The question is how thoroughly the code is reviewed. I mean, the Linux kernel alone is more than a million lines big (even more, I dunno the exact numbers). That's a hell of a lot of code to watch about. And that's only the kernel itself, not counting any services/apps.
Most malicious code can be very short, given that the person who writes it is competent enough (which I'm not, unfortunately;))
So the case was decided on the common law after all. That's a relief, if WA was entirely code-based, I should have known about it. Western Australia may have been nearly colonized by the French, but that doesn't mean it has to adopt their heathen legal system:-P.
We don't want to start a debate on this one, do we? Although it would sure be fun;)
That seems a bit farfetched. What good is OSX on an intel platform with no applications? I don't see them programming a windows compatibility layer.
Shouldn't most OSX apps only require a simple recompile to work on x86? Granted, the developer should have tried to write clean code without too many squirks, but shouldn't this be the case anyways?
And last but not least, let's not forget about Wine. Moving OX-X to x86 would finally make Wine work under this OS. And hey, I can even run Warcraft3 and Office with it, so much for win32-compatibility.
OS-X would bring a new nice, beautiful, mature, integrated and easy to use interface to the x86 world. As much as I'd like to say otherwise, this is something Linux still lacks.
India is not a concern against attacking the US (or Europe) because there is no motivation to (just like there is no motivation for France, Germany, Japan, UK, Brazil or a few others with nukes to attack the West).
I didn't know that Germany, Japan or Brazil have nuclear bombs. The first two may have the technical know-how, the radioactive materials and the necessary money, but they decided against building nukes.
to anybody that Earth's big moon (the one on which mankind made a great step) isn't a moon at all. Seeing it's sheer size compared to earth (about one quarter of earth's diameter), I would rather call earth-moon a dual-planet-system, same like dual-suns.
Bah, typical human arrogance. Just like with us being the top of evolution.
Manned space flight is unnecessary anyway. It's shameful how much money we spend putting a handul of overpaid pilots in space, so they can fix some pork-project telescope used by overpaid scientists to peep at blobs of light billions of miles away, when there are millions of people here on Earth who lack access to clean running water or nutritious food.
And it is indeed shameful how much money you spend on unnecessary luxuries, like a car (use public transit instead), a TV (radio and/or newspaper do the job as well), a piece new clothes every months, fast-food etc. Not to mention the 200 billion dollars spent by the U.S. government for defense.
By all means I want everybody in this world to have a home, clean water and enough food to live comfortably. But your using world-poverty as an argument against scientific research is dumb (sorry, got no better word for it).
Sure, astronomics/astrophysics have no immediate use in our daily life, but the ideas, concepts and discoveries are useful in many more application-oriented research.
Unfortunately, for the average tax-payer the problems of daily life are much more important than space-exploration. They rather have their tax-money spent for things they see and understand the need for.
From my point of view this is, of course, short-sightened. Until now mankind had always room for expansion. The romans conquered europe and kept their realm stable by constant expansion. The discovery of america kept us busy for another few centuries.
Todays society and econmy needs constant growth to survive. Without a growth of GDP, people will loose their jobs, poverty will increase etc etc.
Unfortunately, our planet is small. We have covered all space that is available. The only ways for continued expansion are either a) war and elimination of a continent or two so we can rebuild it (indiscussable, of course) or b) expansion into space, which is huuuuge. And at least our own solar system is within our reach, if Einstein was right and faster-than-light travel is impossible. And even our own small solar system should keep us busy for some time.
Sure MS never made a Linux distro. But they could have used some GPL'ed code in their own OS. It is known that they use code from the BSD systems (where they copied a security hole as well;)).
I wonder up to what frequencies the Athlon will scale. It seems to take AMD longer and longer to add a few Mhz, whereas Intel seems to have fewer problems pushing their P4 design onto higher clockrates.
So, where will the Athlon reach its physical limit?
> This is true, but I would rather have small, fast, > solid base system that can be easily added to. > Something like Gentoo with an installer.
I agree that I don't use of the apps on my RedHat distro. But unlike Gentoo et al. all I don't need to download each new app I may need. apt-get/emerge might be a neat idea, if you have either a flat or broadband. For me per-minute modem user they're unavailable:(
Still, RPM's ability to watch the dependencies is a good idea. They can save you a lot of hassle when you're about to deinstall a package on which other packages rely. This is the main advantage over vanilla windows.
Unfortunately, this only works for the RPMS and not user compiled apps/libs. But I read about checkinstall, which creates RPMS out of./configure;make;make install software.
> I think the initial install is something Linux > has improved on, I actually like Mandrake's > DrakeX more than Windows' installer.
Getting Linux on your harddisk is pretty easy nowadays. And I think vanilla Linux is already far better configured than out-of-the-box Windows (i.e. I don't need to install drivers for half of my hardware).
It's getting Linux to do all the small things you like it to do. That's the pain in the ass. For example, you want to view encrypted DVDs under Linux. Ok, you got Xine already installed, but nada, that'S not enough. For menu support you need Xine-DVDnav. Oh wait, DVDnav requires libdvd and libdvdcss. Each library needs to be d/l'ed seperately, you need to compile/install the libraries, you need to take care that the version of Xine-DVDnav and Xine are compatible... sheesh, I only want to watch the occasional DVD. Got my point?;)
> I liked 2K more than XP, and don't get crashes > because I am picky about the code I run on my > system. I have had 2 crashes on my XP system;
I had a few more, but I could always trace back the source of the error. Most times it was my fault (wrong driver etc); only Mozilla made my XP box crash totally on certain webpages, and even then not the whole OS crashed, only the GUI did (which may have the same effect, but Winamp, for example, still played my MP3 collection).
> Linux is slower and less stable than windows A far too generic comment.
> The few Apache/MySQL vs IIS/MS SQL tests I have > seen have been won (sometimes dominated by) > Windows
You can't really compare mySQL and MS-SQL. mySQL is a lightweight database, MS-SQL tries to play in the same league as Oracle, DB2.
And while I don't have any links at hand to prove you that you're wrong about the speed-comparison, I think that Apache is fast enough for most websites. Let alone the security issues IIS has;)
> WinXP Pro comes with a 480 meg CD, Mandrake is 3 > CD's and SuSE is 7
This is because MS only gives you the basic OS with some goodies, whereas Mandrake/RedHat/SuSE t al. offer you an OS _and_ applications. In most cases you don't need to download/buy anything else than a Linux distro. It already has everything you need.
> Installing software on a Linux system is badly > broken.
That'S what RPMs are for. Despite Win32 installation program, RPM keeps track of dependencies. Windows can't do that out of the box.
> The exists no development environment more > compelling than gcc and emacs, for this reason > Linux apps will always be behind
kDevelop, Kylix, only to name the two most professional ones. For Windows there MSVC++, which is actually a neat DevIDE, but it costs quite much and has issues of its own.
That said, a more general comment by me:
Linux can be a pain in the ass. Setting up a system is, for a (technical skilled) newbie much more difficult than setting up a Win32 box. Trying to make Linux do something can be quite some (research) work, and during that time you may say 'Oh what a crap system, nothing works.', but once you figured out how to do it right, Linux will rarely fail at its new job.
WinXP, on the other hand, is the best piece of code that left MS for a few years. It's stable, clearly multimedia-orientated, has a neat UI-design and runs everything you want. But it can be as much as pain in the butt as Linux, when your apps start crashing because you uninstalled a small shareware tool which removed a crucial DLL. Let a newbie figure that out...:o
But quite frankly, I wouldn't use Linux as my desktop OS if there wasn't this DRM/security stuff.
Summarized: Both OS'es aren't bad. Each has its use. I happen to favor Linux, you favor WinXP. But try to stay constructive:)
Slashdot Mirror
The question is how thoroughly the code is reviewed. I mean, the Linux kernel alone is more than a million lines big (even more, I dunno the exact numbers). That's a hell of a lot of code to watch about. And that's only the kernel itself, not counting any services/apps.
;))
Most malicious code can be very short, given that the person who writes it is competent enough (which I'm not, unfortunately
And last but not least, let's not forget about Wine. Moving OX-X to x86 would finally make Wine work under this OS. And hey, I can even run Warcraft3 and Office with it, so much for win32-compatibility.
OS-X would bring a new nice, beautiful, mature, integrated and easy to use interface to the x86 world. As much as I'd like to say otherwise, this is something Linux still lacks.
I know that I shouldn't post a second comment. Still, I do it...
I suggest you grab a small book on internation economics and modern history and read a bit.
You'll be puzzled by what you read there. For example, that germany is the third largest economy in the world, after the U.S. and Japan.
Germany doesn't need U.S. tax money ever since the 1950s. The Marshall-Plan was great and did it's job well.
Or, how was it possible that germany sponsored the first gulf war with 17 billion?
Bah, I better stop here. Go, educate yourself a bit
Jeez, grow up and think before you open your mouth (or hack on your keyboard, in this case).
to anybody that Earth's big moon (the one on which mankind made a great step) isn't a moon at all. Seeing it's sheer size compared to earth (about one quarter of earth's diameter), I would rather call earth-moon a dual-planet-system, same like dual-suns.
Bah, typical human arrogance. Just like with us being the top of evolution.
And those 'overpaid' scientists make it possible to accumulate wealth, health and whatnot.
Just accept it. Science is _NOT_ only about application research. You need to understand the basics, before you can think about applications. Got it?
By all means I want everybody in this world to have a home, clean water and enough food to live comfortably. But your using world-poverty as an argument against scientific research is dumb (sorry, got no better word for it).
Sure, astronomics/astrophysics have no immediate use in our daily life, but the ideas, concepts and discoveries are useful in many more application-oriented research.
This called 'basics research'.
Unfortunately, for the average tax-payer the problems of daily life are much more important than space-exploration. They rather have their tax-money spent for things they see and understand the need for.
From my point of view this is, of course, short-sightened. Until now mankind had always room for expansion. The romans conquered europe and kept their realm stable by constant expansion. The discovery of america kept us busy for another few centuries.
Todays society and econmy needs constant growth to survive. Without a growth of GDP, people will loose their jobs, poverty will increase etc etc.
Unfortunately, our planet is small. We have covered all space that is available. The only ways for continued expansion are either a) war and elimination of a continent or two so we can rebuild it (indiscussable, of course) or b) expansion into space, which is huuuuge. And at least our own solar system is within our reach, if Einstein was right and faster-than-light travel is impossible. And even our own small solar system should keep us busy for some time.
Sure MS never made a Linux distro. But they could have used some GPL'ed code in their own OS. It is known that they use code from the BSD systems (where they copied a security hole as well ;)).
I wonder up to what frequencies the Athlon will scale. It seems to take AMD longer and longer to add a few Mhz, whereas Intel seems to have fewer problems pushing their P4 design onto higher clockrates.
So, where will the Athlon reach its physical limit?
> This is true, but I would rather have small, fast,
:(
./configure;make;make install software.
;)
> solid base system that can be easily added to.
> Something like Gentoo with an installer.
I agree that I don't use of the apps on my RedHat distro. But unlike Gentoo et al. all I don't need to download each new app I may need. apt-get/emerge might be a neat idea, if you have either a flat or broadband. For me per-minute modem user they're unavailable
Still, RPM's ability to watch the dependencies is a good idea. They can save you a lot of hassle when you're about to deinstall a package on which other packages rely. This is the main advantage over vanilla windows.
Unfortunately, this only works for the RPMS and not user compiled apps/libs. But I read about checkinstall, which creates RPMS out of
> I think the initial install is something Linux
> has improved on, I actually like Mandrake's
> DrakeX more than Windows' installer.
Getting Linux on your harddisk is pretty easy nowadays. And I think vanilla Linux is already far better configured than out-of-the-box Windows (i.e. I don't need to install drivers for half of my hardware).
It's getting Linux to do all the small things you like it to do. That's the pain in the ass. For example, you want to view encrypted DVDs under Linux. Ok, you got Xine already installed, but nada, that'S not enough. For menu support you need Xine-DVDnav. Oh wait, DVDnav requires libdvd and libdvdcss. Each library needs to be d/l'ed seperately, you need to compile/install the libraries, you need to take care that the version of Xine-DVDnav and Xine are compatible... sheesh, I only want to watch the occasional DVD. Got my point?
> I liked 2K more than XP, and don't get crashes
> because I am picky about the code I run on my
> system. I have had 2 crashes on my XP system;
I had a few more, but I could always trace back the source of the error. Most times it was my fault (wrong driver etc); only Mozilla made my XP box crash totally on certain webpages, and even then not the whole OS crashed, only the GUI did (which may have the same effect, but Winamp, for example, still played my MP3 collection).
First, the individuals:
;)
:o
:)
> Linux is slower and less stable than windows
A far too generic comment.
> The few Apache/MySQL vs IIS/MS SQL tests I have
> seen have been won (sometimes dominated by)
> Windows
You can't really compare mySQL and MS-SQL. mySQL is a lightweight database, MS-SQL tries to play in the same league as Oracle, DB2.
And while I don't have any links at hand to prove you that you're wrong about the speed-comparison, I think that Apache is fast enough for most websites. Let alone the security issues IIS has
> WinXP Pro comes with a 480 meg CD, Mandrake is 3
> CD's and SuSE is 7
This is because MS only gives you the basic OS with some goodies, whereas Mandrake/RedHat/SuSE t al. offer you an OS _and_ applications. In most cases you don't need to download/buy anything else than a Linux distro. It already has everything you need.
> Installing software on a Linux system is badly
> broken.
That'S what RPMs are for. Despite Win32 installation program, RPM keeps track of dependencies. Windows can't do that out of the box.
> The exists no development environment more
> compelling than gcc and emacs, for this reason
> Linux apps will always be behind
kDevelop, Kylix, only to name the two most professional ones. For Windows there MSVC++, which is actually a neat DevIDE, but it costs quite much and has issues of its own.
That said, a more general comment by me:
Linux can be a pain in the ass. Setting up a system is, for a (technical skilled) newbie much more difficult than setting up a Win32 box. Trying to make Linux do something can be quite some (research) work, and during that time you may say 'Oh what a crap system, nothing works.', but once you figured out how to do it right, Linux will rarely fail at its new job.
WinXP, on the other hand, is the best piece of code that left MS for a few years. It's stable, clearly multimedia-orientated, has a neat UI-design and runs everything you want. But it can be as much as pain in the butt as Linux, when your apps start crashing because you uninstalled a small shareware tool which removed a crucial DLL. Let a newbie figure that out...
But quite frankly, I wouldn't use Linux as my desktop OS if there wasn't this DRM/security stuff.
Summarized: Both OS'es aren't bad. Each has its use. I happen to favor Linux, you favor WinXP. But try to stay constructive