Wow, talk about a one-sided argument! Let's pretend for a moment that you are objective, OSS isn't developed/maintained by saints, and that commercial software developers can learn from their mistakes.
I submit another very realistic possibility:
Open source - starts off with lots of exploits, remains with lots of exploits because more 'community' resourses are being spent on breaking it than fixing it. Over time, software becomes irrelevant.
Closed source (and all closed sourse software is developed by Microsoft, ya know) - Exploits are harder to find, but are eventually exploited by people with nothing better to do with their time. Company patches discreetly, and over time, software becomes more secure, and company programming techniques become more refined.
Now I'm not trying to make generalizations as the parent apparently is. I just wanted to point out that both models have their merits and flaws, regardless of the zealots who suggest that one system is perfect.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought Lindows was being sold in Wal-Mart. Put your 'imperceptive' customer in that perspective and I think you'll see my point.
And considering that the Wal-Mart, everyday person is the target market for Lindows, couldn't that suggest a certain amount of intent of confusion?
"I doubt anyone would be confused if they went to a store and saw Windows next to Lindows."
That's not the point; of course people can read the difference between "Windows" and "Lindows".
What might not be immediately apparent is the fact that they're entirely different products, sold by entirely different companies. Is it really a far-fetched possibility that someone less computer-savvy than the average Slashdotter might mistakenly think that Lindows is a low-cost/value version of Windows, both made Microsoft?
...in a scene resembling moths battering themselves against a window to get at the light on the other side, congresscritters were observed, once again, battering themselves against jurisdictional barriers.
Various media industry contributors were observed quietly withdrawing from the scene with satisfied looks on their faces.
I don't think he's reaching at all, and I think the great-grandparent post illustrates his point very well.
In the context of the theoretical shifting door in the wall, part of what makes it secure is that outsiders don't know how the door works; they only know that it moves away when an unauthorized person tries to open it.
However, people who oppose "security through obscurity", especially when in conjunction with blind open source advocacy, would argue that giving would-be intruders the blueprints of the door system would somehow deter them and make the system more secure.
Exactly what are you putting together for $200 that you think can substitute for a $2000 system?
Are you going to watch DVDs on a 17" monitor?
Are you going to use your $50 3-piece Altecs as a sound system?
The fact remains that the components of a home theatre that CAN'T be integrated into an affordable PC are going to be the majority of the system's cost anyway. So then the question remains: Why?
"That being said, few Iraqis even know that there are operating systems other than M$."
Am I the only one here who thinks the not-so-clever-anymore substitution of "S" for "$" is the kind of thing one would expect from a know-it-all teenager, and not someone with relatively strong associations with the rebuilding of a nation's IT infrastructure?
The Supreme Court didn't APPOINT anybody! No matter how often that ridiculous assertion is repeated by people seeking to revise history, it will never come true.
What the U.S. Supreme Court did (and I will repeat myself because you obviously didn't read my original post) was end the lawsuit Gore filed demanding a recount (essentially attempting to manipulate the election results towards a more favorable outcome), for which there was no legal provision under Florida's election laws.
I'll spell it out for you again in case you still don't get it: Gore tried to change election law during the election.
Now you can interpret that as an "appointment" all you want, but your appraisal of the situation will never be an accurate one, sorry to say.
It would seem yet again that a cowardly moderator with an opinion contrary to mine chose to anonymously label me a Troll instead of debating me and proving me wrong, almost as if to say "I know you're right, but I can't admit it, so instead I'll silence your opinion by moderating you down."
"And isn't it simply horrible that someone would bring a court action to redress the blatant violations of the rights of Black Americans in Florida by the State of Florida?"
That would be horrible, and if Jesse Jackson's claims had a grain of truth, (and I don't believe for a second that they did) then the time to address such a problem is not during the election!
"Did you read the book? Or even the first chapter?"
I make it a point to disregard the desperate rantings of revisionist historians.
"I would note that the Supreme Court's appointment of the President who LOST the election is BLATANTLY illegal."
And thus you reveal a remarkable and (I would guess) deliberate ignorance of this country's election laws.
"...you'll realize that a 'recount' isn't what we thought it was in 2000. No actual counting went on."
Of course there wasn't, because there was no re-count provision in Florida's state election laws in 2000, and that's how the whole clusterfuck started.
Gore & Co. tried to force a recount, essentially trying to change Florida's election law DURING THE ELECTION!
The Florida state supreme court was going to allow that to happen until the U.S. supreme court stepped in and rightfully smacked down Florida and the Gore team, because what Gore was trying to do, and what the Florida supreme court was about to let them do, was 100% ILLEGAL!
The answer had always better be YES when it comes to scientific research and exploration. If the answer was NO, we'd still think the world was flat, if we'd even exist at all.
Perhaps they've got a big stockpile of XBoxe(n?) to move, and they're simply trying to get rid of the excess to make room for the XBox2 when it comes out.
"I guess EA will have to take their Nazi tactics to another platform."
NAZI tactics? Are they rounding up people who aren't playing their games? Are they gassing "undesirables" who refuse to play games on platforms they don't support?
Really I hate fanboys as much as anybody, but just because you disagree with how EA does business, that hardly makes their tactics NAZI-like! I'm so fucking tired of everyone calling everything they don't like a Nazi!
I too have mixed feelings on compulsary military service, but I believe the positives outweigh the negatives.
Whether or not one morally objects to serving in the military is irrelevant; what's important is that they understand first-hand the entity that protects their way of life.
However can a dedicated soldier fully trust his disgruntled and oft-complaining compatriot? Can he be trusted when the shit hits the fan? A valid argument indeed!
But overall I believe the time served in the military makes better people out of most of those who go through the experience. They learn discipline, work ethic, and cooperation skills unmatched in the civilian world. And we all know those are qualities sorely lacking in today's youths!
What I find humorously ironic is how someone in a VERY socialist country objects strongly to doing his/her part. But then that's how socialism works (or doesn't depending on your perspective): those who don't do their part benefit from the efforts of those who do.
Slashdot Mirror
I submit another very realistic possibility:
Open source - starts off with lots of exploits, remains with lots of exploits because more 'community' resourses are being spent on breaking it than fixing it. Over time, software becomes irrelevant.
Closed source (and all closed sourse software is developed by Microsoft, ya know) - Exploits are harder to find, but are eventually exploited by people with nothing better to do with their time. Company patches discreetly, and over time, software becomes more secure, and company programming techniques become more refined.
Now I'm not trying to make generalizations as the parent apparently is. I just wanted to point out that both models have their merits and flaws, regardless of the zealots who suggest that one system is perfect.
Especially when editors misrepresent the story with a sensational headline.
These scientists made stem cells, not a human being. Stop trolling, editors!
Absolutely, when one of us (who got suckered into "looking at" thier computer) tells them that their kid can't play UT2004 on Windows 95.
Of course, we'd tell them "Windows XP" but what they'd end up with is "like Windows, but for a quarter of the price!"
And considering that the Wal-Mart, everyday person is the target market for Lindows, couldn't that suggest a certain amount of intent of confusion?
So was 'ford'; what's your point?
That's not the point; of course people can read the difference between "Windows" and "Lindows".
What might not be immediately apparent is the fact that they're entirely different products, sold by entirely different companies. Is it really a far-fetched possibility that someone less computer-savvy than the average Slashdotter might mistakenly think that Lindows is a low-cost/value version of Windows, both made Microsoft?
Nonsense! When I was a lad, I found discussions about developing clean algorithms and object-oriented programming concepts fascinating!
Course, I did get robbed and beat up a lot in school... do you think the two are related in some way?
Various media industry contributors were observed quietly withdrawing from the scene with satisfied looks on their faces.
In the context of the theoretical shifting door in the wall, part of what makes it secure is that outsiders don't know how the door works; they only know that it moves away when an unauthorized person tries to open it.
However, people who oppose "security through obscurity", especially when in conjunction with blind open source advocacy, would argue that giving would-be intruders the blueprints of the door system would somehow deter them and make the system more secure.
Never happen!!!
Are you going to watch DVDs on a 17" monitor?
Are you going to use your $50 3-piece Altecs as a sound system?
The fact remains that the components of a home theatre that CAN'T be integrated into an affordable PC are going to be the majority of the system's cost anyway. So then the question remains: Why?
So you model your intellectual communication style after ficticious 13-year-olds? I think you've made my point for me.
Am I the only one here who thinks the not-so-clever-anymore substitution of "S" for "$" is the kind of thing one would expect from a know-it-all teenager, and not someone with relatively strong associations with the rebuilding of a nation's IT infrastructure?
What the U.S. Supreme Court did (and I will repeat myself because you obviously didn't read my original post) was end the lawsuit Gore filed demanding a recount (essentially attempting to manipulate the election results towards a more favorable outcome), for which there was no legal provision under Florida's election laws.
I'll spell it out for you again in case you still don't get it: Gore tried to change election law during the election.
Now you can interpret that as an "appointment" all you want, but your appraisal of the situation will never be an accurate one, sorry to say.
It would seem yet again that a cowardly moderator with an opinion contrary to mine chose to anonymously label me a Troll instead of debating me and proving me wrong, almost as if to say "I know you're right, but I can't admit it, so instead I'll silence your opinion by moderating you down."
That would be horrible, and if Jesse Jackson's claims had a grain of truth, (and I don't believe for a second that they did) then the time to address such a problem is not during the election!
"Did you read the book? Or even the first chapter?"
I make it a point to disregard the desperate rantings of revisionist historians.
"I would note that the Supreme Court's appointment of the President who LOST the election is BLATANTLY illegal."
And thus you reveal a remarkable and (I would guess) deliberate ignorance of this country's election laws.
Of course there wasn't, because there was no re-count provision in Florida's state election laws in 2000, and that's how the whole clusterfuck started.
Gore & Co. tried to force a recount, essentially trying to change Florida's election law DURING THE ELECTION!
The Florida state supreme court was going to allow that to happen until the U.S. supreme court stepped in and rightfully smacked down Florida and the Gore team, because what Gore was trying to do, and what the Florida supreme court was about to let them do, was 100% ILLEGAL!
The answer had always better be YES when it comes to scientific research and exploration. If the answer was NO, we'd still think the world was flat, if we'd even exist at all.
Yeah, but it wasn't always like that!
Before that particular safeguard was added, clicking hyperlinks was like treading throudh a minefield!
Gahd, I know I'm going to get modded down for this one, bud did anyone else notice the irony of this articles's headline?
Goatse trolls on Slashdot taught me not to click hyperlinks LONG before they became a security issue!
Perhaps they've got a big stockpile of XBoxe(n?) to move, and they're simply trying to get rid of the excess to make room for the XBox2 when it comes out.
"I guess EA will have to take their Nazi tactics to another platform."
NAZI tactics? Are they rounding up people who aren't playing their games? Are they gassing "undesirables" who refuse to play games on platforms they don't support?
Really I hate fanboys as much as anybody, but just because you disagree with how EA does business, that hardly makes their tactics NAZI-like! I'm so fucking tired of everyone calling everything they don't like a Nazi!
Wouldn't this be starting the cycle all over again for a lot of people?
Whether or not one morally objects to serving in the military is irrelevant; what's important is that they understand first-hand the entity that protects their way of life.
However can a dedicated soldier fully trust his disgruntled and oft-complaining compatriot? Can he be trusted when the shit hits the fan? A valid argument indeed!
But overall I believe the time served in the military makes better people out of most of those who go through the experience. They learn discipline, work ethic, and cooperation skills unmatched in the civilian world. And we all know those are qualities sorely lacking in today's youths!
What I find humorously ironic is how someone in a VERY socialist country objects strongly to doing his/her part. But then that's how socialism works (or doesn't depending on your perspective): those who don't do their part benefit from the efforts of those who do.