Exactly, the average users reaction would be: Internet Explorer (or "the normal internet" as I recently heard it called) works on this site, Firefox does not, so Firefox is broken.
The minority who can cope with those sort of settings can manage to install an extension.
By having a home LAN you are clearly attempting to connect computers in a way that evades normal government monitoring and filtering of such communications. Therefore you must be a terrorist.
Windows may still have security issues but that doesn't mean that a person can make it reasonably secure: keeping up to date with patches, using anti-virus, avoiding insecure software such as Internet Explorer, etc.
That is too much to expect of most home users. Most people know about anti-virus software, but they do not know about other types of malware. They also do not understand how it works, and do not bother keeping anti-virus up to date. They do not know about other web browsers, or regard installing them as difficult and weird: I recently heard Internet Explorer described as "the normal internet". As for patching, they do not know how to keep all installed software updated. Windows itself may be OK, as it auto-updates, but what about everything else they may have?
The average home user needs a computer that is secure out of the box, not after installing and configuring lots of extra software.
The fact that he allowed his brother to connect an infected machine to his network isn't the fault of the OS.
The fact that the machine was infected in the first place is partly the fault of the OS. It is certainly true that if you do not use Windows, your machine is highly unlikely to be infected.
What was really frightening about that lot of inept terrorist was that most were (medical) doctors and (if I remember right) at least one was an engineer. The thought of being treated by someone stupid enough to think that would work makes me shudder.
Linux is sorely missing out on commercial software.
You mean "proprietary", not "commerical". Open source software is often commercial: Red Hat, for example,is commercial and profitable and purely free and open software.
we should only use the pure, open source software that no large corporation has so much glanced at
Same thing: lots of open source comes from large corporations. Take a look at who contributes to the Linux kernel.
Video Editing software, for example; you'd be far better off using one of the many commercial programs than one of the few open source ones.
The examples of this are becoming fewer and more specialist as time passes. I cannot comment on video editing, but I know of other areas where open source is weak (prepress for example), but they are becoming fewer.
Having commercial software avaliable for Linux can only help the adoption of Linux on the desktop, and, really, unless you're Steve Ballmer, there is no possible downside to this.
True, and users will be the biggest winners: although personally I stick to open source when possible (i.e. the proprietary equivalent has to be significantly better or I will use FOSS).
Biological and chemical weapons are little used, at least partly because they have been banned by treaty.
The Geneva Conventions on treatment of PoWs have largely been followed for decades as well.
There are obvious exceptions to both, but they have largely held. It is also true that fear of consequences played its part: but this was as much indirect consequences (it would influence the actions of currently neutral countries) as the direct reaction (if we use them, they will).
that has been perpetrated on humanity in the name of vague ethereal omnipotent beings is so stunning that very few people even realize it.
Anything that people get really motivated by can be twisted to be bad: look at the suffering caused by the political ideas of atheists (Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao) and people of no particular religion (Hitler: the fact no one can prove is religious views shows he was simply uninterested - a bit like the average person in Britain).
You see, the vast majority of catholics in the world are poor, uneducated people for whom religion is a refuge from the usually harsh reality of existence.
The vast majority of PEOPLE in the world are poor and uneducated. In many poor countries Catholics tend to be better educated because the church runs schools and cares about education.
Also, no one seems to have posted a copy of exactly what the Pope said. He was apparently quoting someone else who said the trial was fair. To what extent he approved of this view is not clear. Furthermore a trial can be a fair implementation of a bad law: e.g. I think it is wrong that British law sends people to jail just for saying something, but I think the people convicted (only one so far) do get a fair trial.
Also remember that the current pope is a conservative, but also an intellectual. He was also very much a liberal when younger, and seems to be moving back in that direction in some ways.
But so much power (most of it very subtle) concentrated in the hands of a group of people who think it wasn't so bad to punish people for claiming that earth is not the center of the universe cannot be good.
What neither the church nor the atheists (for different reasons) like to admit was the historical fact that Galileo was not punished for that. His book was even passed by church censors. He was really punished for adding a passage to his book that made the pope look like an idiot - he heresy trial was simply a way to get at him. The pope was also a medieval ruler, and reacted to the lese majeste. He was rather more mild than most absolute rulers then or now, putting Galileo under fairly comfortable house arrest. Of course the real lesson of this is that religious institutions should not hold political power, but that is fairly obvious to most people now anyway.
Copyright violation is a violation of someone's property rights. It might not be as bad as stealing someone's car, but it is stealing, and people that make piracy their business are still criminals.
No, it is breaching a government mandated monopoly. It is morally equivalent to using Skype in a country where the government has granted one operator a monopoly on telecommunications.
I don't think there's any debate here that what they're doing is illegal.
Actually, what their doing is almost certainly legal. They have been operating for years without being successfully prosecuted. They hold that they are acting within the law.
If it was clear they were breaking the law, then it would not have taken so long to start a prosecution, now would it have required so much paper work. Everyone knows exactly what they do, and they have never denied it.
If you think that they are acting illegally, please tell us exactly what law they are breaking.
The problem is not at the consumer level: I have no problem with consumers getting more software pre-installed.
The problem is that manufacturers are forced to pre-install the MS stuff. They should be free to decide whether they want to sell PCs with Windows + IE + WPM, or Windows + Firefox + Mplayer (with a GUI frontend), or Windows + Opera + Realplayer.
To take your car analogy further, imagine there was a single company with a 90% market share for car transmissions and they had a strong hold on the market. Suppose they would only sell transmission to car manufacturers as part of a bundle that also included wheels, brakes, a stereo and air-conditioning. That is what MS do.
Is it really that hard to install Linux? Jesus, man, you stick a live cd in there and click a couple of things. It's pretty damn important to understand formating drives, etc, and whatever basic stuff goes along with installing an OS.
What proportion of users do you think understand that? There is no way the average person will ever learn. It would be nice if they did, but they will not. They will take any pre-installed OS over any that they have to install themselves.
Incidentally they have all worked out how to do most of the admin tasks they need to. One is stuck on getting her laptops wif-fi working - but that defeated me as well. I am putting her in touch with someone better.
Unless you think it's totally ok that your friends are defendant on you. You realize that, aside from these laptops, most Linux users don't get the kind of support Windows users have access to. They can't always find a friend to help, they can't go to Best Buy (no loss there, but...) and generally their vendor, ISP, etc, will not help them out.
I have thought of that. The people I have installed Linux for so far live with a reasonable distance of a "Linux Center" set up by people from my local Linux User Group. They have to go slightly further than for Windows support, but they will get better quality support.
They need to learn how to freaking install an OS. Just as everyone who drives needs to at least understand how to change oil, rotate and chance tires, etc, just so they don't get totally screwed because they are too dependant on others.
People are more frightened of computers than of cars.
If you're using Linux, you need to know how to install Linux.
Why? There is absolutely no reason why users need to know how to install any desktop OS.
I have installed Linux for several people who manage updates and configuration fine but who would be likely to to run into problems if they installed from scratch themselves.
Servers are different, of course, and so are many corporate desktops that need a standardised installation. However, this is a laptop that is being sold to people who want a pre-installed OS.
My first CD player had a similar design in that the CD stuck out. The player was square and smaller in two dimensions (though much thicker in the third) than a CD cover.
All that happened if you touched a spinning Cd was that it slowed down and stopped playing.
1) The US is not in a recession: growth is slower but not negative. 2) Neither is any other major economy (you apparently forget that there are other countries where people buy software and new PCs).
To answer your question, I use two separate browsers. I used to used to have them running as separate users but no longer bother.
I also take measures to secure my "promiscuous" browser: for example, I use No Script.
In fact, I use a third browser because one vital site gets its layout broken to the point of being unusable with the minimum font size I have set in the other two.
What I do not do is close one browser to use another. Is it really possible for a cross-site attack to cross browsers?
With all of these Flash ads and Flash-based video players, it really is a critical issue. Using adblock is an absolute must in my book
No, no, No! Wrong solution.
You are not giving websites any incentive to drop Flash ads.
Far better to use just Flashblock to block only Flash ads to text and plain image ads get more impressions. If all Adblock users switched to Flashblock websites would soon get the message. As it is, I expect to see more non-conventional formats (mostly annoying) like layer ads, intersitals etc.
It may be bad technical practice, it is excellent business practice.
Their main competitor is MS. As long as their users remain less likely to have security problems than MS's users, they do not have a problem. They have no reason to waste resources on security.
What are users who are not happy with Apple over this going to do? Switch to Windows?
I thought most of the Linux kernel development was done by the likes of IBM, Red Hat, The Linux Foundation etc. - who pay developers to do the work.
If a you or I encountered a bug in our Linux downloaded from the Web for free
We do also have the option of buying support contracts, buying support incident by incident etc. Admittedly most individuals will decide it is not worth the price, but support from some of the desktop oriented distros is fairly reasonably priced.
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly, the average users reaction would be: Internet Explorer (or "the normal internet" as I recently heard it called) works on this site, Firefox does not, so Firefox is broken.
The minority who can cope with those sort of settings can manage to install an extension.
Bread and circuses, an very old principle.
The government obviously needs to place surveillance cameras and microphones in every single room of very single building, and on every street.
It would not only allow us to monitor terrorism, but also paedophiles, domestic violence, and virtually every crime.
After all, if you are not a terrorist (or paedophile) you have nothing to hide! Somebody think of the children!
They are doing the same thing in Europe. Microsoft uses its Irish subsidiary to shift profits within the EU in the same way.
By having a home LAN you are clearly attempting to connect computers in a way that evades normal government monitoring and filtering of such communications. Therefore you must be a terrorist.
The average home user needs a computer that is secure out of the box, not after installing and configuring lots of extra software.
The fact that the machine was infected in the first place is partly the fault of the OS. It is certainly true that if you do not use Windows, your machine is highly unlikely to be infected.What was really frightening about that lot of inept terrorist was that most were (medical) doctors and (if I remember right) at least one was an engineer. The thought of being treated by someone stupid enough to think that would work makes me shudder.
You mean "proprietary", not "commerical". Open source software is often commercial: Red Hat, for example,is commercial and profitable and purely free and open software.
Same thing: lots of open source comes from large corporations. Take a look at who contributes to the Linux kernel.
The examples of this are becoming fewer and more specialist as time passes. I cannot comment on video editing, but I know of other areas where open source is weak (prepress for example), but they are becoming fewer.
True, and users will be the biggest winners: although personally I stick to open source when possible (i.e. the proprietary equivalent has to be significantly better or I will use FOSS).
Biological and chemical weapons are little used, at least partly because they have been banned by treaty.
The Geneva Conventions on treatment of PoWs have largely been followed for decades as well.
There are obvious exceptions to both, but they have largely held. It is also true that fear of consequences played its part: but this was as much indirect consequences (it would influence the actions of currently neutral countries) as the direct reaction (if we use them, they will).
The lawyers in question are also those who tried to suppress Craig Murray's (former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan) allegations about Russian billionaire Alisher Usmanov.
Anything that people get really motivated by can be twisted to be bad: look at the suffering caused by the political ideas of atheists (Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao) and people of no particular religion (Hitler: the fact no one can prove is religious views shows he was simply uninterested - a bit like the average person in Britain).
The vast majority of PEOPLE in the world are poor and uneducated. In many poor countries Catholics tend to be better educated because the church runs schools and cares about education.
Also, no one seems to have posted a copy of exactly what the Pope said. He was apparently quoting someone else who said the trial was fair. To what extent he approved of this view is not clear. Furthermore a trial can be a fair implementation of a bad law: e.g. I think it is wrong that British law sends people to jail just for saying something, but I think the people convicted (only one so far) do get a fair trial.
Also remember that the current pope is a conservative, but also an intellectual. He was also very much a liberal when younger, and seems to be moving back in that direction in some ways.
What neither the church nor the atheists (for different reasons) like to admit was the historical fact that Galileo was not punished for that. His book was even passed by church censors. He was really punished for adding a passage to his book that made the pope look like an idiot - he heresy trial was simply a way to get at him. The pope was also a medieval ruler, and reacted to the lese majeste. He was rather more mild than most absolute rulers then or now, putting Galileo under fairly comfortable house arrest. Of course the real lesson of this is that religious institutions should not hold political power, but that is fairly obvious to most people now anyway.
Actually, what their doing is almost certainly legal. They have been operating for years without being successfully prosecuted. They hold that they are acting within the law.
If it was clear they were breaking the law, then it would not have taken so long to start a prosecution, now would it have required so much paper work. Everyone knows exactly what they do, and they have never denied it.
If you think that they are acting illegally, please tell us exactly what law they are breaking.
The problem is not at the consumer level: I have no problem with consumers getting more software pre-installed.
The problem is that manufacturers are forced to pre-install the MS stuff. They should be free to decide whether they want to sell PCs with Windows + IE + WPM, or Windows + Firefox + Mplayer (with a GUI frontend), or Windows + Opera + Realplayer.
To take your car analogy further, imagine there was a single company with a 90% market share for car transmissions and they had a strong hold on the market. Suppose they would only sell transmission to car manufacturers as part of a bundle that also included wheels, brakes, a stereo and air-conditioning. That is what MS do.
Incidentally they have all worked out how to do most of the admin tasks they need to. One is stuck on getting her laptops wif-fi working - but that defeated me as well. I am putting her in touch with someone better.
I have thought of that. The people I have installed Linux for so far live with a reasonable distance of a "Linux Center" set up by people from my local Linux User Group. They have to go slightly further than for Windows support, but they will get better quality support. People are more frightened of computers than of cars.Or cry, because people still think Open Source unnecessarily means developed by volunteers?
Why are journalists so bloody useless?
Why? There is absolutely no reason why users need to know how to install any desktop OS.
I have installed Linux for several people who manage updates and configuration fine but who would be likely to to run into problems if they installed from scratch themselves.
Servers are different, of course, and so are many corporate desktops that need a standardised installation. However, this is a laptop that is being sold to people who want a pre-installed OS.
My first CD player had a similar design in that the CD stuck out. The player was square and smaller in two dimensions (though much thicker in the third) than a CD cover.
All that happened if you touched a spinning Cd was that it slowed down and stopped playing.
That would be insightful except that:
1) The US is not in a recession: growth is slower but not negative.
2) Neither is any other major economy (you apparently forget that there are other countries where people buy software and new PCs).
And that, together with the fact that the rules target "content providers", not ISPs, mean that most of the Slashdot discussion is irrelevant.
Slashbots, please RTFA before being outraged. It is just the editors trolling you again.
To answer your question, I use two separate browsers. I used to used to have them running as separate users but no longer bother.
I also take measures to secure my "promiscuous" browser: for example, I use No Script.
In fact, I use a third browser because one vital site gets its layout broken to the point of being unusable with the minimum font size I have set in the other two.
What I do not do is close one browser to use another. Is it really possible for a cross-site attack to cross browsers?
You are not giving websites any incentive to drop Flash ads.
Far better to use just Flashblock to block only Flash ads to text and plain image ads get more impressions. If all Adblock users switched to Flashblock websites would soon get the message. As it is, I expect to see more non-conventional formats (mostly annoying) like layer ads, intersitals etc.
It may be bad technical practice, it is excellent business practice.
Their main competitor is MS. As long as their users remain less likely to have security problems than MS's users, they do not have a problem. They have no reason to waste resources on security.
What are users who are not happy with Apple over this going to do? Switch to Windows?
I thought most of the Linux kernel development was done by the likes of IBM, Red Hat, The Linux Foundation etc. - who pay developers to do the work.
We do also have the option of buying support contracts, buying support incident by incident etc. Admittedly most individuals will decide it is not worth the price, but support from some of the desktop oriented distros is fairly reasonably priced.