So in other words, since its not specifically good for Linux it shouldnt be done? Everybody needs to understand a few things about PCs and the BIOS as well-
This stuff runs essentially the same as it did in the 80s. Sure, it uses more memory, bigger hard drives, etc, but its all just built from the same thing. Which leads into #2-
The solutions which were created to deal with things (such as the BIOS) were only intended, by their creators, to be temporary solutions until somebody designed something better. However, the IBM PC became a standard, and everything since then been built upon that foundation.
So, for the first time in decades, people are looking at the PC and trying to make it better. Why cant we have computers which boot up in seconds, rather than minutes? Why cant we have power saving which actually works? Those features, and many more, will only be possible with a redesign. The old way of doing things carries too much baggage.
Its sad, because I had always thought computer people always look for the best way to do things. Unfortunately, computer people are just like everyone else, and all too willing to accept the status quo.
If I don't want Linux to do something, I change the code and recompile.
If I dont want Windows to do something, I stop or uninstall the service, or edit the registry to get it to perform how I want.
I don't have to wait for the next version and hope my feature is added
But the great thing is that I can know for certain that everybody is running the same thing. Standardizing is very important in IT.
You probably don't have a clue how to use Linux. That's okay, it's easy to learn.
I dont know how to use Linux, nor do I honestly care to. Rather than learning everything under the sun, I choose to focus my attention on those areas where my expertise lies. I tried playing with linux a few years ago, but it wouldnt work on either of the computers I installed it on, nor was any of the books or websites I read helpful in any way. If I need to be an expert just to install the damn thing, its not worth my time.
It's actually easier to be a network architect and security engineer using Linux instead of M$.
Not in any of the companies I do network architecture or security engineering for. Unix experience helps a bit, but for the most part its not an in demand skill anywhere I have been.
You just have to retrain a little every day. And there is plenty of help on the net.
If I really cared to learn it, Im sure it wouldnt be a problem. The real problem is there is no intelligent reason for me to 'retrain', especially when Im already an expert with my platform of choice.
Someday everyone will realize that we should be paying for new things and not old ideas
And one might argue there really is nothing new. The whole 'new economy' mindset comes to mind.
Word processing hasn't changed in 20 years. Why should people keep paying for it?
The car hasnt fundamentally changed in over fifty years, but people keep paying for those, too. Perhaps the reason is the cars (and word processors) of today work better than their predecessors. Perhaps you are paying in order for somebody to continue to improve the product.
In pharma, you pay a lot for new drugs, but old ones become generics and are cheap.
If you want to use old technology, you can get licenses for NT4 and Win9x for very cheap. So in what way is this supposed to be different?
The reason your idea fails, however, is that people are moving TO Windows 2000/XP, because it has many advantages of the old operating systems (stability just being one of many).
Linux is going to lose out to MS for the simple reason that business need money to run on, and people need money to buy food with. Having people fix your software problems is good for hobbyists, or for non-critical things, but big businesses need a company behind what they use. Thats why IBM will eventaully squeeze out most of the other little players in the corporate market. Who do you thing Corporate America wants running their firewall or webservers- IBM's version or "Linux Joe's uber distro"? Sun and IBM are the only companies really taken seriously in that space (now that SCO made themselves a liability).
I know this is off-topic, but Im looking to get into a GBA, and was wondering what to buy.
I have a ton of roms, and had seen they sell recordable cards which can hold several roms at a time.
Where could i get these, and what are the options? For example, there are GBA music/movie players which use SD memory cards. Can these be used to store and play roms?
MS is still making money, still improving their product, and still retaining customers (despite the pseudo-news that Slashdot keeps posting).
Face it, Slashdot is little more than a propaganda source for Linux. Look who they are owned by, and tell me you dont smell 'alterior motive' around here.
BTW, I work as a network architect and security engineer in corporate IT, and NOBODY is talking about switching from MS. There are too many benefits to being with them, and the bene's keep getting bigger and better. For example, its nice having one place to call if something goes wrong that the tech people cant resolve. Likewise, I enjoy being able to use Technet for various problems, rather than having to figure out yet another vendor's website and support network.
The strawmen OSS people make against MS products (like the every popular 'monoculture' arguement) are always wrong, and very illogical. My guess is that its the ranting of high school kids with very little experience in IT, or else developers who likewise have very little experience in security or network design (they know just enough to *sound* like they know what they are talking about).
One thing I really like about DVDs is the value added options. I generally wait for special editions, because you get the making of info, interviews with effects people, directors, actors, etc, and lots of other stuff.
This is the main reason I held off on buying Lord of the Rings- you just KNOW there is going to be a LotR box set eventually.
He's only saying IIS is part of the OS because he doesnt know what he is talking about (despite attempts to appear so). He may impress the other guys at the help desk with his mailing list membership, but it really shouldnt impress anybody around here (especially those of us already working computer security positions).
I thought the whole.com era was filled with companies willing to make mistakes...
Doesnt seem like a recipe for success to me. I have always found learning from mistakes, and conciencously avoiding making them, to be a better way to do things. 80% of mistakes are just bad planning.
Well see, thats the catch. If you ran just about anything on that quality hardware it would run reliably. As for your average Joe Linuxuser, they arent too likely to have a pSeries sitting around their house.
So essentially this isnt a test of Linux, this is just a test of the pSeries hardware.
Now IBM can breathe easier, knowing they can just use Linux instead of having to pay people to support AIX. This is a great day for the pointy-haired boss!
LOL, I only remembered that fact because I was going to make a clever joke saying "OnSpy". Apparently I was beaten to the punch by thirty other people, so I was forced to say something interesting and/or informative. Oh well.
No, I know what YOU are saying, but Im asking you to quantify it with something other that 'dude states something as fact on an Internet forum'. My favorite reference is security tracker, but there is a whole world wide web of information out there for you to cite.
For example, there has to be somebody who did a side by side comparison of Windows 2000 (or XP) and Linux. Maybe they even have pretty bar charts showing operating speeds, Quake3 framerates, etc.
Much, much more credible and informative than the esteemed Dr. bhtooefr's gracious posting to Slashdot. Thats what I mean by quantifying what you are saying.
It doesnt default the user to admin in any OS *I* use. But I only use Win2k Pro or Server; life is too short to waste my time with consumer level computer goods.
One other point, now that you bring it up; if Windows Home had seperate Admin and User accounts, what percentage of people do you thing would end up locked out of their computers? See, what you Linux guys cant accept is the fact that computers need to be used by non-computer experts. They dont want to remember two or more accounts, what account you need to do what, etc.
Thus, MS makes trade-offs regarding ease of use vs. security. Why? Because EVERY security measure you can impliment goes directly counter to ease of use. If you cant understand this concept, I would advise you to take a few computer security and network design classes.
By using mapserver instead of a proprietary system, I can bid $8000 lower on a job. Same thing for using open source dbms in situations that warrant it.
All that money, and you still cant afford a Slashdot account....
Well, beating XBox Live will be hard for even Sony. I dont have an XBox, but from what I hear about Live Im definitely temped to- It is apparently a very slick, well designed product.
I dont think its so much that everyone else is doing things wrong, so much as MS really did things right. I really hope some of that technology finds its way into Windows- the multiplayer components on PC games are crap; it would be nice if MS could just make the game connect part of DirectX or something.
So while MSFT didn't invent the original HashCash concept MSFT did improve upon it. So before anyone gets the bright idea of flaming MSFT ignorantly.... know your facts!
Come on: this is Slashdot. Facts have very little to do with anything around here.
From article post: We've reported on this before.
So what has happened new that warrants a re-post? Or are we just going to start recycling old articles periodically?
I guess I needed to make myself clearer. From what I read, it seems like yes, indeed, Disney would likely be paying past royalties to the estate of the musician (he did have a royalty contract; just because it omitted to mention media which was not known at the time likely doesnt negate that agreement).
Disney is TRYING to say that, since the media is not mentioned, they dont have to pay. But common law generally goes against the writer of the contract, hence, its unlikely they will win with that arguement.
Ok, I poked around google and found this, which should bring a few actual facts to the discussion. Apparently the case was settled; Disney probably noticed they didnt have a chance of winning. Here is a quote of a key part, in case anyone doesnt feel like clicking (it is a short article, however)-
In 1999, Louis Prima's wife, Gia, sued Walt Disney for what she claimed were unpaid royalties stemming from Prima voicing King Louie and singing in The Jungle Book. Prima signed a contract with Walt Disney Productions in 1965, Jim Hill reports, which gave him $1500 a day for every day he did voice work on the feature film (his guaranteed minimum was $7500). Prima was also supposed to receive royalties from the sale of recordings from the The Jungle Book recordings.
So the issue concerned music sung by the "King Louie" character. So Disney, being the cheap, evil corporation they have become, decided to scrap the character in order to not have to pay royalties (pretty silly, IMO).
Im sorry, but I dont buy that. If you want to say "better", you need to quantify it.
Looking at the Windows page, most of it is likewise optional. However, poke around Security Tracker's site- you have a greater chance of getting r00ted with Linux (assuming all other things are equal), IMO.
Thats why, of course, computers need full-network security. Having a computer connecting to the internet without a firewall is lunacy, even for home users.
My point isnt to get into some OS penis-size arguement. It's to say that all these people here thinking Linux is so secure are only fooling themselves. They definitely arent fooling the malicious hackers.
Please compare this and this. To be blunt, neither of them appear to be the apex of computer security; people need to stop kidding themselves about how secure Linux is, or it will never get better.
Slashdot Mirror
The hardware vendors are not going to lock out any other OS except Microsoft; what reason would they have to?
This stuff runs essentially the same as it did in the 80s. Sure, it uses more memory, bigger hard drives, etc, but its all just built from the same thing. Which leads into #2-
The solutions which were created to deal with things (such as the BIOS) were only intended, by their creators, to be temporary solutions until somebody designed something better. However, the IBM PC became a standard, and everything since then been built upon that foundation.
So, for the first time in decades, people are looking at the PC and trying to make it better. Why cant we have computers which boot up in seconds, rather than minutes? Why cant we have power saving which actually works? Those features, and many more, will only be possible with a redesign. The old way of doing things carries too much baggage.
Its sad, because I had always thought computer people always look for the best way to do things. Unfortunately, computer people are just like everyone else, and all too willing to accept the status quo.
If I dont want Windows to do something, I stop or uninstall the service, or edit the registry to get it to perform how I want.
I don't have to wait for the next version and hope my feature is added
But the great thing is that I can know for certain that everybody is running the same thing. Standardizing is very important in IT.
You probably don't have a clue how to use Linux. That's okay, it's easy to learn.
I dont know how to use Linux, nor do I honestly care to. Rather than learning everything under the sun, I choose to focus my attention on those areas where my expertise lies. I tried playing with linux a few years ago, but it wouldnt work on either of the computers I installed it on, nor was any of the books or websites I read helpful in any way. If I need to be an expert just to install the damn thing, its not worth my time.
It's actually easier to be a network architect and security engineer using Linux instead of M$.
Not in any of the companies I do network architecture or security engineering for. Unix experience helps a bit, but for the most part its not an in demand skill anywhere I have been.
You just have to retrain a little every day. And there is plenty of help on the net.
If I really cared to learn it, Im sure it wouldnt be a problem. The real problem is there is no intelligent reason for me to 'retrain', especially when Im already an expert with my platform of choice.
Someday everyone will realize that we should be paying for new things and not old ideas
And one might argue there really is nothing new. The whole 'new economy' mindset comes to mind.
Word processing hasn't changed in 20 years. Why should people keep paying for it?
The car hasnt fundamentally changed in over fifty years, but people keep paying for those, too. Perhaps the reason is the cars (and word processors) of today work better than their predecessors. Perhaps you are paying in order for somebody to continue to improve the product.
In pharma, you pay a lot for new drugs, but old ones become generics and are cheap.
If you want to use old technology, you can get licenses for NT4 and Win9x for very cheap. So in what way is this supposed to be different?
The reason your idea fails, however, is that people are moving TO Windows 2000/XP, because it has many advantages of the old operating systems (stability just being one of many).
Linux is going to lose out to MS for the simple reason that business need money to run on, and people need money to buy food with. Having people fix your software problems is good for hobbyists, or for non-critical things, but big businesses need a company behind what they use. Thats why IBM will eventaully squeeze out most of the other little players in the corporate market. Who do you thing Corporate America wants running their firewall or webservers- IBM's version or "Linux Joe's uber distro"? Sun and IBM are the only companies really taken seriously in that space (now that SCO made themselves a liability).
I have a ton of roms, and had seen they sell recordable cards which can hold several roms at a time.
Where could i get these, and what are the options? For example, there are GBA music/movie players which use SD memory cards. Can these be used to store and play roms?
Face it, Slashdot is little more than a propaganda source for Linux. Look who they are owned by, and tell me you dont smell 'alterior motive' around here.
BTW, I work as a network architect and security engineer in corporate IT, and NOBODY is talking about switching from MS. There are too many benefits to being with them, and the bene's keep getting bigger and better. For example, its nice having one place to call if something goes wrong that the tech people cant resolve. Likewise, I enjoy being able to use Technet for various problems, rather than having to figure out yet another vendor's website and support network.
The strawmen OSS people make against MS products (like the every popular 'monoculture' arguement) are always wrong, and very illogical. My guess is that its the ranting of high school kids with very little experience in IT, or else developers who likewise have very little experience in security or network design (they know just enough to *sound* like they know what they are talking about).
This is the main reason I held off on buying Lord of the Rings- you just KNOW there is going to be a LotR box set eventually.
He's only saying IIS is part of the OS because he doesnt know what he is talking about (despite attempts to appear so). He may impress the other guys at the help desk with his mailing list membership, but it really shouldnt impress anybody around here (especially those of us already working computer security positions).
Doesnt seem like a recipe for success to me. I have always found learning from mistakes, and conciencously avoiding making them, to be a better way to do things. 80% of mistakes are just bad planning.
Care to explain the Windows version of QuickTime?
How about a suggestion for something which DOENST cost $2000?
From what Ive heard of Postal 2, you would be much happier with dental surgery.
So essentially this isnt a test of Linux, this is just a test of the pSeries hardware.
Now IBM can breathe easier, knowing they can just use Linux instead of having to pay people to support AIX. This is a great day for the pointy-haired boss!
IBM: "Oh thank God that went well. Now we can finally ditch AIX...
How about the next best thing...
This should get around those pesky problems that those cheap, off the shelf UPSs have with the more 'flavorful' types of power.
LOL, I only remembered that fact because I was going to make a clever joke saying "OnSpy". Apparently I was beaten to the punch by thirty other people, so I was forced to say something interesting and/or informative. Oh well.
For example, there has to be somebody who did a side by side comparison of Windows 2000 (or XP) and Linux. Maybe they even have pretty bar charts showing operating speeds, Quake3 framerates, etc.
Much, much more credible and informative than the esteemed Dr. bhtooefr's gracious posting to Slashdot. Thats what I mean by quantifying what you are saying.
One other point, now that you bring it up; if Windows Home had seperate Admin and User accounts, what percentage of people do you thing would end up locked out of their computers? See, what you Linux guys cant accept is the fact that computers need to be used by non-computer experts. They dont want to remember two or more accounts, what account you need to do what, etc.
Thus, MS makes trade-offs regarding ease of use vs. security. Why? Because EVERY security measure you can impliment goes directly counter to ease of use. If you cant understand this concept, I would advise you to take a few computer security and network design classes.
All that money, and you still cant afford a Slashdot account....
I dont think its so much that everyone else is doing things wrong, so much as MS really did things right. I really hope some of that technology finds its way into Windows- the multiplayer components on PC games are crap; it would be nice if MS could just make the game connect part of DirectX or something.
Come on: this is Slashdot. Facts have very little to do with anything around here.
From article post: We've reported on this before.
So what has happened new that warrants a re-post? Or are we just going to start recycling old articles periodically?
The service that article discussed was NOT OnStar.
Disney is TRYING to say that, since the media is not mentioned, they dont have to pay. But common law generally goes against the writer of the contract, hence, its unlikely they will win with that arguement.
Ok, I poked around google and found this, which should bring a few actual facts to the discussion. Apparently the case was settled; Disney probably noticed they didnt have a chance of winning. Here is a quote of a key part, in case anyone doesnt feel like clicking (it is a short article, however)-
So the issue concerned music sung by the "King Louie" character. So Disney, being the cheap, evil corporation they have become, decided to scrap the character in order to not have to pay royalties (pretty silly, IMO).Looking at the Windows page, most of it is likewise optional. However, poke around Security Tracker's site- you have a greater chance of getting r00ted with Linux (assuming all other things are equal), IMO.
Thats why, of course, computers need full-network security. Having a computer connecting to the internet without a firewall is lunacy, even for home users.
My point isnt to get into some OS penis-size arguement. It's to say that all these people here thinking Linux is so secure are only fooling themselves. They definitely arent fooling the malicious hackers.
Please compare this and this. To be blunt, neither of them appear to be the apex of computer security; people need to stop kidding themselves about how secure Linux is, or it will never get better.