LAMP sites are compromised because of insecurely-written PHP and MySQL code--it's irrelevant to Linux. You can pretend all you want that it's not--but it is. It makes as much sense to say that it is as it would for me to say that poorly-written ASP sites are compromised because of Windows itself, rather than because of bad ASP code.
Until you're willing to argue logically and honestly, we can't make any progress in the discussion.
Didn't think you'd see it? Why am I posting here if I don't think you will see it? I might as well go yell in my bathroom. If you don't see it, who will? No one else is watching this conversation.
As I told you, I won't post any more data on that until you address Secunia's own data that shows Windows has higher severity bugs than Linux does. You continue to ignore that--at least I say why I'm not responding to your claim.
You continue to show hypocrisy by calling me a liar when you are the one who has posted pretending to be someone else.
You continue to show hypocrisy by criticizing me for ad hominem attacks when you continue to call me a liar, a bastard, and a fool.
We can't make any progress until you are willing to be honest and logical and stop acting hypocritically.
Linux is last in the PC-server world? LOL! You really are delusional. Yeah, it's only what Google, Yahoo, Facebook, NYSE, NASDAQ, etc. use on their servers, as well as the majority of web sites on the Internet. Not to mention that it runs on everything from DVRs to phones to automobiles.
You show your utter ignorance by comparing Android to any other form of Linux. Android is all about the Dalvik VM and is irrelevant to Linux on any other platform.
I already explained how Secunia is not a valid source for your arguments. I don't need to refute its data because it itself is invalid. It would be obvious to anyone that there are indeed plenty of bugs in the Microsoft server stack, and the fact that Secunia claims that there aren't any and haven't been for years shows how useless it is as a reference. It also has commercial interest in Windows software and none in Linux software--it's completely biased. You need to find another source for your claims.
You still won't admit that MySQL and PHP run on Windows and get compromised there--that they are irrelevant to the discussion of Linux vs. Windows. More delusion or dishonesty.
It's pointless to have a discussion when you won't be honest. It'd also be nice if you could discuss without hyperbole.
You continue to neglect to comment on the much-higher severity of the unpatched Windows bugs as mentioned in your own source. You still haven't addressed that or offered a counter-argument for it. So I won't post any more data until you address that--since you ignore whatever data is inconvenient for your argument, it would be a waste of my time. I don't think you're after the truth here, only ego-inflating "wins" against "trolls"--wins and trolls as defined by you.
You also conveniently ignored the fact that you hypocritically called me a "lying jackass" and then lied about your identity. You then accuse me of ad hominem attacks while ignoring your own, unsubstantiated ad hominem attacks and your own hypocrisy. At least my pointing out your lack of credibility and integrity are based upon your actions here.
I'm not going to post any more data to prove my assertions as long as you choose to ignore the data I pointed out from your own source that shows that Windows is less secure than the Linux kernel. If you're truly curious about that, search Google for some of the CVE numbers listed on Secunia, and you'll find ones that were patched in Linux distros a long time ago.
You also don't seem to understand that tracking current security vulnerabilities in "Linux" is not a matter of looking at a single list, and that compiling a single list is a real-time effort. It's disingenuous to compare the kernel.org kernel with Windows 7; one should instead compare security bugs in the kernel and GNU-type system utilities from specific Linux distros, like RHEL and Debian. You'd complain if people pointed out bugs in internal Windows development snapshots--and that's practically what the kernel.org kernels are, compared to ones prepared and constantly-patched by distros like RHEL and Debian. It's like comparing apples and oranges. You're either ignorant about this or dishonest about it.
Also, Secunia is not an impartial source. They are in the business of selling Windows security software--as far as I can tell, they don't even sell software for Linux. That necessarily makes them unsuitable as an impartial source for such data. Of course they wouldn't want Linux to appear more secure than Windows, because then people would have less incentive to use Windows and pay for Secunia's software. They also have no incentive to keep their data on Linux up-to-date, because they don't serve Linux users, and out-of-date Linux security info will serve their interests better.
Therefore, Secunia is an invalid source for the purposes of this debate. As I said before, you'll have to find a better source to support your assertions.
You also tried to sidestep the fact that MySQL and PHP run on Windows servers and can be compromised on those systems just as well as they can on Linux systems--and they are, as I mentioned. Buggy PHP code is buggy whether it's running on Linux or Windows. The difference, in fact, is that Linux systems' tend to keep all the software on the system up-to-date automatically, whereas Windows will not update MySQL or PHP automatically. Some Linux distros even have packages for software like WordPress, integrating security updates for it into the rest of the system's updates.
The article on The Register showed logical flaws in the Windows-is-more-secure arguments, flaws which are still valid today--those are not out-of-date.
It's also asserted that Microsoft often fixes more bugs in its patches than it publishes information about. Makes sense to me, since full-disclosure would only hurt Microsoft's image more.
A final anecdote: It's interesting that just in the past two weeks, my Windows 7 installation has installed more security updates for the OS than my Ubuntu 11.04 systems have installed. Doesn't prove anything, but it's interesting.
Sad but true. Same here. I brought along charts and asked the pilot about our route. One time a pilot gave me his printed dispatch after the flight. Nowadays I'm afraid that if anyone did that, he'd be held for questioning, miss the flight, have to explain himself to the FBI, etc.
You're a hypocrite, because you ignored the facts I pointed out from your own chosen sources.
You're a hypocrite, because you "ran from" my challenge.
You're a hypocrite, because you called me a "lying jackass", but you're pretending to be someone else. I can't even count how many times you have criticized others for impersonating you, and here you are pretending to be someone else.
If you think that people don't see through you, you are delusional.
I believe that it's arrogant to criticize others harshly for minor differences in the way one uses grammar or punctuation, because these rules are all arbitrary.
You seem to be operating under the assumption that there is a canonical standard for rules of grammar and punctuation, and that rules, once set, don't change. That is simply not the case.
You also don't seem to understand the distinction between the idea of the English language and the arbitrary, often regional, ideas of punctuation and grammar. You also don't seem to understand that there is not and never has been a canonical source for what is "convention" in English, merely independent sources that some choose to submit themselves to, sources which often conflict with one another--only natural, since the matters are of opinion and constantly evolving.
At the risk of giving aid and comfort to the "ungrammarians" among us, however, I must note that the difference between "it's" and "its" was not always so definite. Until the 19th century, in fact, "it's" was usually considered the possessive of "it" -- in the Fall, a tree shed "it's" leaves. The usual contraction of "it is" was "'tis." Only when "'tis" came to be regarded as an archaic form in the 19th century did the use of "it's" as a contraction of "it is" push out the use of "it's" as a possessive. I know this is a bit hard to follow, but the point is that the "rule" used to be the exact opposite of what it is today.
Yet the case for the rule regarding "it's and its," as we noted last time, is not as clear- cut as we might imagine. Until the 19th century, in fact, "it's" was used most commonly as the possessive of "it" -- just the opposite of the current "rule." The contraction of "it is" was usually "'tis," as often heard in Shakespeare's plays. Even after the use of "'tis" faded, "it's" was used for both the possessive and the contraction, and the reader would have to judge which was meant by the context in which it was used. The modern rule regarding "it's," it would seem, is a fairly arbitrary decree.
It concludes in favor of using "its" for the possessive and "it's" for the contraction. However while even I generally agree with this principle, since it makes for clearer communication, it is a fact that it's an arbitrary decision, a matter of opinion.
The rule you so staunchly stand by is, in the grand scheme of things, a recent reversal, and an arbitrary distinction. It's just plain arrogant for you to criticize someone else for such a thing--even worse, considering this case is nothing more than a typo. You use it to attack others' credibility, rather than logically arguing with their ideas.
That is an ad hominem attack, by definition. Your attempt to sound educated by pointing out that it's a Latin phrase is transparent. And your repeated misuse of "illiteracy" demonstrates your own.
It would behoove your arguments to argue logically rather than emotionally.
Fundamentally, no one "makes" anything when they "create" an idea. They merely think of something.
And the fact is that his idea is based upon untold numbers of other ideas, which were based upon untold numbers of other ideas--it's a never-ending chain of ideas--it's "turtles all the way down."
Anyone who claims a right to have control over "his" idea must also submit to control by all other people whose ideas influenced his, else he is a hypocrite. And since dead authors' works can still be copyrighted and controlled by people and corporations, the excuse that those whose ideas influenced him are dead is invalid.
Originality is a myth. Intellectual property is a farce. Copyright is hypocrisy. Greed is reality.
That being a negative effect is only an opinion. It could also be said to allow people to choose to save a lot of money, and encourage game authors to set reasonable prices to encourage gamers to not wait two years to play their games. Sort of like Steam does now, except that they sell outdated games that often don't work on current systems without tech support for outrageous prices (there's no way that Commander Keen games should be anything but free now), and their sales that are at nearly-reasonable prices are unpredictable.
That begs the question: Would it be wrong for the media companies to make a sacrifice? Also: Are they currently at an unfair advantage to consumers, and should they be required to make a sacrifice?
"By that logic, books should be the price of paper and ink."
No, by that logic, books should be a reasonable price that reflects the decrease in production costs. He did not say that the price of books should be only that of the materials used to produce them. You're making strawmen.
You're right. The question is, is it still possible for the people of the nation to influence policy as much as the corporations can, so as to resolve the problems? If not, is civil disobedience justified?
"We'd be left with people that can't afford to invest the time into acquiring anywhere near the virtuosity we have come to expect, for the simple reason they're working 14 hours a day at Wendy's to try and keep themselves fed."
That's an unsubstantiated hypothesis. I could counter that by saying that most artists today already work long, hard hours to support themselves, because only a small minority make it big--and many of that small minority are pop artists who produce relatively unoriginal works intended to appeal to the lowest common denominator. And most, if not all, of those successful pop artists make huge profits for megacorps like RIAA publishers--without those publishers, they could keep a higher percentage of their works' revenue.
"I'd have more sympathy for the argument if it were about food or something else people can't live without, but I just can't think of any way to justify theft of something that is consumed only for entertainment."
It's not theft, because it doesn't steal anything, because it doesn't take anything away from anyone else. Theft is, e.g. breaking into a store or someone's car and taking CDs. Whether it's ethical or moral is another matter--but it's not theft. Stealing food would be worse, because it would deprive someone else of the food! You have your priorities reversed.
It's merely the idea of "copyright infringement", an idea created by the government and raised to unconscionable severity by lobbying by unfathomably-large corporations, who enjoy more legal protections than the citizens of the government which grants them such protections--a contradiction in itself. Since the average citizen is powerless to defend himself legally against these corporations, and since his attempts to influence policy are futile compared to the influence of the corporations' lobbyists, I submit that the very laws which grant these corporations' and their imaginary property such protections are unethical and immoral.
That leaves the question: is civil disobedience in this case justified? And: can a blanket answer be given, or should different situations be considered, depending on the author, whether one of these corporations holds rights to the work in question, etc? These are the deeper questions.
Wow, so I'm illiterate, now? Why are you resorting to ad hominem attacks? Do you even know what "illiterate" means? Of course you do--you're just misusing it to insult me, and in the process, damaging your own credibility.
How is a possessive formed? By adding an apostrophe and an S. So to form the possessive of "it", one would write "it's". It seems clear from your attempt at explanation that you didn't comprehend what I said.
The convention of using "its" as the possessive form is just that--a convention. It's arbitrary. Neither one is wrong.
The rest of your post is simply condescending arrogance, which further damages the credibility of your argument. Try arguing logically rather than emotionally.
You conveniently ignored the two quotes I put up from Secunia--"your" "far more current" data--because they prove you wrong. Again, the source you chose contradicts your assertion.
Regarding this LAMP article, the fact that LAMP-stack sites are often compromised has nothing to do with Linux. Most often, these sites are compromised because of insecure PHP code--nothing to do with Linux. In fact, there is even a comment on that article by a guy who runs a WAMP stack who says that his server was compromised. For example, WordPress is full of security holes and is constantly compromised and patched--and it can run on Windows, Linux, FreeBSD, Mac OS X, etc. The issue there is poorly-written PHP code, SQL injections, etc. Apache runs on Windows, too.
Also, it's highly likely that many of these sites were not current on patches and security updates--an issue irrelevant to the OS being used. Most of these sites are on shared hosting, with preconfigured "easy-install" packages of popular software like WordPress--setups that are often not kept up-to-date. The issue there is hosting companies with poor security practices--again, irrelevant to the OS being used.
In conclusion, your LAMP article doesn't support your assertion that Windows is more secure, because it's not relevant to the choice of OS. It's not even fair for you to compare Windows 7 to Linux in one comment, and then lump Apache, MySQL, and PHP--software that is also used on Windows servers--in with Linux in your next comment. You're being disingenuous.
Surely a knowledgeable person like yourself understands the difference between a security hole in the OS and a security hole in third-party software.
"Have a beautiful day, and look up why "it's" and "its" are not the same word, sweetie."
You know, I used to think the same thing. But if you think about it carefully, it's an arbitrary distinction, because "it's" is the proper way to contract "it is", and also the proper way to write the possessive for "it". Technically, "its" would seem to always be incorrect, and "it's" would seem to always be correct, if sometimes ambiguous. That's what context is for. I would suggest that if the context is not sufficient to distinguish which is intended, that the context should be rewritten to make it clear.
The "it's/its" issue is not the same as the "your/you're" issue or the "their/there/they're" issue.
"Even more interesting is that the existence of snipers is probably good because it means that early bidders come to understand quicker the way e-bay auction system and the need to bid their maximum bid on their first bid."
That's illogical. If that were true, the practice of sniping would gradually decline as people learned--but that's not the case. Sniping works because the system rewards it. Until that changes, sniping won't go away.
What is needed is an option for sellers to use that would keep an auction going for a certain time after the last bid has been placed, even if the original auction period has expired--as mentioned in another comment. This way, sniping wouldn't work, because every time a sniper placed a bid, he'd extend the auction period. Two snipers could snipe over and over again, and eventually they'd reach their own limits--equivalent to placing their maximum bid as their first bid.
Not only that, but Secunia's statistics are incorrect and out-of-date. I checked some of the CVEs for Linux, and Secunia lists them as unpatched, while Googling the CVEs shows that they were patched a long time ago.
You'll have to find a less erroneous source to support your erroneous claims.
Hm...I proved your wrong, using your own data. I guess I "win" now.
"So why have there been so many credible-sounding claims that Linux is actually less secure than Windows? There are glaring logical holes in the reasoning behind the conclusion that Linux is less secure. It takes only a little scrutiny to debunk the myths and logical errors..."
Slashdot Mirror
LAMP sites are compromised because of insecurely-written PHP and MySQL code--it's irrelevant to Linux. You can pretend all you want that it's not--but it is. It makes as much sense to say that it is as it would for me to say that poorly-written ASP sites are compromised because of Windows itself, rather than because of bad ASP code.
Until you're willing to argue logically and honestly, we can't make any progress in the discussion.
Didn't think you'd see it? Why am I posting here if I don't think you will see it? I might as well go yell in my bathroom. If you don't see it, who will? No one else is watching this conversation.
As I told you, I won't post any more data on that until you address Secunia's own data that shows Windows has higher severity bugs than Linux does. You continue to ignore that--at least I say why I'm not responding to your claim.
You continue to show hypocrisy by calling me a liar when you are the one who has posted pretending to be someone else.
You continue to show hypocrisy by criticizing me for ad hominem attacks when you continue to call me a liar, a bastard, and a fool.
We can't make any progress until you are willing to be honest and logical and stop acting hypocritically.
Linux is last in the PC-server world? LOL! You really are delusional. Yeah, it's only what Google, Yahoo, Facebook, NYSE, NASDAQ, etc. use on their servers, as well as the majority of web sites on the Internet. Not to mention that it runs on everything from DVRs to phones to automobiles.
You show your utter ignorance by comparing Android to any other form of Linux. Android is all about the Dalvik VM and is irrelevant to Linux on any other platform.
I already explained how Secunia is not a valid source for your arguments. I don't need to refute its data because it itself is invalid. It would be obvious to anyone that there are indeed plenty of bugs in the Microsoft server stack, and the fact that Secunia claims that there aren't any and haven't been for years shows how useless it is as a reference. It also has commercial interest in Windows software and none in Linux software--it's completely biased. You need to find another source for your claims.
You still won't admit that MySQL and PHP run on Windows and get compromised there--that they are irrelevant to the discussion of Linux vs. Windows. More delusion or dishonesty.
It's pointless to have a discussion when you won't be honest. It'd also be nice if you could discuss without hyperbole.
You continue to neglect to comment on the much-higher severity of the unpatched Windows bugs as mentioned in your own source. You still haven't addressed that or offered a counter-argument for it. So I won't post any more data until you address that--since you ignore whatever data is inconvenient for your argument, it would be a waste of my time. I don't think you're after the truth here, only ego-inflating "wins" against "trolls"--wins and trolls as defined by you.
You also conveniently ignored the fact that you hypocritically called me a "lying jackass" and then lied about your identity. You then accuse me of ad hominem attacks while ignoring your own, unsubstantiated ad hominem attacks and your own hypocrisy. At least my pointing out your lack of credibility and integrity are based upon your actions here.
I'm not going to post any more data to prove my assertions as long as you choose to ignore the data I pointed out from your own source that shows that Windows is less secure than the Linux kernel. If you're truly curious about that, search Google for some of the CVE numbers listed on Secunia, and you'll find ones that were patched in Linux distros a long time ago.
You also don't seem to understand that tracking current security vulnerabilities in "Linux" is not a matter of looking at a single list, and that compiling a single list is a real-time effort. It's disingenuous to compare the kernel.org kernel with Windows 7; one should instead compare security bugs in the kernel and GNU-type system utilities from specific Linux distros, like RHEL and Debian. You'd complain if people pointed out bugs in internal Windows development snapshots--and that's practically what the kernel.org kernels are, compared to ones prepared and constantly-patched by distros like RHEL and Debian. It's like comparing apples and oranges. You're either ignorant about this or dishonest about it.
Also, Secunia is not an impartial source. They are in the business of selling Windows security software--as far as I can tell, they don't even sell software for Linux. That necessarily makes them unsuitable as an impartial source for such data. Of course they wouldn't want Linux to appear more secure than Windows, because then people would have less incentive to use Windows and pay for Secunia's software. They also have no incentive to keep their data on Linux up-to-date, because they don't serve Linux users, and out-of-date Linux security info will serve their interests better.
Therefore, Secunia is an invalid source for the purposes of this debate. As I said before, you'll have to find a better source to support your assertions.
You also tried to sidestep the fact that MySQL and PHP run on Windows servers and can be compromised on those systems just as well as they can on Linux systems--and they are, as I mentioned. Buggy PHP code is buggy whether it's running on Linux or Windows. The difference, in fact, is that Linux systems' tend to keep all the software on the system up-to-date automatically, whereas Windows will not update MySQL or PHP automatically. Some Linux distros even have packages for software like WordPress, integrating security updates for it into the rest of the system's updates.
The article on The Register showed logical flaws in the Windows-is-more-secure arguments, flaws which are still valid today--those are not out-of-date.
It's also asserted that Microsoft often fixes more bugs in its patches than it publishes information about. Makes sense to me, since full-disclosure would only hurt Microsoft's image more.
A final anecdote: It's interesting that just in the past two weeks, my Windows 7 installation has installed more security updates for the OS than my Ubuntu 11.04 systems have installed. Doesn't prove anything, but it's interesting.
Fanboy of what?
Sad but true. Same here. I brought along charts and asked the pilot about our route. One time a pilot gave me his printed dispatch after the flight. Nowadays I'm afraid that if anyone did that, he'd be held for questioning, miss the flight, have to explain himself to the FBI, etc.
I think you meant antecedents or ancestors. :)
You're a hypocrite, because you ignored the facts I pointed out from your own chosen sources.
You're a hypocrite, because you "ran from" my challenge.
You're a hypocrite, because you called me a "lying jackass", but you're pretending to be someone else. I can't even count how many times you have criticized others for impersonating you, and here you are pretending to be someone else.
If you think that people don't see through you, you are delusional.
I believe that it's arrogant to criticize others harshly for minor differences in the way one uses grammar or punctuation, because these rules are all arbitrary.
You seem to be operating under the assumption that there is a canonical standard for rules of grammar and punctuation, and that rules, once set, don't change. That is simply not the case.
You also don't seem to understand the distinction between the idea of the English language and the arbitrary, often regional, ideas of punctuation and grammar. You also don't seem to understand that there is not and never has been a canonical source for what is "convention" in English, merely independent sources that some choose to submit themselves to, sources which often conflict with one another--only natural, since the matters are of opinion and constantly evolving.
Googling quickly revealed this site: http://www.word-detective.com/back-d.html It says:
At the risk of giving aid and comfort to the "ungrammarians" among us, however, I must note that the difference between "it's" and "its" was not always so definite. Until the 19th century, in fact, "it's" was usually considered the possessive of "it" -- in the Fall, a tree shed "it's" leaves. The usual contraction of "it is" was "'tis." Only when "'tis" came to be regarded as an archaic form in the 19th century did the use of "it's" as a contraction of "it is" push out the use of "it's" as a possessive. I know this is a bit hard to follow, but the point is that the "rule" used to be the exact opposite of what it is today.
Yet the case for the rule regarding "it's and its," as we noted last time, is not as clear- cut as we might imagine. Until the 19th century, in fact, "it's" was used most commonly as the possessive of "it" -- just the opposite of the current "rule." The contraction of "it is" was usually "'tis," as often heard in Shakespeare's plays. Even after the use of "'tis" faded, "it's" was used for both the possessive and the contraction, and the reader would have to judge which was meant by the context in which it was used. The modern rule regarding "it's," it would seem, is a fairly arbitrary decree.
It concludes in favor of using "its" for the possessive and "it's" for the contraction. However while even I generally agree with this principle, since it makes for clearer communication, it is a fact that it's an arbitrary decision, a matter of opinion.
The rule you so staunchly stand by is, in the grand scheme of things, a recent reversal, and an arbitrary distinction. It's just plain arrogant for you to criticize someone else for such a thing--even worse, considering this case is nothing more than a typo. You use it to attack others' credibility, rather than logically arguing with their ideas.
That is an ad hominem attack, by definition. Your attempt to sound educated by pointing out that it's a Latin phrase is transparent. And your repeated misuse of "illiteracy" demonstrates your own.
It would behoove your arguments to argue logically rather than emotionally.
Fundamentally, no one "makes" anything when they "create" an idea. They merely think of something.
And the fact is that his idea is based upon untold numbers of other ideas, which were based upon untold numbers of other ideas--it's a never-ending chain of ideas--it's "turtles all the way down."
Anyone who claims a right to have control over "his" idea must also submit to control by all other people whose ideas influenced his, else he is a hypocrite. And since dead authors' works can still be copyrighted and controlled by people and corporations, the excuse that those whose ideas influenced him are dead is invalid.
Originality is a myth. Intellectual property is a farce. Copyright is hypocrisy. Greed is reality.
That being a negative effect is only an opinion. It could also be said to allow people to choose to save a lot of money, and encourage game authors to set reasonable prices to encourage gamers to not wait two years to play their games. Sort of like Steam does now, except that they sell outdated games that often don't work on current systems without tech support for outrageous prices (there's no way that Commander Keen games should be anything but free now), and their sales that are at nearly-reasonable prices are unpredictable.
That begs the question: Would it be wrong for the media companies to make a sacrifice? Also: Are they currently at an unfair advantage to consumers, and should they be required to make a sacrifice?
"By that logic, books should be the price of paper and ink."
No, by that logic, books should be a reasonable price that reflects the decrease in production costs. He did not say that the price of books should be only that of the materials used to produce them. You're making strawmen.
You're right. The question is, is it still possible for the people of the nation to influence policy as much as the corporations can, so as to resolve the problems? If not, is civil disobedience justified?
"We'd be left with people that can't afford to invest the time into acquiring anywhere near the virtuosity we have come to expect, for the simple reason they're working 14 hours a day at Wendy's to try and keep themselves fed."
That's an unsubstantiated hypothesis. I could counter that by saying that most artists today already work long, hard hours to support themselves, because only a small minority make it big--and many of that small minority are pop artists who produce relatively unoriginal works intended to appeal to the lowest common denominator. And most, if not all, of those successful pop artists make huge profits for megacorps like RIAA publishers--without those publishers, they could keep a higher percentage of their works' revenue.
"I'd have more sympathy for the argument if it were about food or something else people can't live without, but I just can't think of any way to justify theft of something that is consumed only for entertainment."
It's not theft, because it doesn't steal anything, because it doesn't take anything away from anyone else. Theft is, e.g. breaking into a store or someone's car and taking CDs. Whether it's ethical or moral is another matter--but it's not theft. Stealing food would be worse, because it would deprive someone else of the food! You have your priorities reversed.
It's merely the idea of "copyright infringement", an idea created by the government and raised to unconscionable severity by lobbying by unfathomably-large corporations, who enjoy more legal protections than the citizens of the government which grants them such protections--a contradiction in itself. Since the average citizen is powerless to defend himself legally against these corporations, and since his attempts to influence policy are futile compared to the influence of the corporations' lobbyists, I submit that the very laws which grant these corporations' and their imaginary property such protections are unethical and immoral.
That leaves the question: is civil disobedience in this case justified? And: can a blanket answer be given, or should different situations be considered, depending on the author, whether one of these corporations holds rights to the work in question, etc? These are the deeper questions.
Wow, so I'm illiterate, now? Why are you resorting to ad hominem attacks? Do you even know what "illiterate" means? Of course you do--you're just misusing it to insult me, and in the process, damaging your own credibility.
How is a possessive formed? By adding an apostrophe and an S. So to form the possessive of "it", one would write "it's". It seems clear from your attempt at explanation that you didn't comprehend what I said.
The convention of using "its" as the possessive form is just that--a convention. It's arbitrary. Neither one is wrong.
The rest of your post is simply condescending arrogance, which further damages the credibility of your argument. Try arguing logically rather than emotionally.
You conveniently ignored the two quotes I put up from Secunia--"your" "far more current" data--because they prove you wrong. Again, the source you chose contradicts your assertion.
Regarding this LAMP article, the fact that LAMP-stack sites are often compromised has nothing to do with Linux. Most often, these sites are compromised because of insecure PHP code--nothing to do with Linux. In fact, there is even a comment on that article by a guy who runs a WAMP stack who says that his server was compromised. For example, WordPress is full of security holes and is constantly compromised and patched--and it can run on Windows, Linux, FreeBSD, Mac OS X, etc. The issue there is poorly-written PHP code, SQL injections, etc. Apache runs on Windows, too.
Also, it's highly likely that many of these sites were not current on patches and security updates--an issue irrelevant to the OS being used. Most of these sites are on shared hosting, with preconfigured "easy-install" packages of popular software like WordPress--setups that are often not kept up-to-date. The issue there is hosting companies with poor security practices--again, irrelevant to the OS being used.
In conclusion, your LAMP article doesn't support your assertion that Windows is more secure, because it's not relevant to the choice of OS. It's not even fair for you to compare Windows 7 to Linux in one comment, and then lump Apache, MySQL, and PHP--software that is also used on Windows servers--in with Linux in your next comment. You're being disingenuous.
Surely a knowledgeable person like yourself understands the difference between a security hole in the OS and a security hole in third-party software.
"Have a beautiful day, and look up why "it's" and "its" are not the same word, sweetie."
You know, I used to think the same thing. But if you think about it carefully, it's an arbitrary distinction, because "it's" is the proper way to contract "it is", and also the proper way to write the possessive for "it". Technically, "its" would seem to always be incorrect, and "it's" would seem to always be correct, if sometimes ambiguous. That's what context is for. I would suggest that if the context is not sufficient to distinguish which is intended, that the context should be rewritten to make it clear.
The "it's/its" issue is not the same as the "your/you're" issue or the "their/there/they're" issue.
Isn't that the way all auctions work, not just eBay?
"Even more interesting is that the existence of snipers is probably good because it means that early bidders come to understand quicker the way e-bay auction system and the need to bid their maximum bid on their first bid."
That's illogical. If that were true, the practice of sniping would gradually decline as people learned--but that's not the case. Sniping works because the system rewards it. Until that changes, sniping won't go away.
What is needed is an option for sellers to use that would keep an auction going for a certain time after the last bid has been placed, even if the original auction period has expired--as mentioned in another comment. This way, sniping wouldn't work, because every time a sniper placed a bid, he'd extend the auction period. Two snipers could snipe over and over again, and eventually they'd reach their own limits--equivalent to placing their maximum bid as their first bid.
Also:
http://secunia.com/advisories/product/2719/?task=statistics_2011
"The most severe unpatched Secunia advisory affecting Linux Kernel 2.6.x, with all vendor patches applied, is rated Less critical "
http://secunia.com/advisories/product/27467/?task=advisories
"The most severe unpatched Secunia advisory affecting Microsoft Windows 7, with all vendor patches applied, is rated Highly critical"
Oops, your own source disproved your point.
Not only that, but Secunia's statistics are incorrect and out-of-date. I checked some of the CVEs for Linux, and Secunia lists them as unpatched, while Googling the CVEs shows that they were patched a long time ago.
You'll have to find a less erroneous source to support your erroneous claims.
Hm...I proved your wrong, using your own data. I guess I "win" now.
I don't need to--The Register did years ago:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/10/22/security_report_windows_vs_linux/
"So why have there been so many credible-sounding claims that Linux is actually less secure than Windows? There are glaring logical holes in the reasoning behind the conclusion that Linux is less secure. It takes only a little scrutiny to debunk the myths and logical errors..."
Aww, no Unicode on Slashdot. Oh well, you can see it here:
http://pastebin.com/E6HPwie1
You have still ignored my challenge, so I will ignore all of yours.
Greek, eh?
Îá½ ÎÏ...νá ÏÎÎÎá-ν ÎÏOEÎÎν.