Lots of people here on Slashdot fully buy into, as well as perpetuate, these myths.
The fact that you find them obvious just means that you actually work in software development, and have real experience. Neither of those two can be said for 98% of Slashdot's OSS 'supporters'.
I can add another myth: most people who claim to love the fact that they have access to OSS source code dont really program anything, or even know how to. The term 'script kiddie' comes to mind.
The poster has made no claim about any product other than Windows. He made the claim that all OS's besides Windows were engineered for security first, then ease of use (as I had thought my quote abundantly showed).
Second, I am going by the assumption that you are the idiot I quoted, which seems more likely. I dont think many other people would have cared to reply to my thread, since it had grown rather cold by the time I posted.
Finally, *I* wasnt the one building the straw man, thus I cannot be accused of using a straw man arguement (as you accused me of). If somebody makes a stupid statement and I tear it down, that isnt a straw man: that is a smart person (or at the least a better informed person) showing a stupid person how ignorant their statement was.
So, as I said, you dont know what a straw man arguement is. You are half right, but getting half way up Mt. Everest doesnt put you in a record book.
Microsoft's product Windows predated the release of Linux. Thus, your point is irrelevant, since it would involve time travel to make the product name derivative.
I think they will have a hard time proving the existence of time travel in court, as well as Microsoft's access to it.
Windows, Lindows>. Just because Lin and Win share two letters doesnt mean there isnt a match; you are just dealing in symatics. A match is a match.
Also, Microsoft is their company trademark. Windows is their product trademark. Thus, they are two seperate trademarks; no matter which side of the room you are standing on, only the legal definition counts.
Here is the point I think everyone is missing: MS is not saying Linux, OSX, etc, cannot use the term "window" to describe things in their operating system. This, for example, is why Xerox is afraid to bring up the issue since they have allowed their brand name to become synomonous with photocopying (and thus fear they could lose the case in court).
The issue is that MS is trying to prevent somebody from releasing a product with a derivative name. As I stated earlier, "Lindows" is an 85% match to "Windows"; they only changed one letter! We are talking about a product NAME, not MS trying to trademark the use of an industry term.
There is a difference between "a window" and "Windows, the operating system". They are not attempting to legislate the use of the term "window", nor would they be able to. Likewise, you wont see a computer program company named "Macrosoft" or Microsorft", or one called "Apples". It is far too derivative, and, in the terminology of the matter, it dilutes their brand name.
It isnt a far stretch of the imagination to see that Lindows is trying to cash in on the Windows brand name.
I dont see that Im missing the point; I think you are missing the specific point which is central to the issue (and trademark law).
They arent saying Linux or Lindows cannot use the term "Window". They are saying they cannot use a derivate of the name "Windows" in THE NAME OF THEIR OPERATING SYSTEM.
Name of OS - "Windows"
Name of other OS - "Lindows"
Similarities? 85% match; 6 of 7 characters are the same.
To address your stupid issues, however, here is where the parent said that non-MS OS's were somehow mysteriously 'more secure'
Wrong. There is something to be said for how security is considered in the design of an OS. For Windows, it wasn't much of a consideration, which contributed heavily to why there have been so many systemic vulnerabilities.
The system was designed to be user-friendly, not secure. They got their market-share because of that fact. I think it is much easier to make a secure system user-friendly than to make a user-friendly system secure. Microsoft is finding that out as well. You reap what you sow.
It doesnt take a fortune teller to see the quoted fool was saying that every non-MS product was created to be secure first, and easy to use second. Aside from the fact that Mac has a history of having practically non-existant security (decades of MacOS ring a bell?), this claim also fails with Linux. If Linux was built from the ground up to be more secure (which it really wasnt, since there is no over-riding philosophy or controls in a situation where anybody can make their own distro), than they have completely failed, since Linux still continues to have security holes exposed.
Just because they dont get reported on Slashdot doesnt mean they dont happen. In fact, if they reported on every Linux-related flaw, there wouldnt be room for anything else. Try looking at SecurityTracker.com some time.
You dont appear to understand the concept of a straw man arguement. And besides, I used that term a few posts ago, moron.
Also, if you want to post stupidity, you can at least reply to my post rather than acting like some mysterious AC who just happens to be reading an old, dead thread.
??? I havent seen this to be the case. All the hardcore pirates I have known were Eurpoean. One guy told me how you can buy pirated software at the mall in Poland.
Factor in that the EU has shown (in the Windows Media Player case) that it's quite prepared to crack down hard on MS - in contrast to the US government - and it's no surprise that Microsoft is more concerned about European investments than American ones right now, and doing whatever it can to attack competitors' interests.
MS isnt 'attacking' the interests of Linux. They are maintaining the same stance they have for years- they want Lindows to change their name. 85% of their name is derived from "Windows"; it doesnt take a stretch of the imagination to see MS is right about this.
The problem is the contrarian nature of Slashdot regarding MS; Bill Gates could be trying to prevent evil aliens from taking over the planet, and they would cheer for the aliens just because they were against Gates.
Just to help this case and assure the party in the right succeeds, Im going to suggest to my boss that we buy three more Windows servers.
Lindows.com Chief Executive Officer Michael Robertson in a statement issued in response to the Swedish injunction, lashed out against Microsoft's legal pursuit of his company, accusing Microsoft of using lawsuits "as a battering ram to smash Linux."
Anyone who says that the name "Lindows" doesnt violate the trademark of "Windows" is a real hypocrite. If MS came out with a program called Winix, you guys would be going apeshit.
Even funnier is this Robertson idiot making this case out to be some kind of assult on Linux, rather than an attempt to get him to rename product.
I see. So, by your logic, things like this, this, or any of any of these dont really happen, because they were created perfect from the start.
Somebody needs to get their head out of the sand.
Also: saying that your OS is secure because virus writers arent creating viruses against your OS doesnt mean it is secure. "Security through obscurity" isnt really security- it's more keeping your head in the sand.
Look, fuckstick, what does the government do if this thing screws up during launch and smacks into a downtown Mall 100 miles away? How about if it hits a neighbor's barn, killing all his animals, as well as his children? As I said, there are far more issues here than some idiot's right to build a ballistic missile.
There is the oft-cited article about the kid who built a breeder reactor in his toolshed. It was a perfectly legitimate experiment... but unfortunately he irradiated a whole lot of the surrounding area, and had a risk of creating a dangerous nuclear reaction...
So, since intelligent thought doesnt seem to be your forte', I will leave you with this thought- government is there to enforce the rights of people. Your rights end just before you hit the next guy in the nose.
OHHH wow, they have some PHDs working there. what a commitment!!! Im sure a company with the size of IBM really needed to open up the wallet with THAT move!
The fact of the matter is that they are jumping on a bandwagon, they can take advantage of a product which they need to put a minimal investment into (ask Sun how much they put into programming for Solaris, or as IBM how much they put into their mainframe OS's...), and use that tiny investment to drive up sales of what they REALLY sell, which is the $100k+++ mainframe hardware.
Like I said, they arent buying "Linux", they are buying IBM. If it makes you feel better that its the other way around, I will allow you to do so (but just this once).
Its all well and good that this guy thinks he has a 'right' to build something like this. But what does NZ's government say if this guy happens to shoot it at (hypothetically) North Korea? Oh sorry, WE didnt fire that rocket- it was just some regular citizen! Really!
NZ's government (or any other) would be VERY negligent in allowing somebody to do this.
I love how the idiots make fun of things they dont understand.
First, as I repeatedly say, this isnt an organization choosing "Linux". This is an org choosing IBM, who is intelligently exploiting a free product in order to sell their product. Im shocked more companies arent jumping on the OSS bandwagon for the same reason- having people make your programs for you, for FREE? Amazing!
Second, when you have a huge system like weather prediction, nobody is going to use Windows for that. Nor is Windows even going after the mainframe market- Data Center Server is not what most people think it is.
Finally, Windows NT/2000/2003 servers, if set up by somebody who actually knows what they are doing, are highly stable. The problem is most people dont know what they are doing, and just blame MS for their mistakes.
So you are going to start encrypting messages into all your photographs?
See, you are using the boring 'straw man' arguement. It doesnt matter if something has the potential for legitimate use; if it is predominently used for malicious purposes, it needs to be controlled.
For example, they ban a regular citizen's ability to get dynamite, TNT, C4, etc. Now while you could potentially want it to blow a tunnel thru the mountain in your backyard, or whatever, its most likely that people, given free access to high explosives, are going to blow up things/people which they shouldnt be blowing up.
This is the same way. Why dont you ask the NSA if they think its nice that terrorists can send messages to each other and hide them as pictures on a web site? Ask the FBI if they think its really nice that drug trafficers can communicate without any chance of interception.
You must be new here. If you say anything anti-linux (even if true), you will get modded down. Likewise, if you say anything pro-MS, even (especially?) if true, you will get modded down.
You did BOTH, so I think they are going to send slashdot geeks to your house to kill your sister and rape your cat.
Hmm... the main purpose for encrypting messages in photographs is to avoid law enforcement. Thus, terrorists, drug trafficers, etc, all enjoy it. A net detriment to society, and I would say much more dangerous than a mere AK-47.
An AK-47 wont allow you to plan something like, say, flying a jet plane into a building. Encrypted messages, however, are *very* good for that purpose.
Slashdot Mirror
The fact that you find them obvious just means that you actually work in software development, and have real experience. Neither of those two can be said for 98% of Slashdot's OSS 'supporters'.
I can add another myth: most people who claim to love the fact that they have access to OSS source code dont really program anything, or even know how to. The term 'script kiddie' comes to mind.
Meant to say between Windows and Lindows, not Linux.
If you cant, then I am correct that that 6/7 letters in Windows and Linux are the same.
Second, I am going by the assumption that you are the idiot I quoted, which seems more likely. I dont think many other people would have cared to reply to my thread, since it had grown rather cold by the time I posted.
Finally, *I* wasnt the one building the straw man, thus I cannot be accused of using a straw man arguement (as you accused me of). If somebody makes a stupid statement and I tear it down, that isnt a straw man: that is a smart person (or at the least a better informed person) showing a stupid person how ignorant their statement was.
So, as I said, you dont know what a straw man arguement is. You are half right, but getting half way up Mt. Everest doesnt put you in a record book.
I think they will have a hard time proving the existence of time travel in court, as well as Microsoft's access to it.
Windows, Lindows>. Just because Lin and Win share two letters doesnt mean there isnt a match; you are just dealing in symatics. A match is a match.
Also, Microsoft is their company trademark. Windows is their product trademark. Thus, they are two seperate trademarks; no matter which side of the room you are standing on, only the legal definition counts.
The issue is that MS is trying to prevent somebody from releasing a product with a derivative name. As I stated earlier, "Lindows" is an 85% match to "Windows"; they only changed one letter! We are talking about a product NAME, not MS trying to trademark the use of an industry term.
There is a difference between "a window" and "Windows, the operating system". They are not attempting to legislate the use of the term "window", nor would they be able to. Likewise, you wont see a computer program company named "Macrosoft" or Microsorft", or one called "Apples". It is far too derivative, and, in the terminology of the matter, it dilutes their brand name.
It isnt a far stretch of the imagination to see that Lindows is trying to cash in on the Windows brand name.
They arent saying Linux or Lindows cannot use the term "Window". They are saying they cannot use a derivate of the name "Windows" in THE NAME OF THEIR OPERATING SYSTEM.
Name of OS - "Windows"
Name of other OS - "Lindows"
Similarities? 85% match; 6 of 7 characters are the same.
Wrong. There is something to be said for how security is considered in the design of an OS. For Windows, it wasn't much of a consideration, which contributed heavily to why there have been so many systemic vulnerabilities. The system was designed to be user-friendly, not secure. They got their market-share because of that fact. I think it is much easier to make a secure system user-friendly than to make a user-friendly system secure. Microsoft is finding that out as well. You reap what you sow.
It doesnt take a fortune teller to see the quoted fool was saying that every non-MS product was created to be secure first, and easy to use second. Aside from the fact that Mac has a history of having practically non-existant security (decades of MacOS ring a bell?), this claim also fails with Linux. If Linux was built from the ground up to be more secure (which it really wasnt, since there is no over-riding philosophy or controls in a situation where anybody can make their own distro), than they have completely failed, since Linux still continues to have security holes exposed.
Just because they dont get reported on Slashdot doesnt mean they dont happen. In fact, if they reported on every Linux-related flaw, there wouldnt be room for anything else. Try looking at SecurityTracker.com some time.
Also, if you want to post stupidity, you can at least reply to my post rather than acting like some mysterious AC who just happens to be reading an old, dead thread.
??? I havent seen this to be the case. All the hardcore pirates I have known were Eurpoean. One guy told me how you can buy pirated software at the mall in Poland.
Factor in that the EU has shown (in the Windows Media Player case) that it's quite prepared to crack down hard on MS - in contrast to the US government - and it's no surprise that Microsoft is more concerned about European investments than American ones right now, and doing whatever it can to attack competitors' interests.
MS isnt 'attacking' the interests of Linux. They are maintaining the same stance they have for years- they want Lindows to change their name. 85% of their name is derived from "Windows"; it doesnt take a stretch of the imagination to see MS is right about this.
The problem is the contrarian nature of Slashdot regarding MS; Bill Gates could be trying to prevent evil aliens from taking over the planet, and they would cheer for the aliens just because they were against Gates.
Lindows.com Chief Executive Officer Michael Robertson in a statement issued in response to the Swedish injunction, lashed out against Microsoft's legal pursuit of his company, accusing Microsoft of using lawsuits "as a battering ram to smash Linux."
Anyone who says that the name "Lindows" doesnt violate the trademark of "Windows" is a real hypocrite. If MS came out with a program called Winix, you guys would be going apeshit.
Even funnier is this Robertson idiot making this case out to be some kind of assult on Linux, rather than an attempt to get him to rename product.
Somebody needs to get their head out of the sand.
Also: saying that your OS is secure because virus writers arent creating viruses against your OS doesnt mean it is secure. "Security through obscurity" isnt really security- it's more keeping your head in the sand.
There is the oft-cited article about the kid who built a breeder reactor in his toolshed. It was a perfectly legitimate experiment... but unfortunately he irradiated a whole lot of the surrounding area, and had a risk of creating a dangerous nuclear reaction...
So, since intelligent thought doesnt seem to be your forte', I will leave you with this thought- government is there to enforce the rights of people. Your rights end just before you hit the next guy in the nose.
The fact of the matter is that they are jumping on a bandwagon, they can take advantage of a product which they need to put a minimal investment into (ask Sun how much they put into programming for Solaris, or as IBM how much they put into their mainframe OS's...), and use that tiny investment to drive up sales of what they REALLY sell, which is the $100k+++ mainframe hardware.
Like I said, they arent buying "Linux", they are buying IBM. If it makes you feel better that its the other way around, I will allow you to do so (but just this once).
The key word being hypothethically.
In case your language skills need a little refresher: Of, relating to, or based on a hypothesis
NZ's government (or any other) would be VERY negligent in allowing somebody to do this.
First, as I repeatedly say, this isnt an organization choosing "Linux". This is an org choosing IBM, who is intelligently exploiting a free product in order to sell their product. Im shocked more companies arent jumping on the OSS bandwagon for the same reason- having people make your programs for you, for FREE? Amazing!
Second, when you have a huge system like weather prediction, nobody is going to use Windows for that. Nor is Windows even going after the mainframe market- Data Center Server is not what most people think it is.
Finally, Windows NT/2000/2003 servers, if set up by somebody who actually knows what they are doing, are highly stable. The problem is most people dont know what they are doing, and just blame MS for their mistakes.
See, you are using the boring 'straw man' arguement. It doesnt matter if something has the potential for legitimate use; if it is predominently used for malicious purposes, it needs to be controlled.
For example, they ban a regular citizen's ability to get dynamite, TNT, C4, etc. Now while you could potentially want it to blow a tunnel thru the mountain in your backyard, or whatever, its most likely that people, given free access to high explosives, are going to blow up things/people which they shouldnt be blowing up.
This is the same way. Why dont you ask the NSA if they think its nice that terrorists can send messages to each other and hide them as pictures on a web site? Ask the FBI if they think its really nice that drug trafficers can communicate without any chance of interception.
Say what you want, but I didnt see the founding fathers talking people into strapping bombs to their chests and blowing up civilians.
People have a right to protect themselves, and if you cant have a Ballistic Missile in your back yard, they may as well goose-step all over us!
I would rather Santa give me a video camera and Paris Hilton's phone number.
You did BOTH, so I think they are going to send slashdot geeks to your house to kill your sister and rape your cat.
An AK-47 wont allow you to plan something like, say, flying a jet plane into a building. Encrypted messages, however, are *very* good for that purpose.