Microsoft has committed some, shall we say, dubious business practices and are entitled to all the lawsuits being levied against them. I feel they should pay restitution for the crimes they've committed.
However, all this "boo-hooing" in the Open Source community about Microsoft is slowing progress and gives everyone a bad name. If the open source community (and specifically Linux) want to compete with Microsoft, it's my opinion that they just have to make better, more appealing software. Obviously something isn't "better" if it's offered completely for free and is still dwarfed by something that costs lots more out of the box. Linux developers need to concentrate harder on the "user friendly" and "ease of use" parts of their operating systems just as hard as they're concentrating on adding new features and tweaking. Linux can't compete because it is, right now, still very arcane to the vast majority of computer users, including many IT employees. Windows just has more things a USER wants, and while it isn't the most secure/stable operating system out, that's why people use it. People love that it comes with support for just about anything that they can plug into their computer, and just about any popular application runs on it.
Right now the gap in useability doesn't make up for the money people would save if they'd switch to Open Source. It is well on its way and has seen incredible growth in the past few years but right now it's pointless to comment on how much or how little it gets used versus an operating system that you CAN'T POSSIBLY COMPARE TO. Just because they both offer the same features doesn't mean they are comparable products. Microsoft creates a more appealing package to the user, which is what Open Source needs to do. It has stability and security going for it, it's just not user friendly enough!
This post isn't meant to be "pro-Microsoft" or "anti-Open Source." I'm just calling it like I see it. What does everyone else think?
I worked for a small IT company, maybe 20 employees, and our web servers were always under attack. The IT manager always showed me the logs of thousands of intruder attacks every day. We never got hacked, and we ran Windows servers. We wouldn't have gotten hacked if we ran Rehat servers, either, because our IT staff was well-trained and kept our servers patched and up-to-date.
Your server can only be as secure as the quality of the people you hire. It's totally possible to run a totally insecure Linux server and it's also totally possible to run a completely secure Windows server. The people that manage the servers just have to know what they're doing, on either OS. People that blame the OS for their hacks should really blame the person that manages it.
This is big because it reflects the way media is being distributed nowadays. With portable devices and web services offering media that isn't "owned" by you (you simply license it) it isn't "My" stuff anymore.
A majority of people don't care about computers, they just want to get their work done and are sick of the PC crashing. This is the reason trying to "teach" them doesn't work. They simply don't care, and don't want to learn how to update Firefox when all they want to do is finish writing their word document, send that e-mail using Outlook, and go home. People don't want to know how the insides work, they just want to use it. It's akin to me using a microwave. I really don't care how it works, and though I may find it interesting I wouldn't want the microwave repair guy to sit there and tell me how to fix it.
Did these students commit a crime? Certainly, they broke into a system unlawfully and stole sensitive information. They're guilty. Just because they didn't use the info they gathered doesn't mean that they didn't commit the crime.
On the other hand, I usually agree with "no harm, no foul." These are kids we're talking about, not malicious computer hackers. I don't see the need to press criminal charges since nothing was done with the social security numbers. Though I think they should be reprimanded by the school appropriately. They need to know they can't go around breaking into people's systems just to prove a point.
I guess I don't quite understand why time and the speed of light are related. The speed of light is simply that... a speed. Why would traveling at the speed of light affect time for you, while traveling at 500 miles/km per hour wouldn't? And are you saying that, however incalculably small the measurement, a person moving faster than another person is affected by time differently?
Nice. I don't think it sucks, it has a very nice melody and the guitar sounds nice, fat, and wet. Very well mixed and mastered. And I like your voice:)
So... You start a used car business tommorow. You're in it "better humanity?" I doubt humanity is in the minds of many business owners, and I'm not saying that in a bad way. You start a business because you want to make money, you run a business to make more money. Nobody would invest in something that can generate profit and not want to generate profit.
You say your parent has a scary economic viewpoint... I'd say you have a very naive one.
Let's say you hire a guy that promises he knows every single thing about Slackware Linux, and he convinces you to install it on every workstation and server in your building. You hire him on as an IT guy and he administers your network for a good long while, a couple years maybe, without any problems. Linux has saved you a shitload of money on software and support. Then, he quits the company and goes off to work for Microsoft in a wicked swing of irony. You now need to hire somebody that has experience adminstering Slackware, PRONTO, or else you're not gonna have a network admin anymore. Whereas, with a support contract, you still have access to paid, always-on technical support.
It's nice to have security with the vital things that power your everyday life. It's like buying a car without a warranty and hoping that your buddy that knows a ton about cars will be able to help you out when something breaks.:)
So... a corporation / government agency / school is supposed to put an ad in the newspaper for "person skilled with Red Hat Linux Administration?":)
I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just taking it from the perspective of someone that needs to know their stuff is gonna work and not have to worry about it. What seems more "rock solid" of a decision... Saving about five hundred bucks for the server software and hiring Joe Computer Guy in-house to manage it, or spend five-hundred bucks and keep your current IT staff that could just talk with a Red Hat Tech over the phone if something breaks? And in the worst cases Red Hat will be there in case something really fucked up happens that Joe Computer Guy won't know. What is Joe Computer Guy supposed to say when the e-mail server won't work... "Uh, lemme google some stuff and post to some message boards and get this worked out" ?:D
Like I said, I'm not disagreeing with you. I just think Red Hat draws a lot more attention than most other distros because of the support, and since Linux is just about to break through it's looking to make some money, hence Mr. Dell's investment.;) I think it's a pretty wise one if you ask me.
Even though Linux is free, government and educational agencies aren't likely to jump to a free solution without some promise of support, and since Redhat seems to be the leading Linux distro offering support (at rates way below Microsoft) they are poised to be the next big thing. Not to mention that when typical computer users hear Linux, they probably think of Redhat before a lot of others, i.e. Redhat "is" Linux to a lot of people.
Investors invest because they want to see a return on their investments. Michael Dell is an investor, he sees an opportunity to make money! It seems simple to me.
It doesn't matter who makes the software, you never, ever run a production server/workstation with a brand new operating system for at least a little while past the release date. Even if it's Apple.:)
You're kidding me, right? OSS and Microsoft actually working anything out?
Keep an eye on the news, there's gonna be a lot of people dead in Cambridge.
What did that little blurb at the end of the news post have anything at all to do with the news itself? I for one am getting really sick of posters that have to add their little two cents at the end of everything.
This isn't meant to be a troll by any means, but c'mon. Both open and closed source have their pros and cons so please let's stop writing things that are guaranteed to start flame wars.
I'm an avid Slashdot reader but I don't post that often except (usually) when I see something that really offends me or I can offer some sort of incredible insight on a topic.
I really could give three shits about the editors loving me or hating my guts. Who cares? It's not like I'm getting anything out of it either way. I don't moderate, I don't post stories, I just read and appreciate the effort that slashdot gives every day so that asshole nerds like yourself can sit around and spend your days worrying about Karma scores.
As many of you are calling the Linux vs. Windows benchmark "just a bunch of FUD," maybe you should download the PDF and take a look at the results and PROVE that Microsoft cheated. I'm no Linux or Microsoft guru but I've configured my fair share of web servers under Windows and it doesn't seem that they're doing anything out of the ordinary. It also appears that they're mirroring every action between the two operating systems whenever possible.
So how about it? It looks to me like Microsoft may have better throughput on these tests. Who can prove them wrong?
How about because the editors have to look at hundreds of stories at a time and you only see what they give you?
Seeing a dupe story isn't going to do anything more than cause you 5 minutes or less of inconvenience and considering Slashdot is provided free-for-everyone I don't think that slashdotters have any right to complain.
I'm not trying to be a troll and I'm not trying to insult you, but jeez, cut slashdot a break.
Slashdot Mirror
And that's exactly why Windows wins at the end of every day: It's for the common people.
So I guess we can all agree that Cohen is a little biased?
If it wasn't obvious already, the parent's link points to goatse.
Methinks the author is a marketing major!
However, all this "boo-hooing" in the Open Source community about Microsoft is slowing progress and gives everyone a bad name. If the open source community (and specifically Linux) want to compete with Microsoft, it's my opinion that they just have to make better, more appealing software. Obviously something isn't "better" if it's offered completely for free and is still dwarfed by something that costs lots more out of the box. Linux developers need to concentrate harder on the "user friendly" and "ease of use" parts of their operating systems just as hard as they're concentrating on adding new features and tweaking. Linux can't compete because it is, right now, still very arcane to the vast majority of computer users, including many IT employees. Windows just has more things a USER wants, and while it isn't the most secure/stable operating system out, that's why people use it. People love that it comes with support for just about anything that they can plug into their computer, and just about any popular application runs on it.
Right now the gap in useability doesn't make up for the money people would save if they'd switch to Open Source. It is well on its way and has seen incredible growth in the past few years but right now it's pointless to comment on how much or how little it gets used versus an operating system that you CAN'T POSSIBLY COMPARE TO. Just because they both offer the same features doesn't mean they are comparable products. Microsoft creates a more appealing package to the user, which is what Open Source needs to do. It has stability and security going for it, it's just not user friendly enough!
This post isn't meant to be "pro-Microsoft" or "anti-Open Source." I'm just calling it like I see it. What does everyone else think?
Your server can only be as secure as the quality of the people you hire. It's totally possible to run a totally insecure Linux server and it's also totally possible to run a completely secure Windows server. The people that manage the servers just have to know what they're doing, on either OS. People that blame the OS for their hacks should really blame the person that manages it.
This scares me.
A majority of people don't care about computers, they just want to get their work done and are sick of the PC crashing. This is the reason trying to "teach" them doesn't work. They simply don't care, and don't want to learn how to update Firefox when all they want to do is finish writing their word document, send that e-mail using Outlook, and go home. People don't want to know how the insides work, they just want to use it. It's akin to me using a microwave. I really don't care how it works, and though I may find it interesting I wouldn't want the microwave repair guy to sit there and tell me how to fix it.
On the other hand, I usually agree with "no harm, no foul." These are kids we're talking about, not malicious computer hackers. I don't see the need to press criminal charges since nothing was done with the social security numbers. Though I think they should be reprimanded by the school appropriately. They need to know they can't go around breaking into people's systems just to prove a point.
Thanks!
Just curious, because I don't know!
Nice. I don't think it sucks, it has a very nice melody and the guitar sounds nice, fat, and wet. Very well mixed and mastered. And I like your voice :)
Yes you do. You need to eat. You're assuming wanting to make money makes you an evil person.
The people working for United Airlines aren't working for free, I can guarantee you.
You say your parent has a scary economic viewpoint... I'd say you have a very naive one.
It's nice to have security with the vital things that power your everyday life. It's like buying a car without a warranty and hoping that your buddy that knows a ton about cars will be able to help you out when something breaks. :)
I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just taking it from the perspective of someone that needs to know their stuff is gonna work and not have to worry about it. What seems more "rock solid" of a decision... Saving about five hundred bucks for the server software and hiring Joe Computer Guy in-house to manage it, or spend five-hundred bucks and keep your current IT staff that could just talk with a Red Hat Tech over the phone if something breaks? And in the worst cases Red Hat will be there in case something really fucked up happens that Joe Computer Guy won't know. What is Joe Computer Guy supposed to say when the e-mail server won't work... "Uh, lemme google some stuff and post to some message boards and get this worked out" ? :D
Like I said, I'm not disagreeing with you. I just think Red Hat draws a lot more attention than most other distros because of the support, and since Linux is just about to break through it's looking to make some money, hence Mr. Dell's investment. ;) I think it's a pretty wise one if you ask me.
Investors invest because they want to see a return on their investments. Michael Dell is an investor, he sees an opportunity to make money! It seems simple to me.
It doesn't matter who makes the software, you never, ever run a production server/workstation with a brand new operating system for at least a little while past the release date. Even if it's Apple. :)
I'm just happy that we'll finally know where Carmen Sandiego is.
You're kidding me, right? OSS and Microsoft actually working anything out? Keep an eye on the news, there's gonna be a lot of people dead in Cambridge.
This isn't meant to be a troll by any means, but c'mon. Both open and closed source have their pros and cons so please let's stop writing things that are guaranteed to start flame wars.
I really could give three shits about the editors loving me or hating my guts. Who cares? It's not like I'm getting anything out of it either way. I don't moderate, I don't post stories, I just read and appreciate the effort that slashdot gives every day so that asshole nerds like yourself can sit around and spend your days worrying about Karma scores.
Chill out already, sheesh.
So how about it? It looks to me like Microsoft may have better throughput on these tests. Who can prove them wrong?
Seeing a dupe story isn't going to do anything more than cause you 5 minutes or less of inconvenience and considering Slashdot is provided free-for-everyone I don't think that slashdotters have any right to complain.
I'm not trying to be a troll and I'm not trying to insult you, but jeez, cut slashdot a break.