows works anyway but without 100% binary compability.
There are infact dists that mimics Windows pretty well but they arent that popular. I suspect that once you understand Linux you change dist to something more unixy. Linux isnt hard to use, its only hard if you try to use it as a MS Windows clone wich it aint.
I wasnt teased at all by that sign telling me you need Windows to watch the trailer. They should smack the idiot who sold them their media server upside their head and demand support for a usable format like mpeg, rm or just about anything that isnt highly obscure.
After having d/l and watched Farscape and Stargate Atlantis i would give an arm and a leg to be able to sign up to the SciFi channel. When you "grow up" and time is limited it can infact be worth it to fork out some dough.
I dont really grasp why not any OEM just takes Windows, slams a full stack of good Open Source like OpenOffice, Firefox, and brand the hell out of Windows making it possible to tell one manufacturers machine from the other? As of now the OEM's is nothing more than Windows peddlers that happens to sell some hardware on the side. With Open Source they have the chance to distinguish their offering from the others nearly for free.
Well, two browsers to choose from atleast makes people aware of the fact that there is a choice.
Well they do tie it into systems deep down in the OS. While its not literally in the kernel its pretty embedded in the OS. I agree with his point that Internet Explorer is tied down artificially into the core of the OS albeit not in the running kernel.
"What do you mean? Windows Vista will be more secure than Unix. j/k"
Just like... Windows 95 was more secure than Windows 3.1 Windows 98 was more secure than Windows 95 Windows NT was much more secure than Windows 98 Windows 2000 was the mother of all security Windows XP, this time we got it right Windows XP SP2 this time we really really got it right, promise, cross my heart and hope to die Windows 2003, most secure server OS ever built! Windows VISTA, even better than the worlds best system ever built, this time ill put my mother up here on this 100 fot pole and if im wrong may she fall down into that pit of crocodiles!
Until i have a real life experience of good Windows security i will tend to think back and remember all the former promises that have gone down the drain. Today you expect Microsoft to promise things that arent really true.
I think there is a difference between how specs work. One type tells you how things should be implemented while the other type tells you how things should work. Linus was probably referring to the type that tells you how you should implement things but nothing about how it should work IRL. The worst software i use is always done by some big megacorporation and im pretty sure there are tons of specs on that software. I think its pretty easy to mistake specs in implementations of one piece of software for specs in interacting between applications.
I also think its important to take his words for what they are, an expression of what he thinks himself, not what he thinks everybody else should think. If you dont agree, well then dont or provide a very good reason for him to change his mind.
Where i live google is even a verb. When you want to search for something you google for it. I imagine this is pretty annoying for the other search engines *cough*MSN*cough*. Im sure Microsoft would like to have their name on some bugs too... ohh, wait, forget that last one....
The question is did they intend to stick with Microsoft or did Microsoft give them such a sweet deal that they stayed put? In some cases the actual end cost has been that they get paid to keep Microsoft as in the case with the scottish police. Microsoft seems terrified that some big fortune 500 changes to linux and really gets those big savings we expect. Im pretty convinced that a pretty large sum is put aside to be used for stopping those migrations. Even if a defection wont hurt Microsoft stack of money it could trigger others to do the same if its succesful and thats why they seem to spend unlimited sums to stop anyone from migrating.
I would see this rather as Microsoft shutting itself out from the rest of the world. If interacting with Microsofts products is even harder than today it will force a serious choice, use only Microsoft software or migrate away to something a tad more open. Mind you it doesnt have to be Linux, it can just as well be anything else. The most important thing is what you run in your backoffice. If your backoffice is tied to Microsofts products then your entire organisation is locked too.
I have a hard time imaging Microsoft shutting out the entire world. At most they can tie their own products together a bit more but most customers see that as a disadvantage. Most money spent is spent on getting various legacy and new systems working together. Getting yourself into a system that makes it even harder than today to interact is not what any sane organisation would do.
So according to this schmuck if you dont like Microsofts products youre a Microsoft hater? I have a hard time imaging anyone being called a Linux hater if they dont prey to Linus Torvalds.
I think the down in uptake is because of all the FUD being slung around touting Internet Explorer as safer than Firefox on the internet. I suspect security was one of the reasons for Firefox uptake on the Windows platform. That makes security a selling point for the Firefox developers to aim for.
"Worse, the policy represents an attack on market-based competition, which in turn will hurt innovation."
This is so lame it escapes mot people. Its so far off that youre left hanging speechless. How could any competition occure on a market where only one company controls the format used? Its dandy to standardize on the.doc format but all hell breaks loose if anyone dares use anything other than that. Its just to much to fathom.
We should scream at the top of our lungs to every possible person out there. Microsoft and any other possible vendor is 100% free to implement this standard and there are nothing stopping them from doing so except their wish to keep customers locked into the.doc format. Its Microsoft who refuses to use or deliver an open format, not the other way around.
Seriously, does anyone take fox as a news source theese days? Its like a tv version of those magazines where you get a free positive article for every ad you pay for.
I think most people in the know understands that this is a paid for article with high rebates for the company. It would be very nice if someone who knows the real circumstanses would reveal them. Whistleblowers are needed from cases like this to expose the truth behind them to the common people.
Do you really believe this? Can you tell me what SAP does that nobody else does? Throwing bad money after a bad decision isnt precisely what most people call a smart move.
I run and have ran Linux as terminal servers on a a fair amount of different Linux boxes. On theese systems stability has never been an issue. Even with thousands of processes and fully used nics and every possible I/O and CPU slot taken to the last slice they wont budge. Mind you this is on multiple servers and different distros. I havent seen any differences between 2.4 and 2.6 either in stability.
That said a badly written application will core dump because the kernel refuses to perform harakiri. Exactly as it should.
Slashdot Mirror
Thought the same thing. My laptop have only been booted once when i installed Ubuntu and has been hibernating ever since. At home first time in months my desktop was rebooted was yesterday when i changed my mobo. I agree, this boot time thing must be some windows thingy.
Then Windows would be labaled as a weapon of mass destruction.
Frankly, this is non news as there are thousands of ways to just crash a browser or just hang it. It is an entirely other issue with the bugs that lets you crash a full windows computer because of an IE bug. If it crashes other apps or the computer its bad but this is just about wrongly written web pages.
Microsoft has themselves made bad decisions in giving out bad best practices. Changing them in the eleventh our dont make it right. Blaming users for viruses and worms that gets in without user intervention is so wrong i dont know where to begin even.
And how will they know how to protect from theese exploits wich no one knows about? If they had a solution it would be in Windows today. Since they do sell their OS as a secure OS they would be very dishonest if they got out and sold a product to secure the already secure OS. Or wasnt the OS secure from the beginning and they just lied about its security? However you spin it its still wrong.
Well if he is just bashing maybe you could explain why spyware and antivirus can own a windows box so easy? I would love a good explanation with some facts.
I can nothing but agree with what Dvorak says, It is pretty disturbing that the company that lets the malware in also charges you money for fixing it. I do not think antivirus is any real solution either but one that comes from Microsofts unwillingness to fix the problem. Thus a void was created wich was filled by other companies. To see Microsoft trying to take over that market is obnoxious. They should have fixed the underlying design problems in Windows that lets all the malware in, not slap a new layer ontop of the old broken one.
Lets not forget that antivirus has a big problem. For it to recognize a virus someone must first dissect it and then create a signature. If someone would do 1000 versions of the same viruses you still have to dissect them all and create signatures for them. The hole that lets them in is still there and nothing is really fixed. All antivirus really helps against is getting a fix out for a specific virus in the wild until the vendor has time to fix the hole. If the vendor doesnt fix the hole quickly its pretty useless and creates and endless battle.
The antivirus companies ofcourse like this, and endless revenue stream. When Microsoft enters this market it creates a huge conflict of interest. This is why i agree with Dvorak. Now, im off to take a hot shower and cry trough the night.....
If we mimic Windows XP people will be lost when they are used to Windows Vista etc. I sure agree that care needs to be taken to make things simple but it dont think cloning Windows is the answer. Making a copy of somthing that hard to use is wasted. I am a network admin and i see the difficulties people have with Windows everyday. Windows XP totally blows their world apart since they are used to Windows 98. Same thing will happen with Windows Vista.
The solution would be to think long and hard about whats the best way to do things and then stick to it since change seems to be the biggest problem. Just dont change to much and try to KISS.
There arent that many parts i feel must be changed in Linux. For mass adoption a common third party package format for Linux applications would probably do the trick. Make it easy to install applications and drivers that arent managed by the dists repos. Other than that i really cant think of something thats hard to do on Linux.
1. While i can agree on the first one i think the solution is to tighten the core OS, not apply a second layer to stop the exploits that shouldnt exist in the first place. Antivirus is just a band-aid solution for a deeper problem. If you can track malware you also probably knows why it got in in the first place. The OS vendor should be focusing on why theese malware get in in the first place. Anything a virus can do a hacker can do better and without detection.
2. If you have antimalware detection operating at a high level it itself is suspectable to hacking. Its better to run it with read only priveliges and the ability to stop files from getting written or read. It should never have full rights to the OS. If you already have a virus its much to late. Cleaning and detecting viruses is really two different things.
3. If you dont patch that hole you have an endless stream of different approaches to get into the same hole. The only solution is to plug the hole. Everything else is just a temporary solution.
4.I cant but agree. But if you look at the Antivirus industry it has yet to come up with a solution that solves the problem. All it can do is solve each specific malware on its own. It does not save you from manual attacks or new attacks. Its just and endless subscription wich is what i think is the goal with antivirus solutions. As long as the OS vendor doesnt plug the holes youre stuck in an endless payola.
I dont even know what an ad is about one second after i have closed a site. My head just filter everything not relevant out when im searching for or gathering information. I do use adblock, flashblock and every possible filter to stop wasting bandwidth. And about magazines, i dont buy the ones filled with ads. If i pay for a magazine i dont want half of it to be crammed with "bye me!" everywhere.
I always thought that Linux and the distros is made by people for people, thats really the best explanation for the numbers of distros out there. The goal of linux (if such can exist) is not to replace Windows. Thats why you can never get a free Windows from Linux unless you, yes you, get your thumb out of the dark smelly place and start coding one yourself. Linux is not and will probably never be a drop in replacement for Windows. Even if the community was to mimic every possible bit in the UI all we would have accomplished was a free Windows UI clone for the people that likes how windows works anyway but without 100% binary compability.
There are infact dists that mimics Windows pretty well but they arent that popular. I suspect that once you understand Linux you change dist to something more unixy. Linux isnt hard to use, its only hard if you try to use it as a MS Windows clone wich it aint.
I wasnt teased at all by that sign telling me you need Windows to watch the trailer. They should smack the idiot who sold them their media server upside their head and demand support for a usable format like mpeg, rm or just about anything that isnt highly obscure.
After having d/l and watched Farscape and Stargate Atlantis i would give an arm and a leg to be able to sign up to the SciFi channel. When you "grow up" and time is limited it can infact be worth it to fork out some dough.
I dont really grasp why not any OEM just takes Windows, slams a full stack of good Open Source like OpenOffice, Firefox, and brand the hell out of Windows making it possible to tell one manufacturers machine from the other? As of now the OEM's is nothing more than Windows peddlers that happens to sell some hardware on the side. With Open Source they have the chance to distinguish their offering from the others nearly for free.
Well, two browsers to choose from atleast makes people aware of the fact that there is a choice.
Well they do tie it into systems deep down in the OS. While its not literally in the kernel its pretty embedded in the OS. I agree with his point that Internet Explorer is tied down artificially into the core of the OS albeit not in the running kernel.
"What do you mean? Windows Vista will be more secure than Unix. j/k"
Just like...
Windows 95 was more secure than Windows 3.1
Windows 98 was more secure than Windows 95
Windows NT was much more secure than Windows 98
Windows 2000 was the mother of all security
Windows XP, this time we got it right
Windows XP SP2 this time we really really got it right, promise, cross my heart and hope to die
Windows 2003, most secure server OS ever built!
Windows VISTA, even better than the worlds best system ever built, this time ill put my mother up here on this 100 fot pole and if im wrong may she fall down into that pit of crocodiles!
Until i have a real life experience of good Windows security i will tend to think back and remember all the former promises that have gone down the drain. Today you expect Microsoft to promise things that arent really true.
I think there is a difference between how specs work. One type tells you how things should be implemented while the other type tells you how things should work. Linus was probably referring to the type that tells you how you should implement things but nothing about how it should work IRL. The worst software i use is always done by some big megacorporation and im pretty sure there are tons of specs on that software. I think its pretty easy to mistake specs in implementations of one piece of software for specs in interacting between applications.
I also think its important to take his words for what they are, an expression of what he thinks himself, not what he thinks everybody else should think. If you dont agree, well then dont or provide a very good reason for him to change his mind.
Where i live google is even a verb. When you want to search for something you google for it. I imagine this is pretty annoying for the other search engines *cough*MSN*cough*. Im sure Microsoft would like to have their name on some bugs too...
ohh, wait, forget that last one....
The question is did they intend to stick with Microsoft or did Microsoft give them such a sweet deal that they stayed put? In some cases the actual end cost has been that they get paid to keep Microsoft as in the case with the scottish police. Microsoft seems terrified that some big fortune 500 changes to linux and really gets those big savings we expect. Im pretty convinced that a pretty large sum is put aside to be used for stopping those migrations. Even if a defection wont hurt Microsoft stack of money it could trigger others to do the same if its succesful and thats why they seem to spend unlimited sums to stop anyone from migrating.
I would see this rather as Microsoft shutting itself out from the rest of the world. If interacting with Microsofts products is even harder than today it will force a serious choice, use only Microsoft software or migrate away to something a tad more open. Mind you it doesnt have to be Linux, it can just as well be anything else. The most important thing is what you run in your backoffice. If your backoffice is tied to Microsofts products then your entire organisation is locked too.
I have a hard time imaging Microsoft shutting out the entire world. At most they can tie their own products together a bit more but most customers see that as a disadvantage. Most money spent is spent on getting various legacy and new systems working together. Getting yourself into a system that makes it even harder than today to interact is not what any sane organisation would do.
So according to this schmuck if you dont like Microsofts products youre a Microsoft hater? I have a hard time imaging anyone being called a Linux hater if they dont prey to Linus Torvalds.
I think the down in uptake is because of all the FUD being slung around touting Internet Explorer as safer than Firefox on the internet. I suspect security was one of the reasons for Firefox uptake on the Windows platform. That makes security a selling point for the Firefox developers to aim for.
"Worse, the policy represents an attack on market-based competition, which in turn will hurt innovation."
.doc format but all hell breaks loose if anyone dares use anything other than that. Its just to much to fathom.
.doc format. Its Microsoft who refuses to use or deliver an open format, not the other way around.
This is so lame it escapes mot people. Its so far off that youre left hanging speechless. How could any competition occure on a market where only one company controls the format used? Its dandy to standardize on the
We should scream at the top of our lungs to every possible person out there. Microsoft and any other possible vendor is 100% free to implement this standard and there are nothing stopping them from doing so except their wish to keep customers locked into the
Editoral^w^w^w^w^w^w Advertising space for hire!
Seriously, does anyone take fox as a news source theese days? Its like a tv version of those magazines where you get a free positive article for every ad you pay for.
I think most people in the know understands that this is a paid for article with high rebates for the company. It would be very nice if someone who knows the real circumstanses would reveal them. Whistleblowers are needed from cases like this to expose the truth behind them to the common people.
Do you really believe this? Can you tell me what SAP does that nobody else does? Throwing bad money after a bad decision isnt precisely what most people call a smart move.
I run and have ran Linux as terminal servers on a a fair amount of different Linux boxes. On theese systems stability has never been an issue. Even with thousands of processes and fully used nics and every possible I/O and CPU slot taken to the last slice they wont budge. Mind you this is on multiple servers and different distros. I havent seen any differences between 2.4 and 2.6 either in stability.
That said a badly written application will core dump because the kernel refuses to perform harakiri. Exactly as it should.