We've been trolled. I even RTFA and laughed at little comments like:
it's sharp and the colours came out fairly balanced if not a little yellow, but that's probably due to the lighting in the room.
I'd have stopped reading right there if I wasn't already having such a good laugh at the article. These aren't proffesionals. They just get paid like them. I'm sure they appreciate Slashdot forwarding them advertising impressions though.
Ehem. The Germs are todays breed? The only thing I find more disturbing then the fact that there still are punk-acting bands is the fact that so many people assume they'd know the difference.
Opinion Center, I'd like to point out that for a long time we (collectively, Slashdot) complained that Intel spent so much money on marketing with second-rate chips. As a systems admin performance on the server side can really count. With the introduction of the 5160 Intel is once again a legitimate competitor. At least for the time being, at the top of the x86 market.
There hasn't been a lot of exciting news regarding our old favorite, AMD. I'm sure that will change again. But for now, when I purchase new kit they aren't even on the radar (unless I'm checking sun gear).
Slaughtering people and standing up for yourself are two different things. What this incident has reminded me is that some people are shunned because on some level we know that they are more then awkward, they are dangerous.
That one sentence right there tells me everything I need to know. I'm not a Microsoft apologist. I'm a systems admin and my primary focus is RHEL(4). Linux servers are a pleasure to use. I've run Linux on my primary workstation for the past 7 or 8 years.
That said your statement regarding the market is a dead giveaway: you haven't use Vista yourself and you're parroting what you hear the market saying. I've done the same thing. It can be amusing. But being wrong for the sake of amusement can make you look bad (or unprofessional). So after I finished I installed Vista on some hardware myself. Now I have an opinion of my own based solely on first hand experience.
It's different and that itself is a little off-putting. I'm running it at work and supporting it now (its running on another employees system). XP is easier because I know it so well and when problems pop up they are the same problems I'm already familiar with. Vista is also a little less mature with some of the new features feeling like features that were added as somewhat unpolished ideas and I suspect SP1 will be a step toward maturing.
But if you are going to listen to the hysteria and formulate (and repeat) your opinions based solely on that of course your going to have an opinion based on the lowest common denominator. At this point the trash I hear people repeating is becoming so far removed for the actual experience that it's starting to sound like Vista folklore. Vista isn't perfect, not by a stretch. But knocking it for things that aren't particularly accurate doesn't help anyone by any means. No Linux users, not Vista users.
I love Linux *and* MS basing (fun restarting servers on production every-time MS rolls out a patch). But while Vista may be top heavy, I don't think you do any thing any good by making it out to be worse then it is. There are plenty of good reasons not to jump on Vista, that just doesn't happen to be one of them.
Likewise, we may be ready for Linux everywhere, but a LOT of people wouldn't be. You think Vista is giving people reason to complain? Try being thrust onto Linux unwittingly. Try having to explain to that person why they should be happy with it. (:
Anyway, lets just say top-end hardware can still run Vista fast.
It falls apart pretty much at the obscurity versus security part:
I've broken into houses. I'm neither proud nor ashamed (I was young, it's the least of the stupid things I did). Leaving your door open *would* increase the chances of you being broken into. Being broken into *would* increase the chances someone sees the money you've cleverly laid out in the basement.
Meanwhile, you would have been much safer having just posted directly on your front door that you had $20K and installing your (*cough* firewall) security system and done a few basic checks (front door locked? firewall on?..).
At least enough to deter most of your garden variety criminals (heh, kind of like script kiddies?).
Anyway, I hear they new Volkswagon promo is just under 20K? This is so much sweeter then the bus!;)
I hear a lot of comments along the lines of A) use creative commons B) go off shore c) direct negotiations with artists.
I run a radio program. Both (depending on how many artists you'd like to feature or how often you'd like to update that) are unrealistic.
Assuming independent artist *do* want to be heard (and I'd contend that they do) I think all that's missing to make this a powerful vehicle is any real organization behind it.
Want to bad mouth the RIAA? Create something fucking better. I'd bet with enough exposure a lot of small/mid-sized artists and record labels would love to provide cohesive, clear (protective) rights for some kind of limited/promotional broadcasting.
When I started my radio program I immediately began contacting artists, managers and labels directly. They didn't want to provide carte blanche permission. This is an industry and artists/(managers)/labels get taken advantage of. But they were more then eager to provide limited broadcast rights with proper guidelines that could easily be generalized pretty much across the board.
If we like being lead by the balls by an organization we don't feel is treating us with respect, perfect that's *exactly* what we've got. But if you're fucking tired of this? Show them or stop whining.
Don't just make gloss platitudes. If that's what you believe point to the services you feel are waiting to provide this new home. Sure, what your saying could be true but I'm sick of the assumption saying makes it so.
How did it prove itself to be as big a mistake as Windows ME? No one knew how bad ME was until a year after it when Microsoft was already almost done with XP. ME was an intermediate OS, which was why it sucked.
Windows ME? Even the people I knew who couldn't know how bad it was knew how bad it was. It didn't take a rocket scientist. From there you devolve into pirate hysteria/name-calling and finish with the flourish on your one provided reason for the upgrade (wow, thank GOD MS provided encryption...I don't know what I would have...).
I'm all for counter-points. I brought the first Vista system into our workplace. I disabled UAC and aside from some of the old/trollish employees not liking it (I did make them use it, they just like to complain) its been pretty good. Lots of non-supported software has worked just as I'd have expected it to. The UI isn't really impressing me, but this is Microsoft and that kind of design isn't something they are known for.
A good reason to have upgraded to it? Not yet. Bitlocker could be done just as well or better with any number of applications. Maybe after the large scale public beta ends at SP1 they have enough quirks worked out that people will start discovering some of the benifits. Maybe not. But no matter how you dice it, right now the biggest benefit to Vista is Microsoft's dominance and decision to push this operating system so aggressively.
In the future please don't formulate arguments based on the assumption someone doesn't like something because their pirates. We hear more then enough of that kind of corporate dribble already. A lot of people won't like X for a lot of legitimate reasons. Claiming Y randomly doesn't provide a logical argument. Just hyperbole.
Have a great Sunday. Just had to speak my piece.:)
you lost my vote at "and a file/print server in the basement". Sure it happens, but what you're describing isn't mainstream behavior.
That said, I don't feel strongly against the bulk of your argument. Thin clients bring the kind of portability that I'm sure will be embraced eventually. Gaming rigs can still execute net booted code locally so with high-speed networking it becomes more and more a no-brainer.
Imagine a person in a boss role who happens to be splendidly equipped for that role. He has strong people and communication skills, a knack for organization, a good knowledge of the field he is working in as well as management techniques. Is he likely to be a jerk?
You realize you just described the *exact* reason "jerks" tend to move forward? The ideal boss you've described is middle management. Works with the people. Is important *exactly where he is*.
So what's in his future? Big bonuses? Promotion? Not likely. He's a workhorse. Keep him and burn him out. He's perfect exactly where he is.
Competitive environments are probably similar across the board. Be too good at something without an aggressive need to move vertically and see what happens.
where credit is due? Namely, CodeWeavers? I agree that the TransGaming/Cedega crew has acted objectionably and their product is questionable. CodeWeavers are a much better example of OSS stewardship with a product that I think is actually worthwhile *and* worth supporting.
I'm all for railing as much as anyone else, but if you're going to slam a company and there is another doing exactly what you feel the first should be doing, giving that other company credit is always a nice thing to do.:)
If you write a piece of code that's going to spread through unpatched computer networks you're creating a worm. Not only that, but if you make a mistake and this piece of code somehow (unforeseeably) damages any thing you will be in a world of hurt.
Either way, the law doesn't look to kindly on computer trespass even if (you *claim*) your intentions are good.
and use it if you're curious. Sure. The net is full of wankers, but listening *and* complaining about doing so is...well, wankerish. Sounds like you learned a solid lesson. I use Vista (at work, so I should say I manage Vista). Its different then XP and that itself has caused problems.
I'd also say it's a little immature (which stands to reason, they are implementing quite a few changes) right now. But I wouldn't recommend against it based on that. Pretty much anything you decide to be an early adopter with will have the kinds of glitches you'll hear people complaining about. Truly conservative people will avoid it. Sounds good to me.
Just figured I'd point out a few obvious. I think Gattaca is important because A) it is science fiction, in the sense that Blade Runner was B) its contemporary, an not a lot of contemporary Sci-Fi puts intelligence before action/sex/violence/effects these days.
I agree fully, nothing wrong with space operas. But when you run across a well done science fiction film it's truly a pleasure.
"As she noted, you get everybody online and give them anonymity, this sort of thing happens."
That is exactly right. The internet was much worse before its mainstreaming. Hiding behind even the thin veil of anonymity the internet provides has always made certain people feel they could act their worst.
Not being within hitting distance probably has a lot to do with it. There are things you can say face-to-face that will have immediate consequences. Particularly if you're a guy.
What does surprise me is that someone can be active online and not have seen this sort of thing?
I have no argument for any of these points. Better security would be beneficial and you're right, it *can* enhance usability (it doesn't always, but it can). But my argument was with the original posters rather narrow view that Windows was bad (his refusal to help family/friends who used Windows?) and Linux or Mac was better (sure, in some cases, but *today*, across the board?).
But if we moved into the possibility of Linux taking share, why not flip the coin? What do you think Microsoft would do? Wouldn't *one* option be to open Windows? That is, the BASE operating system as a platform? I could see that happening if they felt they'd risk losing the market altogether. *That* would be interesting too. We've already seen support and patches made available by 2nd parties. There is enough use today to make even a mostly open Windows an interesting idea. You'd have changes to security then too.
But the fact is that being on top *does* mean more targeting. We know this already. The other fact is most people want the same operating system most other people are using. It makes things easier for them, and life is complicated, why blame them.
Since we are unlikely to see the courts really shake up Microsoft the most promising possibility seems to be eroding marketshare. But it will still be a while. The future looks interesting. But when I hear people go off mindlessly parading some OS I'm still going to have the same response. Linux is good, ya, but it's not some magic bullet. And when it is, it's not like the rest of the OS designers are just going to lay down and give up. If it happens it will happen on a lot of fronts. Organically, like everything else.
I'd go with that. But the problem I have here is the simple fact that *this* is the current reality. The previous poster seemed to believe that forcing people not to use Windows/Vista was the solution. But people are using it and will continue to.
You are probably correct to assume there would be a different response to security if it was in the hands of the larger community. But things can get thorny there too. Q&A (which slows down the release cycle). Project forking. Compatibility. Right now Linux is good, but it's hard to know what the mainstreaming (if Linux was ready) of Linux would result in. Dumbing down? Certainly. Some concessions to security for convenience? Likely.
I agree the 1-1 security/usability argument is lame. I wasn't exactly trying to say that though. It's just a broad rule of thumb.
As a Linux user I'm accustomed to logging in as an unprivileged user and performing upgrades/configuration/installation via sudo or su. But I'm not your average user. My friends and family are. Linux mostly follows a what? 20 or 30 year old security model? I just don't like people banging on something when the problem is almost *always* more complicated then they want to make it out to be. If we saw widespread Linux adoption *today* the most interesting thing about it would not be how it is, but how it would adapt. Because honestly for that kind of use, Linux and the existing security model isn't good enough either.
On the server? Sure. With a reasonably technical person? No problem. But locking down a system *still* requires you know more about the software then most people should care to (default services/software patching/configuration/basic use).
Anyway, I'm not saying I don't care or that I think everything's fine as it is. I'd love to see things improve. I just think it's kind of childish to say A is better then B. A has qualities and B has qualities. But I especially hate dogmatic arguments. It accomplishes nothing believing without questioning (which I'm not accusing you of doing). The previous posters hard-line approach is unrealistic and frankly, lazy. I can lock down a Windows system with *almost* as good results as a Linux system. More importantly, I can treat my users with respect and help them have the best possible experience even under somewhat adverse circumstances. How frequently do you think my XP system has been compromised? Or yours for that matter?
So you think your family/friends would go from using Windows with no security to using Linux better? Because Linux distros install no unneeded services by default? And of course your computer challenged friends will then be sure to apt-get update/yum update/etc and they'll check their crontab to be sure freshclam is running nightly.
You can get all pissy with me if you want. My horizons won't be hurt. I work with what you advocate every day. I just don't particularly care for that unrealistly cavalier attitude. It reminds me of myself when Linux was new to me. After 8 or 9 years Linux is good, but things don't seem so black and white anymore.
an attempt to marginalize a different choice in operating systems.
Sure. Because I hate Linux/Mac/Solaris/BSD...oh snap! I don't. My motives are simple: let people work on whatever they find productive. Maybe I don't mind helping the friend/family member as much? (wasn't that your motive?)
Basic security is still your best bet. But you can argue with me all you like.
Slashdot Mirror
You republicans and your cute little naps.
Ehem. The Germs are todays breed? The only thing I find more disturbing then the fact that there still are punk-acting bands is the fact that so many people assume they'd know the difference.
The Germs are old.
Opinion Center, I'd like to point out that for a long time we (collectively, Slashdot) complained that Intel spent so much money on marketing with second-rate chips. As a systems admin performance on the server side can really count. With the introduction of the 5160 Intel is once again a legitimate competitor. At least for the time being, at the top of the x86 market.
There hasn't been a lot of exciting news regarding our old favorite, AMD. I'm sure that will change again. But for now, when I purchase new kit they aren't even on the radar (unless I'm checking sun gear).
Slaughtering people and standing up for yourself are two different things. What this incident has reminded me is that some people are shunned because on some level we know that they are more then awkward, they are dangerous.
That one sentence right there tells me everything I need to know. I'm not a Microsoft apologist. I'm a systems admin and my primary focus is RHEL(4). Linux servers are a pleasure to use. I've run Linux on my primary workstation for the past 7 or 8 years.
That said your statement regarding the market is a dead giveaway: you haven't use Vista yourself and you're parroting what you hear the market saying. I've done the same thing. It can be amusing. But being wrong for the sake of amusement can make you look bad (or unprofessional). So after I finished I installed Vista on some hardware myself. Now I have an opinion of my own based solely on first hand experience.
It's different and that itself is a little off-putting. I'm running it at work and supporting it now (its running on another employees system). XP is easier because I know it so well and when problems pop up they are the same problems I'm already familiar with. Vista is also a little less mature with some of the new features feeling like features that were added as somewhat unpolished ideas and I suspect SP1 will be a step toward maturing.
But if you are going to listen to the hysteria and formulate (and repeat) your opinions based solely on that of course your going to have an opinion based on the lowest common denominator. At this point the trash I hear people repeating is becoming so far removed for the actual experience that it's starting to sound like Vista folklore. Vista isn't perfect, not by a stretch. But knocking it for things that aren't particularly accurate doesn't help anyone by any means. No Linux users, not Vista users.
I love Linux *and* MS basing (fun restarting servers on production every-time MS rolls out a patch). But while Vista may be top heavy, I don't think you do any thing any good by making it out to be worse then it is. There are plenty of good reasons not to jump on Vista, that just doesn't happen to be one of them.
Likewise, we may be ready for Linux everywhere, but a LOT of people wouldn't be. You think Vista is giving people reason to complain? Try being thrust onto Linux unwittingly. Try having to explain to that person why they should be happy with it. (:
Anyway, lets just say top-end hardware can still run Vista fast.
It falls apart pretty much at the obscurity versus security part:
..).
;)
I've broken into houses. I'm neither proud nor ashamed (I was young, it's the least of the stupid things I did). Leaving your door open *would* increase the chances of you being broken into. Being broken into *would* increase the chances someone sees the money you've cleverly laid out in the basement.
Meanwhile, you would have been much safer having just posted directly on your front door that you had $20K and installing your (*cough* firewall) security system and done a few basic checks (front door locked? firewall on?
At least enough to deter most of your garden variety criminals (heh, kind of like script kiddies?).
Anyway, I hear they new Volkswagon promo is just under 20K? This is so much sweeter then the bus!
Is you weeny!
(:
I hear a lot of comments along the lines of A) use creative commons B) go off shore c) direct negotiations with artists.
I run a radio program. Both (depending on how many artists you'd like to feature or how often you'd like to update that) are unrealistic.
Assuming independent artist *do* want to be heard (and I'd contend that they do) I think all that's missing to make this a powerful vehicle is any real organization behind it.
Want to bad mouth the RIAA? Create something fucking better. I'd bet with enough exposure a lot of small/mid-sized artists and record labels would love to provide cohesive, clear (protective) rights for some kind of limited/promotional broadcasting.
When I started my radio program I immediately began contacting artists, managers and labels directly. They didn't want to provide carte blanche permission. This is an industry and artists/(managers)/labels get taken advantage of. But they were more then eager to provide limited broadcast rights with proper guidelines that could easily be generalized pretty much across the board.
If we like being lead by the balls by an organization we don't feel is treating us with respect, perfect that's *exactly* what we've got. But if you're fucking tired of this? Show them or stop whining.
Don't just make gloss platitudes. If that's what you believe point to the services you feel are waiting to provide this new home. Sure, what your saying could be true but I'm sick of the assumption saying makes it so.
Windows ME? Even the people I knew who couldn't know how bad it was knew how bad it was. It didn't take a rocket scientist. From there you devolve into pirate hysteria/name-calling and finish with the flourish on your one provided reason for the upgrade (wow, thank GOD MS provided encryption...I don't know what I would have...).
I'm all for counter-points. I brought the first Vista system into our workplace. I disabled UAC and aside from some of the old/trollish employees not liking it (I did make them use it, they just like to complain) its been pretty good. Lots of non-supported software has worked just as I'd have expected it to. The UI isn't really impressing me, but this is Microsoft and that kind of design isn't something they are known for.
A good reason to have upgraded to it? Not yet. Bitlocker could be done just as well or better with any number of applications. Maybe after the large scale public beta ends at SP1 they have enough quirks worked out that people will start discovering some of the benifits. Maybe not. But no matter how you dice it, right now the biggest benefit to Vista is Microsoft's dominance and decision to push this operating system so aggressively.
In the future please don't formulate arguments based on the assumption someone doesn't like something because their pirates. We hear more then enough of that kind of corporate dribble already. A lot of people won't like X for a lot of legitimate reasons. Claiming Y randomly doesn't provide a logical argument. Just hyperbole.
Have a great Sunday. Just had to speak my piece.
you lost my vote at "and a file/print server in the basement". Sure it happens, but what you're describing isn't mainstream behavior.
That said, I don't feel strongly against the bulk of your argument. Thin clients bring the kind of portability that I'm sure will be embraced eventually. Gaming rigs can still execute net booted code locally so with high-speed networking it becomes more and more a no-brainer.
Fair enough. They are the corporate sponsors of the Wine project, so they do have OSS cred. (:
Please fill in these forms and this disclaimer.
You realize you just described the *exact* reason "jerks" tend to move forward? The ideal boss you've described is middle management. Works with the people. Is important *exactly where he is*.
So what's in his future? Big bonuses? Promotion? Not likely. He's a workhorse. Keep him and burn him out. He's perfect exactly where he is.
Competitive environments are probably similar across the board. Be too good at something without an aggressive need to move vertically and see what happens.
where credit is due? Namely, CodeWeavers? I agree that the TransGaming/Cedega crew has acted objectionably and their product is questionable. CodeWeavers are a much better example of OSS stewardship with a product that I think is actually worthwhile *and* worth supporting.
:)
I'm all for railing as much as anyone else, but if you're going to slam a company and there is another doing exactly what you feel the first should be doing, giving that other company credit is always a nice thing to do.
Adult.
*burble*
(:
If you write a piece of code that's going to spread through unpatched computer networks you're creating a worm. Not only that, but if you make a mistake and this piece of code somehow (unforeseeably) damages any thing you will be in a world of hurt.
Either way, the law doesn't look to kindly on computer trespass even if (you *claim*) your intentions are good.
and use it if you're curious. Sure. The net is full of wankers, but listening *and* complaining about doing so is...well, wankerish. Sounds like you learned a solid lesson. I use Vista (at work, so I should say I manage Vista). Its different then XP and that itself has caused problems.
I'd also say it's a little immature (which stands to reason, they are implementing quite a few changes) right now. But I wouldn't recommend against it based on that. Pretty much anything you decide to be an early adopter with will have the kinds of glitches you'll hear people complaining about. Truly conservative people will avoid it. Sounds good to me.
Just figured I'd point out a few obvious. I think Gattaca is important because A) it is science fiction, in the sense that Blade Runner was B) its contemporary, an not a lot of contemporary Sci-Fi puts intelligence before action/sex/violence/effects these days.
I agree fully, nothing wrong with space operas. But when you run across a well done science fiction film it's truly a pleasure.
"As she noted, you get everybody online and give them anonymity, this sort of thing happens."
That is exactly right. The internet was much worse before its mainstreaming. Hiding behind even the thin veil of anonymity the internet provides has always made certain people feel they could act their worst.
Not being within hitting distance probably has a lot to do with it. There are things you can say face-to-face that will have immediate consequences. Particularly if you're a guy.
What does surprise me is that someone can be active online and not have seen this sort of thing?
I have no argument for any of these points. Better security would be beneficial and you're right, it *can* enhance usability (it doesn't always, but it can). But my argument was with the original posters rather narrow view that Windows was bad (his refusal to help family/friends who used Windows?) and Linux or Mac was better (sure, in some cases, but *today*, across the board?).
But if we moved into the possibility of Linux taking share, why not flip the coin? What do you think Microsoft would do? Wouldn't *one* option be to open Windows? That is, the BASE operating system as a platform? I could see that happening if they felt they'd risk losing the market altogether. *That* would be interesting too. We've already seen support and patches made available by 2nd parties. There is enough use today to make even a mostly open Windows an interesting idea. You'd have changes to security then too.
But the fact is that being on top *does* mean more targeting. We know this already. The other fact is most people want the same operating system most other people are using. It makes things easier for them, and life is complicated, why blame them.
Since we are unlikely to see the courts really shake up Microsoft the most promising possibility seems to be eroding marketshare. But it will still be a while. The future looks interesting. But when I hear people go off mindlessly parading some OS I'm still going to have the same response. Linux is good, ya, but it's not some magic bullet. And when it is, it's not like the rest of the OS designers are just going to lay down and give up. If it happens it will happen on a lot of fronts. Organically, like everything else.
I'd go with that. But the problem I have here is the simple fact that *this* is the current reality. The previous poster seemed to believe that forcing people not to use Windows/Vista was the solution. But people are using it and will continue to.
You are probably correct to assume there would be a different response to security if it was in the hands of the larger community. But things can get thorny there too. Q&A (which slows down the release cycle). Project forking. Compatibility. Right now Linux is good, but it's hard to know what the mainstreaming (if Linux was ready) of Linux would result in. Dumbing down? Certainly. Some concessions to security for convenience? Likely.
I agree the 1-1 security/usability argument is lame. I wasn't exactly trying to say that though. It's just a broad rule of thumb.
As a Linux user I'm accustomed to logging in as an unprivileged user and performing upgrades/configuration/installation via sudo or su. But I'm not your average user. My friends and family are. Linux mostly follows a what? 20 or 30 year old security model? I just don't like people banging on something when the problem is almost *always* more complicated then they want to make it out to be. If we saw widespread Linux adoption *today* the most interesting thing about it would not be how it is, but how it would adapt. Because honestly for that kind of use, Linux and the existing security model isn't good enough either.
On the server? Sure. With a reasonably technical person? No problem. But locking down a system *still* requires you know more about the software then most people should care to (default services/software patching/configuration/basic use).
Anyway, I'm not saying I don't care or that I think everything's fine as it is. I'd love to see things improve. I just think it's kind of childish to say A is better then B. A has qualities and B has qualities. But I especially hate dogmatic arguments. It accomplishes nothing believing without questioning (which I'm not accusing you of doing). The previous posters hard-line approach is unrealistic and frankly, lazy. I can lock down a Windows system with *almost* as good results as a Linux system. More importantly, I can treat my users with respect and help them have the best possible experience even under somewhat adverse circumstances. How frequently do you think my XP system has been compromised? Or yours for that matter?
You can get all pissy with me if you want. My horizons won't be hurt. I work with what you advocate every day. I just don't particularly care for that unrealistly cavalier attitude. It reminds me of myself when Linux was new to me. After 8 or 9 years Linux is good, but things don't seem so black and white anymore.
Sure. Because I hate Linux/Mac/Solaris/BSD...oh snap! I don't. My motives are simple: let people work on whatever they find productive. Maybe I don't mind helping the friend/family member as much? (wasn't that your motive?)
Basic security is still your best bet. But you can argue with me all you like.