I'm sat here with nothing to do on my Linux and UNIX servers...
Can someone fo a UNIX FOSS port of SP2 please? I want to see what all the fuss is about?
If you can't see the difference, well, there's probably no way ever explain it to you. You're just not going to get it.
Well then try me, seems a perfectly reasonable analogy to me.
Car = expensive device that most people want that takes time to learn to operate that other people can easily mess up for you.
PC = expensive device that most people want that takes time to learn to operate that other people can easily mess up for you.
The point is that the machines should not have such deep flaws that they can ever BE insecure. That fact that they have all these holes that need patching is the problem, and that should be addressed at the source, and not by heaping blame on the victims (the users).
You buy a new washing machine. That washing machine has some internal circuitry and logic that allows it to wash and dry clothes at an appropriate temperature. It has some simple front end controls that you, by reading a few pages in an instruction manual, can learn to operate so that it washes clothes the way you want them to.
If the machine shrinks a new sweater of yours because you used the wrong wash mode, who's fault is that?
If you leave the front door of your house open such that a drug crazed vandal smashes the washing machine to bits, who's fault is that?
So why's it different with computers? If you are gullible enough to believe the OS manufacturer's hype about their security then you either take the matter of security under your control or use a different product.
If you must use car analogies, the holes in the OS are life DEFECTS in a car that causes an accident or engine fire or something.
To my knowledge, I know of no PC security defect likely to caude the loss of human life, unlike, say, a car catching fire or an engine bursting into flames - so now you're using an incorrect car analogy. Even then, if you are sold a car with this kind of defect, you'd take it back to the manufacturer and get your money back.
So why aren't you doing the same with Windows? It obviously doesn't meet your security requirements or the ease of use you want. So either deal with it by learning more or get a refund.
Say your mum gets an email, that looks like its from her bank, that directs her to a website that looks like her banking site, and asks for her details to "confirm" them... is she stupid for falling for that? No, she's just fallen for a scam that she'd not heard of before. Happens to people all the time, and you can't say they're all stupid people.
It never happens to me. I may be a computer geek but I also take the time to stay infomed about the latest Internet scams and I treat EVERY email as a possible scam unless I am 100% sure of it's source.
How many times to banks have to repeat to their customers that they are unlikely to use email to communicate with customers and will never ask for secure information by email.
You say "didn't understand the security warning about phishing (rubbish name by the way)"... First, which security warning? Do you regularly read the security warnings that the food industry publishes? How about the security warnings from your banks? Do you even know where to find these warnings?
Like I said, be suspicious about everything you get sent unless you know 100% that it's legitimate.
These security warnings are useless to Joe Public if posted to some security-orientated website. The only time they'll get absorbed by the public at large is when they hit mass media, and are explained in a "this is the bad thing that'll happen to you if you fall for this scam - here's a few examples of it" kind of way.
No, they're useless to Joe Public who can't be bothered to go read them. Most people stay informed online when it comes to the latest releases at the local cinema, music and DVD reviews, the latest deals at local stores, etc. So what's the difference?
The point is that using technical jargon to "explain" a problem to a layman is, plainly, idiotic. It's a problem I get from a lot of the technical folks around me - frankly I don't care about the technical details, all I care about is the end result. They find this a difficult concept to grasp, and it's no wonder that the techs and users end up feeling exasperated when they try and fail to communicate.
Substitute "gullible sucker" for "layman". I'm sorry but ignorance is no excuse.
I used to get ripped off most times I bought a new CD, DVD or computer game because I fell for the hype and advertising of the companies trying to sell me the overpriced junk. Now I stay informed, read reviews carefully, speak to other people and don't buy anything unless I have a pretty good idea it's worth the money up front. Most "laymen" do the same thing when buying a house, a car or other large purchase - just apply the same principles to everything else.
Does the fact I know bugger-all about my car's motor make me an unsafe driver?
Not holding the steering wheel with both hands, pressing down too hard on the brake or accelerator , using a mobile phone while driving, etc. Those make you unsafe but because you have been educated to use those controls correctly, and have practiced using those yourself, those are what make you a safe driver. Knowledge of the mechanics, apart from enough to keep the vehicle road-worthy, are irrelevant.
Analagous to this, an operating system can be seen as the front end controls to a computer system - the bit that gives you a "friendly" front-end so you don't need to go worrying about bits, bytes and computer cycles.
Getting ripped off by mechanics for lack of knowledge is a whole different point... but there's plenty of people out there willing to pay plenty of cash for technically minded folks to do "trivially simple" things for them.
I don't see a problem with paying for techie help but if you are doing it repeatedly for the same issues over and over again, then you are being taken for a sucker. What you should be doing is trying to understand what went wrong and what was done to fix it so next time you can try it yourself - watch and learn.
So why don't you l33t geniuses give us an OS that's secure?
Why don't you go make the time to learn how an operating system works properly? Even the lowliest Windows system can be made 100 times more secure with a little knowledge of how to use and deploy the right security tools.
Presumably you have spent / will spend money and time to go learn to drive a car? So what's the difference?
You're so haughty and above it all, but you gave the world a network where 11 year old kids with borrowed scripts and a '386 machine can bring the whole thing crashing down.
11 year old kids with borrowed scripts and a '386 machine can create nasty trojans and viruses that infect a whole heap of insecure machines that combined bring the whole thing crashing down - that's the difference. No insecure machines, no slowdowns...
Just opened up the replies to this Microsoft article and an advert for Linux.com popped up! Those advertising marketeers must be mindreaders...
Still, it makes a change from a "Microsoft Get The Bulls^H^H^H^H^H Facts" advert popping up on every Linux article...
Re:Is the objective of GNU/Linux to recreate Windo
on
NeroLinux vs. K3b
·
· Score: 1
Mod parent up.
I agree 100%. There seems to be this "movement" that believes just because most PCs in the world run Windows, then copying the Windows GUI environment and applications into other operating systems is the only way forward.
Incidentally, I use Nero in Windows occasionally, most of the time it does its job but it also can suffer from very bad slowdown problems, does not like dealing with file deletions on network shares and consistently feels "sluggish". All in all, it's the best of a mediocre bunch of Windows CD burning applications...
Aside from that, what seems to be forgotten is that the GUI enviroment in any UNIX-like operating system is a separate application, not part of the core OS and therefore does not need to be run to achieve certain tasks.
I'm more than happy with efforts to encourage the Windows community to try Linux but most of that community has fallen for far too much Microsoft hype over the past few years - Windows was sold to them as an OS that negated any need to understand how PCs and OSes work and, as a result, we have a community rife with viruses and spyware who now have to perform more regular software updates than the average UNIX sysadmin.
I don't want Linux or Free Software to "move" towards those people. Instead, I want those people to understand that using free software does come with a price - namely to spend some time learning how to use that software, the OS and the PC to become more knowledgeable and part of a community of users who give feedback to developers of free software.
I'm not trying to be a PC or OS "snob" here - I use Gnome / KDE along with everyone else, I even run Windows 2000 for some stuff I need to do.
But nothing is better for one's productivity on a computer than a whole bunch of simple, well-written, command-line tools and a good knowledge of shell-scripting.
...what's the point of a search engine built into the filesystem? Surely it's just adding overhead for no reason if you don't need it.
Yes, I'm a UNIX-type person but keeping files in a logical directory structure along with copious use of find and grep commands seems to be good enough on most of the systems I work on. I even use WinGrep on Windows for that level of text searching...
The Registry is a database and definitely a weak point of Windows when it comes to resilience. NTFS seems to do a reasonable job of keeping the filesystem intact, why add a risk of introducing resilience problems into the filesystem by linking it to a database? Unless it's just a marketing ploy to sell you an MSSQL license at the same time.
Whatever anyone says about UNIX/Linux, the concept of keeping operating system tools simple and doing a good job of one specific task has allowed it to earn the stability and resilience reputation. Sure, you've got to spend time shell-scripting to unleash its full power but that's half the fun of it.
I'd love someone to give me a definitive answer as to why the concept of WinFS is so good - I genuinely don't understand all the hoohah about it.
How can a new patent law be applied to existing software?
What I mean by that is that if someone defines, say, a new crime and brings out laws against that crime, from that point on you can try people for breaking those laws. But you can't retrospectively try people who committed that crime before the laws against it were written.
Sure, patent law has existed for years but software patent laws are not currently recognised in Europe. If they do get through, by the same logic, no software written before those laws were enforced can come under them - is that the case or am I missing something?
Can you imagine Microsoft, or Adobe, or EA Games, making most or all of their software open-source (under any license?)
I'm afraid you've suffered from a case of the old 2+2=5" syndrome there.
You can keep an application closed sourced and run it on an Open Source operating system. So all of those companies could keep their applications closed source and just port them to Linux.
Sure, there's difficulties with the nuber of different distros, links to libraries etc, but it can be done (and has been done).
IMHO experience, there's nothing like an AC/DC concert to kill any "Linux vs Windows" arguments dead in their tracks and have all geeks rocking together in brotherly unity under a common flag of truth, justice and the Angus way!:-)
Damn! I'm getting AC/DC withdrawal symptoms now - there simply must be a new CD and tour soon...
If someone uses my program then great. If not I don't care.
I'm not sure I understand the logic here.
If someone sends you an email that says "I downloaded your program, it's great and I use it every day" that must give you a real good buzz.
If someone else sends you an email that says "I like your program but can you make it do this?", are you really saying that you wouldn't at least give that feature some due consideration?
What about if you said "No" to that person but then 50 more people emailed you asking for the same feature?
I'm simply curious because just about all the Open Source people I've ever emailed with this kind of thing are always very thankful for feedback from others - sure, they're not always going to say "Yes" or "Great idea" but they do always seem thankful for interest and feedback.
IMHO people devote time to Open Source projects because they just like programming, because they want the notoriety and "pats on the back" from others (not a criticism, BTW, a perfectly laudable reason to do it) or because they have a great idea for a new piece of software.
But surely all of those reasons get better by people sending you feedback.
I don't think there's actually any more evangelism with Linux than there is with Windows - for example, on here we're told daily that "Blue Screens" are a thing of the past on Windows these days. (No, I use this an example, I've not opened this topic for debate!)
However, in my experience, most of the Linux people I know, including myself, have lots of Windows experience also and can therefore make valid comparisons between the two.
Many Windows users use the same tired old arguments when it comes to talking about Linux, to the point where you know they've formed their opinions from FUD and the words of others, not through actual usage of it.
The real "big hitter" of course is that Linux is only the kernel in reality and everything else is (usually) a GPL application that many times has a port to Windows also.
Consequently, if everyone was a bit more positive and knowledgeable all round, fed problems back to Open Source developers rather than just sitting back and moaning, these applications would get better for all of us, not just the Linux people.
The fact is, you can strip out a huge number of the included apps in Windows and replace them with equally as good, sometimes even better Open Source apps - so the fact is that the core OS, from that perspective, becomes pretty much redundant anyway...
As long as you clearly explain the pros and cons of running Linux, most people are willing to try Linux.
Not to mention the fact that Linux (through LILO and GRUB) encouragesyou to still keep your Windows installation to dual boot quite happily.
I've yet to see a Windows installation program that says "I see you have Linux in this partition. Would you like me to install elsewhere on this disk and give you an option menu at boot up?"
If you have a Linux box that cannot meet my needs, why the fuck would I buy it?
The real question here is have you made a good enough evaluation of Linux to determine if it does or does not meet your needs?
If you have, then stick with Windows if that's how you're more productive, nobody would expect you to do otherwise because you have exercised your choice.
If you haven't evaluated it properly, then is it because you don't have access to all the information about Linux? Have you tried a more suitable distribution? Do you know what distributions are out there?
Since there's no glossy page advertising with Linux, how are you going to find out for yourself unless someone else advocates it?
Because somebody with a Ph.D worked on some programs in that box?
Redundant argument - I'm sure Microsoft, Symantece, etc., etc., employ are large number of PhD programmers also. Many Open Source programs can find the free time for Open Source because of daytime full employment as programmers in commercial organisations.
Also, why are you treating Open Source and Windows as mutually exclusive? Firefox, Open Office, The GIMP, GAIM, etc. etc. - all Open Source applications which run on Windows.
Is it because nobody has explained what Open Source actually is to you? Is that because there is not enough positive advocacy of Open Source?
Dell sells cheap Wintel boxes because that is what customers want
Dell is a PC company that sells pre-installed Windows PCs - that's the difference. Customers do not exercise a choice as to the OS they use, Dell has already decided to include Windows.
Most Joe Bloke users do not care about the OS they use - in my experience, they all know they're running Windows but ask them whether it's 98, 2000, or XP and they don't know.
Sure, Joe Bloke has familiarity with Windows - he knows where the browser icon is, how to plug his digital camera in and download pictures to his PC, write a letter, etc. But what happens if you move his Internet Explorer icon elsewhere or you ask him to download new drivers for his camera? How many Joe Bloke users perform the regular necessary updates of OS, virus checkers, spyware programs, etc. on their PCs?
Again, it is Linux's duty to meet Joe Bloke's criteria of "ease of use" if it is going to replace Windows on his desktop - even if it does that, Joe Bloke won't care that it's Linux running in place of Windows.
In this world everything is sold, not bought. Sell an Open Source solution to the public and you shall succeed.
Sorry, what's so wrong with just a bit of good old fashioned sharing occasionally rather than selling everything.
Doesn't sharing encourage social contact with others? Sharing a meal together? Sharing a piece of music that's pretty good?
Perhaps, again, lack of good advocacy in this selfish modern world of ours means that people no longer believe some good things can be free.
If you really want to push Open Source, show cost savings, productivity increase, and fewer losses contributed to the fact that Open Source is not Windows.
Microsoft pushes Windows, dealers push drugs...
Open Source does not work like that. It is an alternative solution, it's there if you want it, nothing more.
However, Open Source is totally the opposite to commercial software. People buy software because it meets their needs, the software vendor therefore has to put in the features it believes people want in order to sell it.
If an Open Source package does not meet your requirements you can either use an alternative Open Source or commercial piece of software or you can contact the Open Source developers and tell them what features you think are missing.
Use of Open Source implies a degree of personal responsibility in getting what you want, not just handing over some money and getting a shrink-wrapped box.
but that doesn't mean we shouldn't punish the criminals
Of course they should be punished! I've not said anything otherwise...
But all of us are potential victims of crime and most of us would like to see a crime reduction. Therefore, we have a social duty to do as much as we can to protect ourselves from crime.
Phishing happens only because far too many people are "suckered" into believing false information from two sides of the fence - from the computer hardware and software makers who say words like "safe" and "secure" far too much and from the scammers themselves.
Sorry, in answer to your first point, here's a link to the current story about the BBC paying the burglar (who's name is Brendan Fearon I've since discovered.
Just as hacking brings bad things, it also brings a lot of good in terms of uncovering false sense of security
I agree 100%. I'm not a full-time security person, I do bits and pieces within the scope of my job. However, I sit and hack my own machines or lab machines and report any problems I find back to the developers or customers.
Hacking is good, hacking for criminal gain is bad.
A reasonable person will not think an email from his or her bank telling them that there account has been compromised is suspect.
Sorry, but for how long now have banks and credit card companies been saying to their customers that under no circumstances do they make unsolicited phone calls or send unsolicited emails to you?
How long have they been telling us to call their organisations back only on the given telephone numbers, email addresse, etc.?
Not everyone can be a genius like you.
That's right (at least on computers anyway). That's why you should think about what I'm saying - YOUR INFORMATION is YOUR RESPONSIBILITY.
Fortunately, not everyone is a sociopath like you either, believing that all of the pathetic inferior humans deserve to be defrauded because they're not as smart as you.
Not that it's any of your business but I've been with my wife 12 years now, have a large circle of friends and a large number of work colleagues in a good working environment - please look elsewhere for your "sociopath", my friend.
No-one "deserves" to be the victim of any crime. But everyone has a responsibility to the rest of society to make it as difficult as possible for crime to succeed - that means accepting a lot of personal responsibility rather than just assuming the nanny state will do everything for you.
If we all do our utmost to fight against crime, we all benefit as a society, even if we just protect ourselves.
If people are stupid enough to live in homes that aren't as secure as a military installation, they deserve to have their stuff stolen.
No. If people do not have enough common sense to take reasonable common-sense precautions against crime, rather than assuming that the police and the state will do it all for them, then they share some of the responsibility for having their stuff stolen.
Will I knowingly let a complete stranger into my house without doing my utmost to confirm that person's identity? No.
Will I respond to an email that I am not 100% sure about? No.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sat here with nothing to do on my Linux and UNIX servers... Can someone fo a UNIX FOSS port of SP2 please? I want to see what all the fuss is about?
Well then try me, seems a perfectly reasonable analogy to me.
Car = expensive device that most people want that takes time to learn to operate that other people can easily mess up for you.
PC = expensive device that most people want that takes time to learn to operate that other people can easily mess up for you.
The point is that the machines should not have such deep flaws that they can ever BE insecure. That fact that they have all these holes that need patching is the problem, and that should be addressed at the source, and not by heaping blame on the victims (the users).
You buy a new washing machine. That washing machine has some internal circuitry and logic that allows it to wash and dry clothes at an appropriate temperature. It has some simple front end controls that you, by reading a few pages in an instruction manual, can learn to operate so that it washes clothes the way you want them to.
If the machine shrinks a new sweater of yours because you used the wrong wash mode, who's fault is that?
If you leave the front door of your house open such that a drug crazed vandal smashes the washing machine to bits, who's fault is that?
So why's it different with computers? If you are gullible enough to believe the OS manufacturer's hype about their security then you either take the matter of security under your control or use a different product.
If you must use car analogies, the holes in the OS are life DEFECTS in a car that causes an accident or engine fire or something.
To my knowledge, I know of no PC security defect likely to caude the loss of human life, unlike, say, a car catching fire or an engine bursting into flames - so now you're using an incorrect car analogy. Even then, if you are sold a car with this kind of defect, you'd take it back to the manufacturer and get your money back.
So why aren't you doing the same with Windows? It obviously doesn't meet your security requirements or the ease of use you want. So either deal with it by learning more or get a refund.
It never happens to me. I may be a computer geek but I also take the time to stay infomed about the latest Internet scams and I treat EVERY email as a possible scam unless I am 100% sure of it's source.
How many times to banks have to repeat to their customers that they are unlikely to use email to communicate with customers and will never ask for secure information by email.
You say "didn't understand the security warning about phishing (rubbish name by the way)"... First, which security warning? Do you regularly read the security warnings that the food industry publishes? How about the security warnings from your banks? Do you even know where to find these warnings?
Like I said, be suspicious about everything you get sent unless you know 100% that it's legitimate.
These security warnings are useless to Joe Public if posted to some security-orientated website. The only time they'll get absorbed by the public at large is when they hit mass media, and are explained in a "this is the bad thing that'll happen to you if you fall for this scam - here's a few examples of it" kind of way.
No, they're useless to Joe Public who can't be bothered to go read them. Most people stay informed online when it comes to the latest releases at the local cinema, music and DVD reviews, the latest deals at local stores, etc. So what's the difference?
The point is that using technical jargon to "explain" a problem to a layman is, plainly, idiotic. It's a problem I get from a lot of the technical folks around me - frankly I don't care about the technical details, all I care about is the end result. They find this a difficult concept to grasp, and it's no wonder that the techs and users end up feeling exasperated when they try and fail to communicate.
Substitute "gullible sucker" for "layman". I'm sorry but ignorance is no excuse.
I used to get ripped off most times I bought a new CD, DVD or computer game because I fell for the hype and advertising of the companies trying to sell me the overpriced junk. Now I stay informed, read reviews carefully, speak to other people and don't buy anything unless I have a pretty good idea it's worth the money up front. Most "laymen" do the same thing when buying a house, a car or other large purchase - just apply the same principles to everything else.
Does the fact I know bugger-all about my car's motor make me an unsafe driver?
Not holding the steering wheel with both hands, pressing down too hard on the brake or accelerator , using a mobile phone while driving, etc. Those make you unsafe but because you have been educated to use those controls correctly, and have practiced using those yourself, those are what make you a safe driver. Knowledge of the mechanics, apart from enough to keep the vehicle road-worthy, are irrelevant.
Analagous to this, an operating system can be seen as the front end controls to a computer system - the bit that gives you a "friendly" front-end so you don't need to go worrying about bits, bytes and computer cycles.
Getting ripped off by mechanics for lack of knowledge is a whole different point... but there's plenty of people out there willing to pay plenty of cash for technically minded folks to do "trivially simple" things for them.
I don't see a problem with paying for techie help but if you are doing it repeatedly for the same issues over and over again, then you are being taken for a sucker. What you should be doing is trying to understand what went wrong and what was done to fix it so next time you can try it yourself - watch and learn.
Why don't you go make the time to learn how an operating system works properly? Even the lowliest Windows system can be made 100 times more secure with a little knowledge of how to use and deploy the right security tools.
Presumably you have spent / will spend money and time to go learn to drive a car? So what's the difference?
You're so haughty and above it all, but you gave the world a network where 11 year old kids with borrowed scripts and a '386 machine can bring the whole thing crashing down.
11 year old kids with borrowed scripts and a '386 machine can create nasty trojans and viruses that infect a whole heap of insecure machines that combined bring the whole thing crashing down - that's the difference. No insecure machines, no slowdowns...
Unfortunately, whenever they make things foolproof, along come the better fools.
Just wondering...
Still, it makes a change from a "Microsoft Get The Bulls^H^H^H^H^H Facts" advert popping up on every Linux article...
I agree 100%. There seems to be this "movement" that believes just because most PCs in the world run Windows, then copying the Windows GUI environment and applications into other operating systems is the only way forward.
Incidentally, I use Nero in Windows occasionally, most of the time it does its job but it also can suffer from very bad slowdown problems, does not like dealing with file deletions on network shares and consistently feels "sluggish". All in all, it's the best of a mediocre bunch of Windows CD burning applications...
Aside from that, what seems to be forgotten is that the GUI enviroment in any UNIX-like operating system is a separate application, not part of the core OS and therefore does not need to be run to achieve certain tasks.
I'm more than happy with efforts to encourage the Windows community to try Linux but most of that community has fallen for far too much Microsoft hype over the past few years - Windows was sold to them as an OS that negated any need to understand how PCs and OSes work and, as a result, we have a community rife with viruses and spyware who now have to perform more regular software updates than the average UNIX sysadmin.
I don't want Linux or Free Software to "move" towards those people. Instead, I want those people to understand that using free software does come with a price - namely to spend some time learning how to use that software, the OS and the PC to become more knowledgeable and part of a community of users who give feedback to developers of free software.
I'm not trying to be a PC or OS "snob" here - I use Gnome / KDE along with everyone else, I even run Windows 2000 for some stuff I need to do.
But nothing is better for one's productivity on a computer than a whole bunch of simple, well-written, command-line tools and a good knowledge of shell-scripting.
You want to put a lock on the Faraday cage - just to be on the safe side...
Just wondered if anyone else wanted some refreshments before we all sit back and enjoy all the nice big legal fights that are about to begin...
...we're all phucked then!
Yes, I'm a UNIX-type person but keeping files in a logical directory structure along with copious use of find and grep commands seems to be good enough on most of the systems I work on. I even use WinGrep on Windows for that level of text searching...
The Registry is a database and definitely a weak point of Windows when it comes to resilience. NTFS seems to do a reasonable job of keeping the filesystem intact, why add a risk of introducing resilience problems into the filesystem by linking it to a database? Unless it's just a marketing ploy to sell you an MSSQL license at the same time.
Whatever anyone says about UNIX/Linux, the concept of keeping operating system tools simple and doing a good job of one specific task has allowed it to earn the stability and resilience reputation. Sure, you've got to spend time shell-scripting to unleash its full power but that's half the fun of it.
I'd love someone to give me a definitive answer as to why the concept of WinFS is so good - I genuinely don't understand all the hoohah about it.
What I mean by that is that if someone defines, say, a new crime and brings out laws against that crime, from that point on you can try people for breaking those laws. But you can't retrospectively try people who committed that crime before the laws against it were written.
Sure, patent law has existed for years but software patent laws are not currently recognised in Europe. If they do get through, by the same logic, no software written before those laws were enforced can come under them - is that the case or am I missing something?
I'm afraid you've suffered from a case of the old 2+2=5" syndrome there.
You can keep an application closed sourced and run it on an Open Source operating system. So all of those companies could keep their applications closed source and just port them to Linux.
Sure, there's difficulties with the nuber of different distros, links to libraries etc, but it can be done (and has been done).
IMHO experience, there's nothing like an AC/DC concert to kill any "Linux vs Windows" arguments dead in their tracks and have all geeks rocking together in brotherly unity under a common flag of truth, justice and the Angus way! :-)
Damn! I'm getting AC/DC withdrawal symptoms now - there simply must be a new CD and tour soon...
I'm not sure I understand the logic here.
If someone sends you an email that says "I downloaded your program, it's great and I use it every day" that must give you a real good buzz.
If someone else sends you an email that says "I like your program but can you make it do this?", are you really saying that you wouldn't at least give that feature some due consideration?
What about if you said "No" to that person but then 50 more people emailed you asking for the same feature?
I'm simply curious because just about all the Open Source people I've ever emailed with this kind of thing are always very thankful for feedback from others - sure, they're not always going to say "Yes" or "Great idea" but they do always seem thankful for interest and feedback.
IMHO people devote time to Open Source projects because they just like programming, because they want the notoriety and "pats on the back" from others (not a criticism, BTW, a perfectly laudable reason to do it) or because they have a great idea for a new piece of software.
But surely all of those reasons get better by people sending you feedback.
However, in my experience, most of the Linux people I know, including myself, have lots of Windows experience also and can therefore make valid comparisons between the two.
Many Windows users use the same tired old arguments when it comes to talking about Linux, to the point where you know they've formed their opinions from FUD and the words of others, not through actual usage of it.
The real "big hitter" of course is that Linux is only the kernel in reality and everything else is (usually) a GPL application that many times has a port to Windows also.
Consequently, if everyone was a bit more positive and knowledgeable all round, fed problems back to Open Source developers rather than just sitting back and moaning, these applications would get better for all of us, not just the Linux people.
The fact is, you can strip out a huge number of the included apps in Windows and replace them with equally as good, sometimes even better Open Source apps - so the fact is that the core OS, from that perspective, becomes pretty much redundant anyway...
Not to mention the fact that Linux (through LILO and GRUB) encouragesyou to still keep your Windows installation to dual boot quite happily.
I've yet to see a Windows installation program that says "I see you have Linux in this partition. Would you like me to install elsewhere on this disk and give you an option menu at boot up?"
The real question here is have you made a good enough evaluation of Linux to determine if it does or does not meet your needs?
If you have, then stick with Windows if that's how you're more productive, nobody would expect you to do otherwise because you have exercised your choice.
If you haven't evaluated it properly, then is it because you don't have access to all the information about Linux? Have you tried a more suitable distribution? Do you know what distributions are out there?
Since there's no glossy page advertising with Linux, how are you going to find out for yourself unless someone else advocates it?
Because somebody with a Ph.D worked on some programs in that box?
Redundant argument - I'm sure Microsoft, Symantece, etc., etc., employ are large number of PhD programmers also. Many Open Source programs can find the free time for Open Source because of daytime full employment as programmers in commercial organisations.
Also, why are you treating Open Source and Windows as mutually exclusive? Firefox, Open Office, The GIMP, GAIM, etc. etc. - all Open Source applications which run on Windows.
Is it because nobody has explained what Open Source actually is to you? Is that because there is not enough positive advocacy of Open Source?
Dell sells cheap Wintel boxes because that is what customers want
Dell is a PC company that sells pre-installed Windows PCs - that's the difference. Customers do not exercise a choice as to the OS they use, Dell has already decided to include Windows.
Most Joe Bloke users do not care about the OS they use - in my experience, they all know they're running Windows but ask them whether it's 98, 2000, or XP and they don't know.
Sure, Joe Bloke has familiarity with Windows - he knows where the browser icon is, how to plug his digital camera in and download pictures to his PC, write a letter, etc. But what happens if you move his Internet Explorer icon elsewhere or you ask him to download new drivers for his camera? How many Joe Bloke users perform the regular necessary updates of OS, virus checkers, spyware programs, etc. on their PCs?
Again, it is Linux's duty to meet Joe Bloke's criteria of "ease of use" if it is going to replace Windows on his desktop - even if it does that, Joe Bloke won't care that it's Linux running in place of Windows.
In this world everything is sold, not bought. Sell an Open Source solution to the public and you shall succeed.
Sorry, what's so wrong with just a bit of good old fashioned sharing occasionally rather than selling everything.
Doesn't sharing encourage social contact with others? Sharing a meal together? Sharing a piece of music that's pretty good?
Perhaps, again, lack of good advocacy in this selfish modern world of ours means that people no longer believe some good things can be free.
If you really want to push Open Source, show cost savings, productivity increase, and fewer losses contributed to the fact that Open Source is not Windows.
Microsoft pushes Windows, dealers push drugs...
Open Source does not work like that. It is an alternative solution, it's there if you want it, nothing more.
However, Open Source is totally the opposite to commercial software. People buy software because it meets their needs, the software vendor therefore has to put in the features it believes people want in order to sell it.
If an Open Source package does not meet your requirements you can either use an alternative Open Source or commercial piece of software or you can contact the Open Source developers and tell them what features you think are missing.
Use of Open Source implies a degree of personal responsibility in getting what you want, not just handing over some money and getting a shrink-wrapped box.
Anyone who is trul
Penguins are found only in the Southern Hemisphere.
Of course they should be punished! I've not said anything otherwise...
But all of us are potential victims of crime and most of us would like to see a crime reduction. Therefore, we have a social duty to do as much as we can to protect ourselves from crime.
Phishing happens only because far too many people are "suckered" into believing false information from two sides of the fence - from the computer hardware and software makers who say words like "safe" and "secure" far too much and from the scammers themselves.
Sorry, in answer to your first point, here's a link to the current story about the BBC paying the burglar (who's name is Brendan Fearon I've since discovered.
I agree 100%. I'm not a full-time security person, I do bits and pieces within the scope of my job. However, I sit and hack my own machines or lab machines and report any problems I find back to the developers or customers.
Hacking is good, hacking for criminal gain is bad.
Enjoy your weekend also.
Sorry, but for how long now have banks and credit card companies been saying to their customers that under no circumstances do they make unsolicited phone calls or send unsolicited emails to you?
How long have they been telling us to call their organisations back only on the given telephone numbers, email addresse, etc.?
Not everyone can be a genius like you.
That's right (at least on computers anyway). That's why you should think about what I'm saying - YOUR INFORMATION is YOUR RESPONSIBILITY.
Fortunately, not everyone is a sociopath like you either, believing that all of the pathetic inferior humans deserve to be defrauded because they're not as smart as you.
Not that it's any of your business but I've been with my wife 12 years now, have a large circle of friends and a large number of work colleagues in a good working environment - please look elsewhere for your "sociopath", my friend.
No-one "deserves" to be the victim of any crime. But everyone has a responsibility to the rest of society to make it as difficult as possible for crime to succeed - that means accepting a lot of personal responsibility rather than just assuming the nanny state will do everything for you.
If we all do our utmost to fight against crime, we all benefit as a society, even if we just protect ourselves.
No. If people do not have enough common sense to take reasonable common-sense precautions against crime, rather than assuming that the police and the state will do it all for them, then they share some of the responsibility for having their stuff stolen.
Will I knowingly let a complete stranger into my house without doing my utmost to confirm that person's identity? No.
Will I respond to an email that I am not 100% sure about? No.
I rest my case.