Almost everything (of which Linux is just a few percent) has better security than Microsoft products
Except Netscape of course, which for some reason UNIX users continue to insist on using. How many security releases is the 4.x series up to now? 4.77 just came out this week, so I think we're up to at least 20-30 security patches, many of them for serious holes.
Well, if they had the legal authority to release the code as Open Source, they could also release it into the public domain if so desired. However, they do not have the legal right to do either one of those.
Netscape couldn't release Mozilla because of the RSA code that was in it.
And they didn't - they started from scratch and produced an entirely new Open Source Mozilla tree.
Id Software couldn't release DOOM source because it was using some kind of proprietary sound libraries.
So their release of DOOM had no sound support. If it was something more vital than sound support the ripped source release would've been virtually useless.
Sybase couldn't open source WATCOM C/C++ because of the libraries licenced from Microsoft, Pharlap, FlashTek, Blue Sky, etc.
Don't know anything about this one.
KDE couldn't be truly open sourced because of the proprietary Qt libraries used.
And this wasn't fixed until Qt made itself Open Source; KDE never did find a good way to fix the problem while still using proprietary Qt libraries.
There's also over 100 at various stages in the editing process, and more are being submitted every day. Once these start getting to the end of the queue you'll see the rate of new approved articles speed up significantly.
Hell, I was using a dial-up connection that (because of the quality of my phone lines) wouldn't connect over 26.4 kbps up until 2 months ago. Sure, cablemodem is nicer, but it hasn't changed my life any. Going back to a modem would be inconvenient, but not devastating.
Hell, if you need to play online games that much, find some friends and have a LANparty.
He died in a car accident in 1996 shortly after founding SRC Computers (the "similarly named company" you mention; SRC is his initials). The company's page has a brief history of his work, though I'm sure there are plenty of more-complete such histories out there.
Well I certainly hope no serious businesses are hosting anything important on DSL lines. If your servers were on a DSL line to begin with, well then you deserve what you get. If you're using it for internet connectivity for your employees, then it's more understandable, but broadband turn-around times are not 30-45 days unless you are looking at home-user-grade broadband connections. Call up your local telco and you can get hooked up with a T1 pretty quickly.
"My thoughts go out..." WTF? Having to use a dial-up account, especially temporarily, is not a great tragedy. Minor inconvenience sure, but large problem, no.
While I agree that Wikipedia is similar to Everything2 in design but its articles are of higher quality, if you really want a "GNU FDL encyclopedia," Nupedia is a better example.
1) It's "Kerberos."
2) The Kerberos support is standards-compliant. The protocol specifies a vendor-specific field, and Microsoft puts all vendor-specific information in that field, as the standard specifies. Information about their use of that field and interoperability concerns is available on their website.
3) IE is very W3C compliant. Not 100%, but for a long time it was the most compliant browser in common use. It's been much better than Netscape 4.x for a long time, and Netscape is only recently catching up with the newer builds of Mozilla (and Opera is pretty good these days too).
I don't think that's being discounted, but simply using mathematics doesn't make one a scientist. A computer programmer uses mathematics in his programming in much the same way that a civil engineer uses mathematics in designing a bridge. Neither of them are really "scientists," but rather engineers who apply scientific knowledge to particular problems.
1) As somebody else noted, MSN's servers are not nearly up to par with AOL's servers. AOL's servers are never down. I haven't been unable to connect to AIM for more than a 5-minute period at any time in the past three or so years. An IM service must always be up to be useful (i.e. have fail-over servers so the service itself is never down even if some servers fail).
2) Unless the people I interact with are significantly different from the average person, MSN is nowhere close. Two of my "in real life" friends/acquaintances use MSN, while every single one of them uses AIM (even the two who also use MSN). I can talk to everyone on AIM, but very few people on MSN (ICQ is a little better - 6 or 7 of my friends use it...but compare to the 109 who use AIM).
I'm not so sure...AIM was never mailed on on disks, yet it's now nearly ubiquitous.
AOL software was what was mailed out on disks, and while it's popular, it's not as ubiquitous as AIM - even a large portion of the millions of people who don't use AOL have gone out and downloaded AIM, to the point where a huge percentage of internet users use AIM.
Oh sure you don't need to use AIM. But you won't be able to talk to much of anyone except the geeks who also adopt your new system. Currently I can talk on AIM with every person I know. Even my parents use it. It's going to take an enormous effort to move everyone to a new system, if it's is even possible.
And as long as everyone I know is using AIM and not another system, I'm afraid no matter how cool a competing system is, it's just not useful, since the entire point is to talk to the people I know.
But if you do want to attempt this, please make an easy-to-use and easy-to-install Windows client (easy to create new accounts, little to no setup required [intelligent defaults], etc.) or else you'll never get a big enough userbase to make it useful...
Well, has has often been noted, society functioned just fine for many years prior to the invention of cell phones. They are not a necessity, merely a convenience.
Doctors and emergency service personnel who are on call have a responsibility to keep themselves contactable - it is not my responsibility to keep them contactable. As long as "no cell phone" areas are clearly marked, it is entirely their responsibility if they voluntarily enter them. For responsible people like parents, you do what has been done for a long time - let people (like your kids) know where you'll be, so if you need to be contacted in an emergency the land-line phone can be used (and the theater owner will page you over the intercom system).
As for receiving messages about the death of a loved one, while that is tragic I fail to see how that is an emergency. Presumably if the person is already dead, not finding out for a few more hours doesn't have any significant effects.
If that's your position, I suppose that's your problem to figure it out. Pay a doctor to sit by a phone all day or something. I still fail to see how it's my responsibility to keep your doctor contactable. As long as the "no cell phone" areas are very clearly marked, anyone entering them is doing so of their own free will, and they are responsible for the lack of cell-phone communication that ensues.
Which of course brings us to the other respondent's point - women have been having babies for many years, and for most of those years there were no cell phones (hell even 20 years ago cell phones were very uncommon). Did you stalk the doctor and require to know where he was at all times so he could deliver your baby if necessary? If not, I don't see why that's required now.
Don't be condescending. I've had my share of copyright nonsense and WON. Now, just read here , and see my offensive yet untouchable web site here. Really read it beyond the context. Read the snips of Supreme court opinion. Serving the PUBLIC interest is the purpose of copyright. Having files on one's disk is not copyright violation (see Sony vs. the Movie Pigs), and neither does being on a network, even if they are passively available for copying. Only if you put those files on a disk and give or sell that DISK to another do you violate copyright.
There's a big difference between free speech (even if it's offensive) and replication of someone else's speech in full. You can make an offensive movie - you cannot make copies of someone else's movie.
Do you have backing that it is not? There has never been a case before the Supremes that has dealt with IP without corresponding physical representation of that IP. The corporate piggies are going to get a rude awakening when their lame software patents and excessive music/literature copyrights get dumped by the Supremes because their is no objective property to protect. If Napster goes all the way to the Supremes, they will win.
I'm not speaking in a US legal sense, but in a moral sense. We've already established I'm pretty sure that laws are not the same as morals - copyright violation could be legally permitted in the US but still be wrong, and no Supreme Court decision can change that.
By the way... in spite of your nationalistic indoctrination, this isn't an issue of 'Commies vs. the good guys'. The commies are gone now, remember?
I'm not speaking of socialist regimes like the former USSR, I'm speaking of communism as a legitimate philosophy. There are plenty of legitimate communists who believe that neither physical nor intellectual property are things you can "own," but merely something that you are allowed to have for the public good. You seem to agree with this position half-way, arguing that it only applies to intellectual property, while physical property is somehow an "inherent right" - my question is why?
FWIW my personal position is more in agreement with that of the communists, though in practice I disagree with most political communists in my ideas of how property should be allocated. Neither physical nor intellectual property is an "inherent right," but something granted by the government; physical property should IMHO nearly always be granted as a pseudo-right and only rarely taken away, while intellectual property, due to its easy replication, should carry less weight (though certainly it should still carry some weight), and be more open to utilitarian arguments about benefiting the public as a whole.
So in practice it seems I agree somewhat with your position, but I disagree strongly with your assertion that physical and intellectual property are, in a moral sense, fundamentally different. I see no basis for your claim that physical property ownership is a fundamental right while intellectual property ownership is not.
Then they call the on-call doctor to perform the procedure; presumably the on-call doctor is (as required) somewhere he can be reached by a phone call - i.e. not somewhere that clearly posts the fact that cell-phones are jammed. It's the on-call doctor's responsibility to be somewhere he can be contacted, not the movie theater's responsibility to make sure doctors can be contacted while watching its movies.
This seems extraordinarily unlikely - the only time a cell phone emergency call would be necessary is in remote areas without land-line phones, and these jammers are intended for use in precisely the opposite sorts of areas - crowded areas where cell-phone overuse is a problem. Such areas (movie theaters, etc.) are virtually guaranteed to have pay-phones (where 911 is a free call) or other land-line phones nearby.
Slashdot Mirror
You keep unencrypted credit card details and account passwords on your computer? That's not a very good idea.
Almost everything (of which Linux is just a few percent) has better security than Microsoft products
Except Netscape of course, which for some reason UNIX users continue to insist on using. How many security releases is the 4.x series up to now? 4.77 just came out this week, so I think we're up to at least 20-30 security patches, many of them for serious holes.
Konqueror runs on Windows now?
I think he meant a real OS. =P
Well, if they had the legal authority to release the code as Open Source, they could also release it into the public domain if so desired. However, they do not have the legal right to do either one of those.
Netscape couldn't release Mozilla because of the RSA code that was in it.
And they didn't - they started from scratch and produced an entirely new Open Source Mozilla tree.
Id Software couldn't release DOOM source because it was using some kind of proprietary sound libraries.
So their release of DOOM had no sound support. If it was something more vital than sound support the ripped source release would've been virtually useless.
Sybase couldn't open source WATCOM C/C++ because of the libraries licenced from Microsoft, Pharlap, FlashTek, Blue Sky, etc.
Don't know anything about this one.
KDE couldn't be truly open sourced because of the proprietary Qt libraries used.
And this wasn't fixed until Qt made itself Open Source; KDE never did find a good way to fix the problem while still using proprietary Qt libraries.
There's also over 100 at various stages in the editing process, and more are being submitted every day. Once these start getting to the end of the queue you'll see the rate of new approved articles speed up significantly.
Hell, I was using a dial-up connection that (because of the quality of my phone lines) wouldn't connect over 26.4 kbps up until 2 months ago. Sure, cablemodem is nicer, but it hasn't changed my life any. Going back to a modem would be inconvenient, but not devastating.
Hell, if you need to play online games that much, find some friends and have a LANparty.
He died in a car accident in 1996 shortly after founding SRC Computers (the "similarly named company" you mention; SRC is his initials). The company's page has a brief history of his work, though I'm sure there are plenty of more-complete such histories out there.
Well I certainly hope no serious businesses are hosting anything important on DSL lines. If your servers were on a DSL line to begin with, well then you deserve what you get. If you're using it for internet connectivity for your employees, then it's more understandable, but broadband turn-around times are not 30-45 days unless you are looking at home-user-grade broadband connections. Call up your local telco and you can get hooked up with a T1 pretty quickly.
"My thoughts go out..." WTF? Having to use a dial-up account, especially temporarily, is not a great tragedy. Minor inconvenience sure, but large problem, no.
Or better yet, the kids could go do something independent instead of watching TV.
While I agree that Wikipedia is similar to Everything2 in design but its articles are of higher quality, if you really want a "GNU FDL encyclopedia," Nupedia is a better example.
1) It's "Kerberos."
2) The Kerberos support is standards-compliant. The protocol specifies a vendor-specific field, and Microsoft puts all vendor-specific information in that field, as the standard specifies. Information about their use of that field and interoperability concerns is available on their website.
3) IE is very W3C compliant. Not 100%, but for a long time it was the most compliant browser in common use. It's been much better than Netscape 4.x for a long time, and Netscape is only recently catching up with the newer builds of Mozilla (and Opera is pretty good these days too).
Yes.
Next question?
I don't think that's being discounted, but simply using mathematics doesn't make one a scientist. A computer programmer uses mathematics in his programming in much the same way that a civil engineer uses mathematics in designing a bridge. Neither of them are really "scientists," but rather engineers who apply scientific knowledge to particular problems.
1) As somebody else noted, MSN's servers are not nearly up to par with AOL's servers. AOL's servers are never down. I haven't been unable to connect to AIM for more than a 5-minute period at any time in the past three or so years. An IM service must always be up to be useful (i.e. have fail-over servers so the service itself is never down even if some servers fail).
2) Unless the people I interact with are significantly different from the average person, MSN is nowhere close. Two of my "in real life" friends/acquaintances use MSN, while every single one of them uses AIM (even the two who also use MSN). I can talk to everyone on AIM, but very few people on MSN (ICQ is a little better - 6 or 7 of my friends use it...but compare to the 109 who use AIM).
I'm not so sure...AIM was never mailed on on disks, yet it's now nearly ubiquitous.
AOL software was what was mailed out on disks, and while it's popular, it's not as ubiquitous as AIM - even a large portion of the millions of people who don't use AOL have gone out and downloaded AIM, to the point where a huge percentage of internet users use AIM.
And as long as everyone I know is using AIM and not another system, I'm afraid no matter how cool a competing system is, it's just not useful, since the entire point is to talk to the people I know.
But if you do want to attempt this, please make an easy-to-use and easy-to-install Windows client (easy to create new accounts, little to no setup required [intelligent defaults], etc.) or else you'll never get a big enough userbase to make it useful...
Yes. They are here to protect you. Please stand by the stairs so they can protect you. From the terrible secret of space.
Well, has has often been noted, society functioned just fine for many years prior to the invention of cell phones. They are not a necessity, merely a convenience.
Doctors and emergency service personnel who are on call have a responsibility to keep themselves contactable - it is not my responsibility to keep them contactable. As long as "no cell phone" areas are clearly marked, it is entirely their responsibility if they voluntarily enter them. For responsible people like parents, you do what has been done for a long time - let people (like your kids) know where you'll be, so if you need to be contacted in an emergency the land-line phone can be used (and the theater owner will page you over the intercom system).
As for receiving messages about the death of a loved one, while that is tragic I fail to see how that is an emergency. Presumably if the person is already dead, not finding out for a few more hours doesn't have any significant effects.
Which of course brings us to the other respondent's point - women have been having babies for many years, and for most of those years there were no cell phones (hell even 20 years ago cell phones were very uncommon). Did you stalk the doctor and require to know where he was at all times so he could deliver your baby if necessary? If not, I don't see why that's required now.
There's a big difference between free speech (even if it's offensive) and replication of someone else's speech in full. You can make an offensive movie - you cannot make copies of someone else's movie.
Do you have backing that it is not? There has never been a case before the Supremes that has dealt with IP without corresponding physical representation of that IP. The corporate piggies are going to get a rude awakening when their lame software patents and excessive music/literature copyrights get dumped by the Supremes because their is no objective property to protect. If Napster goes all the way to the Supremes, they will win.
I'm not speaking in a US legal sense, but in a moral sense. We've already established I'm pretty sure that laws are not the same as morals - copyright violation could be legally permitted in the US but still be wrong, and no Supreme Court decision can change that.
By the way... in spite of your nationalistic indoctrination, this isn't an issue of 'Commies vs. the good guys'. The commies are gone now, remember?
I'm not speaking of socialist regimes like the former USSR, I'm speaking of communism as a legitimate philosophy. There are plenty of legitimate communists who believe that neither physical nor intellectual property are things you can "own," but merely something that you are allowed to have for the public good. You seem to agree with this position half-way, arguing that it only applies to intellectual property, while physical property is somehow an "inherent right" - my question is why?
FWIW my personal position is more in agreement with that of the communists, though in practice I disagree with most political communists in my ideas of how property should be allocated. Neither physical nor intellectual property is an "inherent right," but something granted by the government; physical property should IMHO nearly always be granted as a pseudo-right and only rarely taken away, while intellectual property, due to its easy replication, should carry less weight (though certainly it should still carry some weight), and be more open to utilitarian arguments about benefiting the public as a whole.
So in practice it seems I agree somewhat with your position, but I disagree strongly with your assertion that physical and intellectual property are, in a moral sense, fundamentally different. I see no basis for your claim that physical property ownership is a fundamental right while intellectual property ownership is not.
Then they call the on-call doctor to perform the procedure; presumably the on-call doctor is (as required) somewhere he can be reached by a phone call - i.e. not somewhere that clearly posts the fact that cell-phones are jammed. It's the on-call doctor's responsibility to be somewhere he can be contacted, not the movie theater's responsibility to make sure doctors can be contacted while watching its movies.
This seems extraordinarily unlikely - the only time a cell phone emergency call would be necessary is in remote areas without land-line phones, and these jammers are intended for use in precisely the opposite sorts of areas - crowded areas where cell-phone overuse is a problem. Such areas (movie theaters, etc.) are virtually guaranteed to have pay-phones (where 911 is a free call) or other land-line phones nearby.