Richard M. Stallman is appalled at the new invention, as it violates our rights to procreate freely. There is a free (as in speech, not as in beer) alternative in the works, known as GNU/Womb. More details on the way...
Just think, now every square geek on slashdot has the chance to procreate. Before you actually had to "have sex." Ha! Fat chance of that happening to the average/. geek. Now they can use their ever-proven masturbation techniques to have children.
Imagine the following scenario: You are stranded on a desert island, and discover a cellphone, modem, and boxed laptop with two CD's - one for Linux, one for Windows. You open up the laptop to discover that the battery is charged, but alas, no operating system is installed. What do you do? Install Windows, and send out an email for help? Or do you try Linux, and risk finding out a few hours later as the battery dies that it doesn't support your modem?
Although I love the analogy and agree 100%, wouldn't it just be easier to use the cell phone to call for help?
Ok, I have a few questions.
1) If linux is so much "better" than Windows, why would you want them to open the source to 3.1? So idiot 13-year old OSS "programmers" can learn coding techniques?
2) They are a business. Of course they are trying to make money. There is nothing wrong with making money, unless you want to spend the rest of your life eating ramen noodles and wearing a dirty old ripped white t-shirt for the rest of your life. Bill Gates is one hell of a businessman. He wouldn't be a businessman if Windows was free. When will you people get it? Good stuff in life doesn't come free... just ask homeless people.
and
3) If Windows were free, I'd use it w/out any regrets
Let me ask, did you pay for your copy of Windows?
It's also nice to know that the software your government is using isn't written by a "community" of 13-year old anarchist losers who hate the government. More power to closed source, I say.
No self-respecting government (well, maybe Red Communist China) would in their right mind place the reliablilty of their software to rest on the shoulders of some "zealot."
Plus, MSFT software seems "solid". Linux software seems flimsy and poorly written... but I'm specifically talking about GUI stuff here. Maybe if the linux people want better adoption and acceptance, they should ditch that POS X11 and make a solid, stable GUI, just like Apple did.
Excuse me, but why is it whenever someone makes a negative comment (read: constructive criticism, you can use some) about OSS, they get labeled as "Trolls" that like to spread "FUD"? Will someone please answer this? Wow, he said that one piece of free software is better than another... that is so trollish (!)... you retard moderators. Everyone knows that mySQL is a piece of s**t, and I personally wouldn't trust it as far as I could throw the box that it's on (by coincidence, it's a 30 lb IBM XT). So there.
-RMSIAI
But what about deed? It turns out that this character had kept himself alive over the 20 or so years he had been trapped in the back of the bus by growing his toenails long, so that he may use them as a claw to grab other children's food and discarded items. Is this not how the GNU movement works, ensaring other people's work in order to sustain the beast at the centre?
I love the analogy. Is Anal^H^H^Hlan Cox going to be featured in a similar, future episode?
Could it be because my Windows GUI could run circles around my CDE desktop (under Exceed, of course)? CDE looks like it was written by a drunken 10 year old smoking $3 crack rock. The only thing CDE has behind it is that it is platform independent. That's it.
That is total bullshit. Give me some hard facts to back it up.
On the other hand, UnixWorld has one of the most unbiased articles comparing Apache and IIS. Basically there are pros and cons to both servers (one being IIS's built-in support for SSL, compared to a pay addon for Apache). Use what fits your needs. Apache isn't necessarily "better" overall, unless of course, you want to spread FUD.
Wow! Glad to hear that, but, seriously, IE has done this since version 4. That was like way back in '98. Ahh the good old days. Glad to see that it only took the Mozilla folks 4 years to catch on. No sarcasm intended, either.
Here is some hard data to dispel the idea that "Apache outnumbers IIS 2:1 on the net."
That is, in vhosts.
OS group Percentage Composition
Windows 49.2% Windows 2000, NT4, NT3, Windows 95, Windows 98
Linux 28.5% Linux
Solaris 7.6% Solaris 2, Solaris 7, Solaris 8
BSD 6.3% BSDI BSD/OS, FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD
Other Unix 2.4% AIX, Compaq Tru64, HP-UX, IRIX, SCO Unix, SunOS 4 and others
Other non-Unix 2.5% MacOS, NetWare, proprietary IBM OSs
Unknown 3.6% not identified by Netcraft operating system detector
Microsoft Windows has a significantly higher share of the web when one counts by computer, rather than by host, as in the conventional Web Server Survey. The survey shows 49% of the computers running the web are Windows based; a little more than all of the Unix-like operating systems combined.
Actually, I didn't believe it myself when I first read it. But it's true. Believe it!
Ugh. Why am I replying to this. You are obbious a Pro-Linux kiddie. I will now go on to explain why your thinking is flawed.
I think it is important to note that 99% of "linux vulnerabilities" are not linux vulnerabilities, but actually non-essential, third party programs. These programs have nothing to do with linux, but do run on the OS. DNS, sendmail, rsync etc are not a part of the OS but have vulnerabilites. We should say that any os that these utilities/services run on has the vulnerability.
So, by that theory, we shouldn't include any IIS vulnerabilities in the NT exploits either. Because, of course, "IIS has nothing to do with NT, but it runs on the OS." After all, it's an optional component.
Bullshit.
Why are you not including BIND and sendmail? Hello? Most Linux servers are either web, DNS, or mail servers... NT, Novell, and Sun far outnumber them as file servers. So, if we can't include BIND, nor sendmail, then we can't include IIS or Exchange/Outlook. Cause, after all, they are "nonessential third-party programs." Oh wait, heh, they were written by "M$" (using obligatory dollar sign so the author of the parent post can understand who I'm talking about) so I guess they're not thrid-party. But then again, it's not Linux either, it's GNU/Linux. So I guess we can only count kernel exploits. Hmmm. Maybe that means we can only count NT kernel exploits (go ahead, count them.)
I dare you to root an NT file/print server that isn't running any other services. You can't (or at least, not on any easier level than you could root a Linux or Sun box... heh Sun and their automountd... heheheheh). Anyway, I hope you understand where I'm coming from. Your thinking is flawed.
But then again, what should I expect? This is Slashdot. It's kind of like going to the Democratic convention and shouting "Gore sucks! Dubya forever!" I didn't really expect too many pro-Microsoft replies here.
Hah, you laugh now, but did you ever think that you could use gorilla.bas to solve velocity-angle vectors in physics homework? Heh, Doom II could never do that.
I say we put John Carmack and Sammy the Snake from nibbles.bas into a mud pit and see who comes out alive....
Slashdot Mirror
Hi. You're a dick. That wasn't even remotely funny.
If I had mod points I would surely and gladly use them on you.
Richard M. Stallman is appalled at the new invention, as it violates our rights to procreate freely. There is a free (as in speech, not as in beer) alternative in the works, known as GNU/Womb. More details on the way...
/. geek. Now they can use their ever-proven masturbation techniques to have children.
Just think, now every square geek on slashdot has the chance to procreate. Before you actually had to "have sex." Ha! Fat chance of that happening to the average
Imagine the following scenario: You are stranded on a desert island, and discover a cellphone, modem, and boxed laptop with two CD's - one for Linux, one for Windows. You open up the laptop to discover that the battery is charged, but alas, no operating system is installed. What do you do? Install Windows, and send out an email for help? Or do you try Linux, and risk finding out a few hours later as the battery dies that it doesn't support your modem?
Although I love the analogy and agree 100%, wouldn't it just be easier to use the cell phone to call for help?
I knew there was an OSS version of it, but I was talking about allocating all the resources.
Maybe the Linux "community" should ditch Linux and pick up BeOS where it left off?
Ok, I have a few questions. 1) If linux is so much "better" than Windows, why would you want them to open the source to 3.1? So idiot 13-year old OSS "programmers" can learn coding techniques? 2) They are a business. Of course they are trying to make money. There is nothing wrong with making money, unless you want to spend the rest of your life eating ramen noodles and wearing a dirty old ripped white t-shirt for the rest of your life. Bill Gates is one hell of a businessman. He wouldn't be a businessman if Windows was free. When will you people get it? Good stuff in life doesn't come free... just ask homeless people. and 3) If Windows were free, I'd use it w/out any regrets Let me ask, did you pay for your copy of Windows?
It's also nice to know that the software your government is using isn't written by a "community" of 13-year old anarchist losers who hate the government. More power to closed source, I say.
No self-respecting government (well, maybe Red Communist China) would in their right mind place the reliablilty of their software to rest on the shoulders of some "zealot."
Plus, MSFT software seems "solid". Linux software seems flimsy and poorly written... but I'm specifically talking about GUI stuff here. Maybe if the linux people want better adoption and acceptance, they should ditch that POS X11 and make a solid, stable GUI, just like Apple did.
But, noooo, they'll never do that.
Maybe a good topic for discussion among Slashdotters?
Umm, no, my guess is that any indication of "closed source is good" will be GNU/Shot Down instantly.
If we're posting personal essays on slashdot now, why not give the following a read: http://members.aol.com/erichuf/Linux1.html
I rate it +5 Insightful, personally.
What the hell are you talking about? Linux is the most stable operating system ever, and this patch should hel----
Unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at virtual address 00000000
kernel: current->tss.cr3 = 06672000, %cr3 = 06672000
kernel: *pde = 00000000
kernel: Oops: 0000
kernel: CPU: 0
kernel: EIP: 0010:[__wake_up+33/56]
kernel: EFLAGS: 00010287
kernel: eax: c06cff3c ebx: 00000000 ecx: 00000002 edx: 00000000
kernel: esi: c06cff38 edi: 00000003 ebp: c64c5ef0 esp: c64c5eec
kernel: ds: 0018 es: 0018 ss: 0018
kernel: Process mountd (pid: 308, process nr: 39, stackpage=c64c5000)
kernel: Stack: c06cfed8 c025df38 c01303c5 c06cfed0 c06cfed0 00000000 c025df38 000a404d
kernel: c7fe0400 c0130488 c7fe0400 000a404d c025df38 000a404d c774d1d0 c06ce000
kernel: c64c5f88 c0142356 c7fe0400 000a404d fffffff4 c774d1d0 c06ce000 c4900c18
kernel: Call Trace: [get_new_inode+173/280] [iget+88/96] [ext2_lookup+82/124] [real_lookup+81/128] [lookup_dentry+294/484] [__namei+38/88] [sys_newlstat+13/96]
kernel: Code: 8b 02 85 c7 74 f1 89 d0 e8 4a f9 ff ff eb e8 8d 65 f4 5b 5e
Those text-based games were fun. Specially Leisure Suit Larry... 'fuck' was a command.
Heh.
Most likely, this would happen:
Unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at virtual address 00000040
current->tss.cr3 = 00101000, %cr3 = 00101000
*pde = 00000000
Oops: 0000
CPU: 0
EIP: 0010:[]
EFLAGS: 00010217
eax: 00000000 ebx: c38eaa40 ecx: 00000000 edx: c38eaa40
esi: c0ada0f4 edi: 00000014 ebp: c01ddf40 esp: c01ddf2c
ds: 0018 es: 0018 ss: 0018
Process lifesupport (pid: 423, process nr: 0, stackpage=c01dd000)
Stack: c38eaa40 c01d3274 c38eaa40 00000002 00000001 c38eaa40 c014bf65 c38eaa40 c3c9038c c01d3274 00000001 c01ffce4 0001a82e c01ddf94 0001a82f 0008df94 c01178fd c01dc000 00000000 c0110555 00000001 c01dc000 0001a82e 00000018
Call Trace: [<c014bf65>] [<c01178fd>] [<c0110555>] [<c010784d>] [<c0107855>] [<c0108fc0>] [<c0106000>] [<c010607b>] [<c0106000>] [<c0100175>]
Code: 8b 40 40 ff d0 83 c4 04 eb 20 89 f6 ff 05 0c 32 1d c0 8b 55
Aiee, killing interrupt handler
Kernel panic: Attempted to kill the idle task!
And then you would die.
Excuse me, but why is it whenever someone makes a negative comment (read: constructive criticism, you can use some) about OSS, they get labeled as "Trolls" that like to spread "FUD"? Will someone please answer this? Wow, he said that one piece of free software is better than another... that is so trollish (!)... you retard moderators. Everyone knows that mySQL is a piece of s**t, and I personally wouldn't trust it as far as I could throw the box that it's on (by coincidence, it's a 30 lb IBM XT). So there. -RMSIAI
Are you kidding me? It will so be Fortran.
I love the analogy. Is Anal^H^H^Hlan Cox going to be featured in a similar, future episode?
You also need to rpm -e gnome-*.
Could it be because my Windows GUI could run circles around my CDE desktop (under Exceed, of course)? CDE looks like it was written by a drunken 10 year old smoking $3 crack rock. The only thing CDE has behind it is that it is platform independent. That's it.
On the other hand, UnixWorld has one of the most unbiased articles comparing Apache and IIS. Basically there are pros and cons to both servers (one being IIS's built-in support for SSL, compared to a pay addon for Apache). Use what fits your needs. Apache isn't necessarily "better" overall, unless of course, you want to spread FUD.
Wow! Glad to hear that, but, seriously, IE has done this since version 4. That was like way back in '98. Ahh the good old days. Glad to see that it only took the Mozilla folks 4 years to catch on. No sarcasm intended, either.
I use IE 5.5 + Win 98 on a P/133 w/ 32 MB ram. A tad sluggish, but it's faster and more reliable than Netscape 4.x.
That is, in vhosts.
OS group Percentage Composition
Windows 49.2% Windows 2000, NT4, NT3, Windows 95, Windows 98
Linux 28.5% Linux
Solaris 7.6% Solaris 2, Solaris 7, Solaris 8 BSD 6.3% BSDI BSD/OS, FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD
Other Unix 2.4% AIX, Compaq Tru64, HP-UX, IRIX, SCO Unix, SunOS 4 and others
Other non-Unix 2.5% MacOS, NetWare, proprietary IBM OSs
Unknown 3.6% not identified by Netcraft operating system detector
Microsoft Windows has a significantly higher share of the web when one counts by computer, rather than by host, as in the conventional Web Server Survey. The survey shows 49% of the computers running the web are Windows based; a little more than all of the Unix-like operating systems combined.
Actually, I didn't believe it myself when I first read it. But it's true. Believe it!I think it is important to note that 99% of "linux vulnerabilities" are not linux vulnerabilities, but actually non-essential, third party programs. These programs have nothing to do with linux, but do run on the OS. DNS, sendmail, rsync etc are not a part of the OS but have vulnerabilites. We should say that any os that these utilities/services run on has the vulnerability.
So, by that theory, we shouldn't include any IIS vulnerabilities in the NT exploits either. Because, of course, "IIS has nothing to do with NT, but it runs on the OS." After all, it's an optional component.
Bullshit.
Why are you not including BIND and sendmail? Hello? Most Linux servers are either web, DNS, or mail servers... NT, Novell, and Sun far outnumber them as file servers. So, if we can't include BIND, nor sendmail, then we can't include IIS or Exchange/Outlook. Cause, after all, they are "nonessential third-party programs." Oh wait, heh, they were written by "M$" (using obligatory dollar sign so the author of the parent post can understand who I'm talking about) so I guess they're not thrid-party. But then again, it's not Linux either, it's GNU/Linux. So I guess we can only count kernel exploits. Hmmm. Maybe that means we can only count NT kernel exploits (go ahead, count them.)
I dare you to root an NT file/print server that isn't running any other services. You can't (or at least, not on any easier level than you could root a Linux or Sun box... heh Sun and their automountd... heheheheh). Anyway, I hope you understand where I'm coming from. Your thinking is flawed.
But then again, what should I expect? This is Slashdot. It's kind of like going to the Democratic convention and shouting "Gore sucks! Dubya forever!" I didn't really expect too many pro-Microsoft replies here.
Gotta love this. The fact that qbasic doesn't come with Windows 2000 is listed as a "confirmed problem...."
I say we put John Carmack and Sammy the Snake from nibbles.bas into a mud pit and see who comes out alive....