That's not because it's open source. It's because it was designed to run on Windows. If everybody switches to Linux, then Linux will have the same problem.
And yes, malware will continue to thrive even if the source code is available. Users are too ignorant to check the softare they are installing anyway by running a virus scan or spyware scan. Why would they read the source code?
When I'm away at school, I work as a tech support consultant. Spyware and viruses keep me employed. So stop throwing those PC's away and bring them to us!
Spend $0 by using Spybot and AdAware instead. Maybe MS AntiSpyware beta. All three are free and are great resources. The problem people have with antispyware software is they run it in normal mode while the spyware is running, too. It's not hard to lock a few files so that the spyware is undeletable.
Solution: SAFE MODE! Something every version of Windows has. Even better: Safe mode with Command Prompt & Safe Mode w/ Networking. Update your def files and scan. Much more effective, AND FREE!
Finally somebody else who agrees. I hate when people blame spyware and viruses on Microsoft's sloppy programming. Spyware and viruses are only problems because people are lazy and don't maintain their PC's. Why do you need admin privs to edit a word document? Why do you run IE as an administrator when you browse those porn sites? All 3 are bad news...
I am proud to run Windows XP. I never get spyware or viruses. Why? Because I don't install them. I login as a standard user, so malware can't damage my OS, only my profile. If I want to run a program with admin rights, I have to enter my password.
However, your explanation above seems a little over-complicated. Why not install software using Run-As? You mentioned AntiVirus like it was an extra optional thing. And you don't mention anti-spyware software. I think antivirus and Spybot and AdAware are essential.
Many people wouldn't. Not that I agree with it, but it's clear that most Windows users are afraid of anything non-Windows. If you mention Linux to most PC users, they cringe and say "no way" without ever having seen it, read about it, used it, or anyway of having insight.
At least I have used Linux extensively enough that I made an educated choice to use Windows. Most users won't. Then there's the fact that it's Apple. Don't get me wrong, I love Macs. I own an iBook. But most PC users hate Macs simply because all their PC-loving friends hate Macs and they want to be cool too.
So in short, there will be users who convert from Windows to Mac/Intel, but nowhere near as many as you think, and definately not the majority. This will NOT be the end of Microsoft, nor should it be. As much as I hate Microsoft's business ethics, we need them around to keep everyone else in check and keep up competition. If Apple destroys Microsoft, then aren't we back at square 1, with one proprietary vendor controlling the entire market? And it'll be worse because Apple makes hardware too. So I think it's important for both Apple and Microsoft to co-exist and compete fiercely.
Classic retort, haha that's great. I hate Microsoft as much as the next guy, but I don't critisize them for other people's faults. Is IE a sack of crap? Yes, I talked about that. Should Microsoft improve it? Yes, they should. That is no excuse for ignorance though.
I know you shouldn't have to worry about the dangers of opening a web site in a browser. That's why I recommend Firefox. Or even regular Mozilla, or Opera, Konqueror, or anything other than IE. People who are too stubborn to use an alternative deserve what they get. The classic Linux zealot will preach that Microsoft is bad for integrating the browser into the OS, but then turn around and say that things should 'just work' out of the box without needing to install software or think about the consequences.
And that is just one item of many. People should be taught how to lock their systems down. Don't give me crap about how it shouldn't be their responsibility. Is it Ford's responsibility to put gas in your Taurus? Is it Time Warner's responsibility to purge your Roadrunner Inbox every weekend so that you don't exceed your quota? Is it the pet store's fault that your fish died when you didn't feed them? Well, if you are going to spend a massive amount of money on something, take care of it. There are published articles about the dangers of running IE. I bet that lady used Outlook or OE as well. There are articles published about how bad those are. Yet people keep using them.
So, it's Microsoft's fault that their software isn't perfect. But it's not their fault that users make dumb choices, like "hey let's go on Kazaa and download everything we can find" or "let's run IE as administrator, regardless of what people say", or "let's not read up on how to use this software and just go ahead and figure it out".
Ignorance is not always bliss. And I feel no pity on anyone who assumes that it is.
This article just goes to show how useless IT certifications are. They may get you a good job, which is what matters, but they don't truly guarantee that you know what you're doing.
If this guy had half a brain, he wouldn't be blaming Microsoft for this, he'd be blaming himself and his wife. He is probably on a more secured network that me and look what happened. 5 hours?! 10 years experience be damned! I am a college student living in a dorm on a completely-open network and I have *never* had a single security problem with my Windows box.
Why, you ask? Is it because I am uber-l33t and have all sorts of Cisco, Microsoft, and Novell certs? No! It's called common sense. People refuse to make certain sacrifices in the Windows world that are taken for granted in the Linux world. Certs just mean you know the basic facts and protocol names and config file names, but they don't imply wisdom or intelligence.
There are 2 things his wife is doing wrong: 1. She is logged in as an administrator for the purpose of browsing the web. 2. She is browsing the web with Internet Explorer, a known security wasteland that she and her husband chose to use regardless.
The result? Surprise, surprise, a security compromise!
Windows users focus too much on repair. They assume if they have all the tools to repair a system, that it is secure. AntiVirus programs repair an infected computer (they do some degree of preventative scanning, but that is not full-proof). Spyware scanners? Same deal. Any malware scanner is only useful once you're already infected. (Granted, Spybot has an Immunize feature, but if you rely soly on that, you have bigger issues at hand).
My point is, all the malware scanners and firewalls won't do shit if you intenionally use sketchy software and give it full admin rights. Why does IE need admin rights? Windows Update, that's IT!
I use Firefox and I login as a standard user. If I need to run a program as admin, like to install something, I either right-click and use Run as... or I use XP's fast-user switching (not available on domains, sadly...) People assume that if a Windows box gets damaged it's because of some bug in Windows. Many Windows issues that look like bugs are actually OS hooks that are being exploited. Linux is the same way, and for good reason. It assumes if you are admin then you know what you're doing and gives you nice hooks to modify the OS's behavior. But Linux distros set you up as a standard user by default, but nobody thinks of that. All they think is "Microsoft sucks Linux owns"
So maybe this sys admin should stop wasting money on certifications and go get a tech support job for 3 months, to see what it's like and learn how things work.
I currently work part-time for my university performing technical support for students' computers and 99% of the machines are infected with Spyware. It's a nice way to make a few bucks on the side.
I thought Verisign was a digital security company. Yet they don't know how a firewall works... and these people go around signing security certificates. Wow am I ever impressed.
For some reason evil monopolistic companies and stupid uneducated companies seem to always be the same.
Nano also doesn't depend on any major packages. Pico is part of pine. And I don't want to install an entire email client that I will NEVER use (and have heard terrible things about) just to use a text editor. Nano works out of the box.
I've also heard nano is a smaller executable and runs much faster. I haven't really tested that, however.
Linuxconf? LINUXCONF?!?! The last time I used Linuxconf, it asked me if I wanted to save changes to/etc/resolv.conf after adding a user account... after that I never used it again.
Not to mention it also had an ANNOYING habbit of changing the permissions on/var/named at random times.
A fellow admin had to go to the colocation datacenter and bring his production web server home to fix it because linuxconf corrupted the IP config file (ifcfg-eth0) after he did something totally unrelated and rebooted.
I am going to RIT this fall as a freshman myself, and I couldn't agree more. Northeastern was my second choice school (I was accepted). Both schools have a great coop program. I have seen a lot of employers who are willing to hire students as coops and/or internships. This gets your foot in the door and gives you connections.
So yea, I agree with flockey, you should have gone to a school that offered a strong coop program. They are common these days, especially in the IT/CS sector.
I guess at this point it's kind of late to tell you this, but you can always get a job as a low-level tech that's underpaid, and you should be able to climb up to a good job pretty quick if you're good. I just graduated high school a couple weeks ago, and I am already working at a local life insurance company's IT department doing grunt work. I'm the bitch. I'm the pee-on. But it's giving me connections. And most importantly: EXPERIENCE. Combined with Coop experience at RIT, hopefully I can get a good IT job in 4 years.
Antivirus software shouldn't be necessary in the first place. Virus outbreaks work because of the following situations:
- Flaw in the OS (When you spend $299 on the OS... they shouldn't be charging you to fix it, it was their mistake to begin with) - User was stupid enough to execute the virus - User was executing random email attachments with administrator priveleges. - User did not apply the security updates that they need.
The first one is the responsibility of the vendor to fix... not Symantec to cover up. Microsoft could do better at it, but they do a decent enough job of patching (not as good as open source OS's, but I can live with it)
The second can be fixed by educating users better. You hear those things on the news, but when somebody first learns to use a computer, nobody ever says "don't run programs you got in your email from people you don't know". It should be stressed. I mean really, it's common sense. But people do it anyway.
Running as administrator is both a user error and a design flaw. Windows shouldn't be setting up users as admins by default. Fuck user-friendly. It's not very user-friendly when browsing a malicious page in IE can destroy your hard drive. Then you'll wish you weren't an admin. Users should also be educated in how to not use admin rights. It goes both ways.
And the last one, well, back to educating users. Tell them to install patches. If they are too lazy to install patches, it's their own lazyass fault when they end up having to reinstall their OS.
It's one thing to be lazy, it's another to be stupid...
PHP can be run locally from the command line to create applications. It's nowhere near as common as server side scripting (I've never used it locally myself), but it is possible.
Well, ummm... they have been competing with Microsoft for decades haven't they? What is one of the top complaints people have with Windows? Security flaws! Therefore, Apple wants to keep a closed mouth about their flaws. Seems simple logic to me
I can see room for lots of money to be made. Microsoft, in an effort to keep the public happy, will require that "marketers" sign an agreement to not send spam (which of course, the purpose of this whole thing is to send spam), but they will intentionally leave a loophole allowing "marketers" to relay spam.
These "marketers" will sign up with Microsoft, then relay spam in exchange for a small fee from the spammers.
This way everybody wins! Well, except the customers of course... but who cares about them really?
How did open source software end up costing $60 per year per machine?
Then don't buy it.
Apparently, all you have to do is "contaminate" the distribution with some proprietary software, and you get to crank up the price.
So what if it's proprietary? Adding more value yields a greater price. What's wrong with that scenario?
What would it take to replace the proprietary parts of Red Hat's distro with open source software?
An open source programmer who wants to improve or replace a product. Just like it works now.
Selling support is fine, but Red Hat is now basically a Microsoft competitor.
And... what's the problem with that? We need a competitor in the OS business.
Red Hat's pricing is roughly comparable to Microsoft's now.
Well, that's sort of true, yes. And that is why I will not buy their product. There are lots of competing Linux distributions who will benefit from my money.
The real problem is human stupidity. People get viruses in their email. They run them. It's supply and demand.
Everybody knows Internet Explorer and Outlook Express are pieces of shit with constant security exploits. When I tell them, they say "I don't care." Those are the ignorant people who will bitch when they get a virus or worm "Oh my god how could I get a virus I'm so careful"
Everybody knows Windows is full of security holes, yet they run it anyway, and give it to everybody they know. There is only ONE reason to run Windows: There is a major app you depend on that does not support Linux (notice I say it does not support Linux, rather than Linux does not support it). Any other reason is pointless. Easier to use? Hardly. You install a patch and suddenly your system won't boot. That's certainly hard to use. I am trying to add a network printer and suddenly it doesn't recognize the remote host. That sounds hard to use.
Now ask yourself this. Of all the people who run Windows... do most of them have a major app that requires it? No. Hardcore gamers do. Some businesses might (though it'd be better to develop a custom app, but I can understand their reasoning still).
Think about what would happen if everybody except those who require Windows were to switch to another OS. Microsoft's market share would be cut in half. Competition would come back.
Operating systems should also ship with more secure settings. I mean, I see all these people saying "Well, if Linux were the #1 OS it would get all the viruses, it's not any better". Well, guess what? Linux itself has very few security patches. I've patched my kernel (and/or glibc and init) probably 3 times last year on my server. That's it. Most security flaws are in BIND or Sendmail, or some daemon that shouldn't be running in startup on a home desktop, but Linux distros always enable anyway.
People should disable all startup services they don't need and install a firewall. And don't tell me "no home user grandma should be expected to do something like that". BULL SHIT! TOO BAD! You own a computer... take care of it. One could say "no casual driver can expect an old grandma to use a seatbelt". It's a common safety practice that everybody should learn to follow.
Uhhhh, I think he meant editing the files directly. For a project for my new job, I was looking up tools just a few hours ago that can parse and write Excel files.
What if it gets ported to Linux, BSD, or another architecture? Could we have a consistent cross-platform software management utility? It's like the perfect thing at the perfect time... it must be a late April fool's joke. Someone at/. fell asleep on April 1st and decided to pull a late one.
You're 100% correct. However, also think about the bad side of the equation. Microsoft making hardare? Look at what they've done to the Xbox? You spend lots of hard-earned money on the thing and they tell you that you can't even modify it?
You are right though, I was thinking about this the other day. Although I don't insist that software should be free, it shouldn't be as expensive as the hardware. For $450 I built my computer, plus $180 for a monitor. People put effors and strained their muscles while building these devices. Now I should pay $299 for an operating system, which like you said is only developed once and then copied for 5 cents? Hah! (Then they try to control what I do with that OS)
Slashdot Mirror
when my Deskstar drive crashes after only a week of use.
That's not because it's open source. It's because it was designed to run on Windows. If everybody switches to Linux, then Linux will have the same problem.
And yes, malware will continue to thrive even if the source code is available. Users are too ignorant to check the softare they are installing anyway by running a virus scan or spyware scan. Why would they read the source code?
When I'm away at school, I work as a tech support consultant. Spyware and viruses keep me employed. So stop throwing those PC's away and bring them to us!
Spend $0 by using Spybot and AdAware instead. Maybe MS AntiSpyware beta. All three are free and are great resources. The problem people have with antispyware software is they run it in normal mode while the spyware is running, too. It's not hard to lock a few files so that the spyware is undeletable.
Solution: SAFE MODE! Something every version of Windows has. Even better: Safe mode with Command Prompt & Safe Mode w/ Networking. Update your def files and scan. Much more effective, AND FREE!
Finally somebody else who agrees. I hate when people blame spyware and viruses on Microsoft's sloppy programming. Spyware and viruses are only problems because people are lazy and don't maintain their PC's. Why do you need admin privs to edit a word document? Why do you run IE as an administrator when you browse those porn sites? All 3 are bad news...
I am proud to run Windows XP. I never get spyware or viruses. Why? Because I don't install them. I login as a standard user, so malware can't damage my OS, only my profile. If I want to run a program with admin rights, I have to enter my password.
However, your explanation above seems a little over-complicated. Why not install software using Run-As? You mentioned AntiVirus like it was an extra optional thing. And you don't mention anti-spyware software. I think antivirus and Spybot and AdAware are essential.
Explain what the source code for the OS being available has to do with spyware. I see no connection.
Many people wouldn't. Not that I agree with it, but it's clear that most Windows users are afraid of anything non-Windows. If you mention Linux to most PC users, they cringe and say "no way" without ever having seen it, read about it, used it, or anyway of having insight.
At least I have used Linux extensively enough that I made an educated choice to use Windows. Most users won't. Then there's the fact that it's Apple. Don't get me wrong, I love Macs. I own an iBook. But most PC users hate Macs simply because all their PC-loving friends hate Macs and they want to be cool too.
So in short, there will be users who convert from Windows to Mac/Intel, but nowhere near as many as you think, and definately not the majority. This will NOT be the end of Microsoft, nor should it be. As much as I hate Microsoft's business ethics, we need them around to keep everyone else in check and keep up competition. If Apple destroys Microsoft, then aren't we back at square 1, with one proprietary vendor controlling the entire market? And it'll be worse because Apple makes hardware too. So I think it's important for both Apple and Microsoft to co-exist and compete fiercely.
Classic retort, haha that's great. I hate Microsoft as much as the next guy, but I don't critisize them for other people's faults. Is IE a sack of crap? Yes, I talked about that. Should Microsoft improve it? Yes, they should. That is no excuse for ignorance though.
I know you shouldn't have to worry about the dangers of opening a web site in a browser. That's why I recommend Firefox. Or even regular Mozilla, or Opera, Konqueror, or anything other than IE. People who are too stubborn to use an alternative deserve what they get. The classic Linux zealot will preach that Microsoft is bad for integrating the browser into the OS, but then turn around and say that things should 'just work' out of the box without needing to install software or think about the consequences.
And that is just one item of many. People should be taught how to lock their systems down. Don't give me crap about how it shouldn't be their responsibility. Is it Ford's responsibility to put gas in your Taurus? Is it Time Warner's responsibility to purge your Roadrunner Inbox every weekend so that you don't exceed your quota? Is it the pet store's fault that your fish died when you didn't feed them? Well, if you are going to spend a massive amount of money on something, take care of it. There are published articles about the dangers of running IE. I bet that lady used Outlook or OE as well. There are articles published about how bad those are. Yet people keep using them.
So, it's Microsoft's fault that their software isn't perfect. But it's not their fault that users make dumb choices, like "hey let's go on Kazaa and download everything we can find" or "let's run IE as administrator, regardless of what people say", or "let's not read up on how to use this software and just go ahead and figure it out".
Ignorance is not always bliss. And I feel no pity on anyone who assumes that it is.
This article just goes to show how useless IT certifications are. They may get you a good job, which is what matters, but they don't truly guarantee that you know what you're doing.
If this guy had half a brain, he wouldn't be blaming Microsoft for this, he'd be blaming himself and his wife. He is probably on a more secured network that me and look what happened. 5 hours?! 10 years experience be damned! I am a college student living in a dorm on a completely-open network and I have *never* had a single security problem with my Windows box.
Why, you ask? Is it because I am uber-l33t and have all sorts of Cisco, Microsoft, and Novell certs? No! It's called common sense. People refuse to make certain sacrifices in the Windows world that are taken for granted in the Linux world. Certs just mean you know the basic facts and protocol names and config file names, but they don't imply wisdom or intelligence.
There are 2 things his wife is doing wrong:
1. She is logged in as an administrator for the purpose of browsing the web.
2. She is browsing the web with Internet Explorer, a known security wasteland that she and her husband chose to use regardless.
The result? Surprise, surprise, a security compromise!
Windows users focus too much on repair. They assume if they have all the tools to repair a system, that it is secure. AntiVirus programs repair an infected computer (they do some degree of preventative scanning, but that is not full-proof). Spyware scanners? Same deal. Any malware scanner is only useful once you're already infected. (Granted, Spybot has an Immunize feature, but if you rely soly on that, you have bigger issues at hand).
My point is, all the malware scanners and firewalls won't do shit if you intenionally use sketchy software and give it full admin rights. Why does IE need admin rights? Windows Update, that's IT!
I use Firefox and I login as a standard user. If I need to run a program as admin, like to install something, I either right-click and use Run as... or I use XP's fast-user switching (not available on domains, sadly...) People assume that if a Windows box gets damaged it's because of some bug in Windows. Many Windows issues that look like bugs are actually OS hooks that are being exploited. Linux is the same way, and for good reason. It assumes if you are admin then you know what you're doing and gives you nice hooks to modify the OS's behavior. But Linux distros set you up as a standard user by default, but nobody thinks of that. All they think is "Microsoft sucks Linux owns"
So maybe this sys admin should stop wasting money on certifications and go get a tech support job for 3 months, to see what it's like and learn how things work.
I currently work part-time for my university performing technical support for students' computers and 99% of the machines are infected with Spyware. It's a nice way to make a few bucks on the side.
$5,000 for every invalid patent? Jesus are you trying to put them out of business or something?
I thought Verisign was a digital security company. Yet they don't know how a firewall works... and these people go around signing security certificates. Wow am I ever impressed.
For some reason evil monopolistic companies and stupid uneducated companies seem to always be the same.
Nano also doesn't depend on any major packages. Pico is part of pine. And I don't want to install an entire email client that I will NEVER use (and have heard terrible things about) just to use a text editor. Nano works out of the box.
I've also heard nano is a smaller executable and runs much faster. I haven't really tested that, however.
Linuxconf? LINUXCONF?!?! The last time I used Linuxconf, it asked me if I wanted to save changes to /etc/resolv.conf after adding a user account... after that I never used it again.
/var/named at random times.
Not to mention it also had an ANNOYING habbit of changing the permissions on
A fellow admin had to go to the colocation datacenter and bring his production web server home to fix it because linuxconf corrupted the IP config file (ifcfg-eth0) after he did something totally unrelated and rebooted.
I am going to RIT this fall as a freshman myself, and I couldn't agree more. Northeastern was my second choice school (I was accepted). Both schools have a great coop program. I have seen a lot of employers who are willing to hire students as coops and/or internships. This gets your foot in the door and gives you connections.
So yea, I agree with flockey, you should have gone to a school that offered a strong coop program. They are common these days, especially in the IT/CS sector.
I guess at this point it's kind of late to tell you this, but you can always get a job as a low-level tech that's underpaid, and you should be able to climb up to a good job pretty quick if you're good. I just graduated high school a couple weeks ago, and I am already working at a local life insurance company's IT department doing grunt work. I'm the bitch. I'm the pee-on. But it's giving me connections. And most importantly: EXPERIENCE. Combined with Coop experience at RIT, hopefully I can get a good IT job in 4 years.
Antivirus software shouldn't be necessary in the first place. Virus outbreaks work because of the following situations:
- Flaw in the OS (When you spend $299 on the OS... they shouldn't be charging you to fix it, it was their mistake to begin with)
- User was stupid enough to execute the virus
- User was executing random email attachments with administrator priveleges.
- User did not apply the security updates that they need.
The first one is the responsibility of the vendor to fix... not Symantec to cover up. Microsoft could do better at it, but they do a decent enough job of patching (not as good as open source OS's, but I can live with it)
The second can be fixed by educating users better. You hear those things on the news, but when somebody first learns to use a computer, nobody ever says "don't run programs you got in your email from people you don't know". It should be stressed. I mean really, it's common sense. But people do it anyway.
Running as administrator is both a user error and a design flaw. Windows shouldn't be setting up users as admins by default. Fuck user-friendly. It's not very user-friendly when browsing a malicious page in IE can destroy your hard drive. Then you'll wish you weren't an admin. Users should also be educated in how to not use admin rights. It goes both ways.
And the last one, well, back to educating users. Tell them to install patches. If they are too lazy to install patches, it's their own lazyass fault when they end up having to reinstall their OS.
It's one thing to be lazy, it's another to be stupid...
PHP can be run locally from the command line to create applications. It's nowhere near as common as server side scripting (I've never used it locally myself), but it is possible.
Well, ummm... they have been competing with Microsoft for decades haven't they? What is one of the top complaints people have with Windows? Security flaws! Therefore, Apple wants to keep a closed mouth about their flaws. Seems simple logic to me
I can see room for lots of money to be made. Microsoft, in an effort to keep the public happy, will require that "marketers" sign an agreement to not send spam (which of course, the purpose of this whole thing is to send spam), but they will intentionally leave a loophole allowing "marketers" to relay spam.
These "marketers" will sign up with Microsoft, then relay spam in exchange for a small fee from the spammers.
This way everybody wins! Well, except the customers of course... but who cares about them really?
How did open source software end up costing $60 per year per machine?
Then don't buy it.
Apparently, all you have to do is "contaminate" the distribution with some proprietary software, and you get to crank up the price.
So what if it's proprietary? Adding more value yields a greater price. What's wrong with that scenario?
What would it take to replace the proprietary parts of Red Hat's distro with open source software?
An open source programmer who wants to improve or replace a product. Just like it works now.
Selling support is fine, but Red Hat is now basically a Microsoft competitor.
And... what's the problem with that? We need a competitor in the OS business.
Red Hat's pricing is roughly comparable to Microsoft's now.
Well, that's sort of true, yes. And that is why I will not buy their product. There are lots of competing Linux distributions who will benefit from my money.
Uhhhh... 60 * 2 = 120 140 > 120 How is that cheaper?
The real problem is human stupidity. People get viruses in their email. They run them. It's supply and demand.
Everybody knows Internet Explorer and Outlook Express are pieces of shit with constant security exploits. When I tell them, they say "I don't care." Those are the ignorant people who will bitch when they get a virus or worm "Oh my god how could I get a virus I'm so careful"
Everybody knows Windows is full of security holes, yet they run it anyway, and give it to everybody they know. There is only ONE reason to run Windows: There is a major app you depend on that does not support Linux (notice I say it does not support Linux, rather than Linux does not support it). Any other reason is pointless. Easier to use? Hardly. You install a patch and suddenly your system won't boot. That's certainly hard to use. I am trying to add a network printer and suddenly it doesn't recognize the remote host. That sounds hard to use.
Now ask yourself this. Of all the people who run Windows... do most of them have a major app that requires it? No. Hardcore gamers do. Some businesses might (though it'd be better to develop a custom app, but I can understand their reasoning still).
Think about what would happen if everybody except those who require Windows were to switch to another OS. Microsoft's market share would be cut in half. Competition would come back.
Operating systems should also ship with more secure settings. I mean, I see all these people saying "Well, if Linux were the #1 OS it would get all the viruses, it's not any better". Well, guess what? Linux itself has very few security patches. I've patched my kernel (and/or glibc and init) probably 3 times last year on my server. That's it. Most security flaws are in BIND or Sendmail, or some daemon that shouldn't be running in startup on a home desktop, but Linux distros always enable anyway.
People should disable all startup services they don't need and install a firewall. And don't tell me "no home user grandma should be expected to do something like that". BULL SHIT! TOO BAD! You own a computer... take care of it. One could say "no casual driver can expect an old grandma to use a seatbelt". It's a common safety practice that everybody should learn to follow.
Uhhhh, I think he meant editing the files directly. For a project for my new job, I was looking up tools just a few hours ago that can parse and write Excel files.
So yes, it would be very easy to do.
What if it gets ported to Linux, BSD, or another architecture? Could we have a consistent cross-platform software management utility? It's like the perfect thing at the perfect time... it must be a late April fool's joke. Someone at /. fell asleep on April 1st and decided to pull a late one.
You're 100% correct. However, also think about the bad side of the equation. Microsoft making hardare? Look at what they've done to the Xbox? You spend lots of hard-earned money on the thing and they tell you that you can't even modify it?
You are right though, I was thinking about this the other day. Although I don't insist that software should be free, it shouldn't be as expensive as the hardware. For $450 I built my computer, plus $180 for a monitor. People put effors and strained their muscles while building these devices. Now I should pay $299 for an operating system, which like you said is only developed once and then copied for 5 cents? Hah! (Then they try to control what I do with that OS)