In all seriousness, think of the practicaly applications for hikers, hunters and trail enthusiasts. Bobcat problem? Bears? Wouldn't it be nice if you happened to stumble upon a normally hostile animal only to find that its disregard of your presence is almost enough to hurt your feelings...
Um, I'm not sure how this ties in to the parent you responded to (one of my posts)... Uh, do you have a goal set to crash your machines? You say you run them hard but "apparently not hard enough..." Did you read the whole parent or just misunderstand what I was saying or just bragging about your uptime? *shrug* elaborate if you want, if not... *shrug*
Hmm, 15 minutes to get your environment back to how you want it? It sounds like you have more issues than just once a week rebooting my friend. If you seriously take 15 minutes to log back into several systems, and open, oh let's say even 15 documents, I'd hate to see an analysis on your productivity.
Anyway, sure reboots are inconvenient, but they are, unfortunately a necessary evil if we are to keep current with patches. Yes, yes, I know, there are other OS's that patch on the fly with no downtimes, etc. etc. I'm not the one whining about rebooting after a patch.
I know a lot of folks, perhaps you included...
Trust me brotha, you don't know me and likely you never will. Just because my remark about measuring your peepee hit too close to the bone doesn't mean an off handed remark insinuating that all I use my computer for is to play "Quake 8" is going to redeem you in the eyes of your peers at work (who are likely spending 30 minutes redoing their work environment as we speak).
As for putting your XP box into hibernation, I guess if you are a disorganized nuclear scientist or something and can't keep your stuff straight at work and that mean machine of yours takes 5 minutes to reboot, I guess I can see your point with using hibernation as opposed to simply shutting down.
As for what's the big deal to me whether or not you want to reboot "every other day" (which is an exageration unless you're rebooting for something other than the MS autopatcher), honestly I could care less, but having to look at your post about how patching windows affects your uptimes just to get to other people's posts that have some merit and interest to me. Then, only to have you puff out your chest and attempt to make yourself look like you have a more important job than me (or whatever that was supposed to be...) is mildly unpleasant but not so much as to keep me from returning to this article. Now look what you've done! Not only have people had to read through your drivel, now I've written a lot of stuff that is o/t and now they have to read through mine as well. Nice job, oh wait, im suppozed 2 b a gamez player, NJ, GG.
Thank you for helping me find the humor in/. again, I was afraid I had lost it.
And other than bragging rights... what actual use is a long uptime??? You already said that your machines are put in hibernation, LOL, unless you have some mission critical 24/7 application that suffers during that one minute reboot period, what's the big deal if you have to reboot after a patch? Do you have a ruler sewn into your zipper too?
*sigh* Ok, so one minute we're talking Windows and Linux as comparisons, next we're talking versions of windows (98, 2000, XP), where you admit that comparitively it is more stable. And in the next sentence you are still debunking Windows as being unstable if you had nothing else to compare it to: "If I were just given the machine, would I call it stable? Probably not". Whereupon you want to just talk Windows. Ok. My Windows box is stable. We have agreed (at least I think we have, you keep on running in circles here and I'm never sure which way to face...) that we both have recent versions of Windows XP with recent updates and patches. How many times do I have to say it? My box is stable, I do not crash, I can't remember the last time I saw a BSOD... I don't know what else to say, I can't compare it to Linux...
You say a reboot is a reboot, claiming that you're playing a little bit of devil's advocate... but I don't understand why? Just to bash on Windows? I completely fail to see the original point of your post when you are now admitting that the likely cause of your problems is an application that has nothing to do with the OS. You say an OS should be able to contain problematic programs, and yet close your eyes to any comparisons to Linux. Come on, saying Windows falls short because it is not unbreakable is just plain dumb. You show me an OS, that is unbreakable and has real world applications I can use and I'll make the switch immediately. Nothing is perfect.
Unless there is something more compelling other than venting my frustration and trying to figure out exactly what you're saying among all these contradictions, I will not reply to anything else on this thread. Get your final words in now, if you give me something that is concrete as opposed to bandwagon MS bashing or misdirected frustrations ("Since I don't control the apps I can use...") I'll be happy to continue our talk.
In reality, my Windows box gets much more attention in that arena. By corporate policy (shudder) we have a patching client always running, pointing to a corporate server. They serve up fresh-patchy-goodness to us whenever they feel like it.
-- from the parent
Is XP more stable than Win98? Yes. Does it still have acceptable stability? Yes. Would I consider it to be a stable OS? Nope.
-- from your original post
Heh, so your Windows PC at work is percieved as unstable because of corporate policy requires you to patch and reboot too often? You're losing me here. I'm not sure where "acceptable stability" is given a nod, and yet in your next sentence you say you do not consider it stable. I can only assume it is because of whatever policies are in place at your work.
Saying that your windows box has constant attention because of an autopatcher that seems to constantly be doing something is like saying my 2 year old daughter is safe because my 4 year old son is always keeping an eye on her and tells me when she's in trouble. The main point of my original post was to point out that people don't take on the personal responsibility of securing and maintaining their Windows boxes. You think that the constant flux of patches for Windows contributes to the instability, and yet I've already stated that my box is rock solid, is patched weekly and sometimes requires a reboot due to these patches. Sometimes I have to reboot several weeks in a row, sometimes it goes longer. Like I said, nature of the beast, big deal, I lose one minute of productivity. Bragging rights on longest uptime is just that, bragging rights. If we were comparing Linux and Windows Server instead of XP then it would be relevant, but I have no experience running windows enterprise software so...
My main office machine is usually only running a few apps - Office, Outlook (corporate mandate again), PuTTY, Opera, Tivoli, and several tools from Rational (ClearQuest, ReqPro, TestManager). Now I know that those Rational apps aren't the most stable, and are probably the cause of many of my problems, but I can't not use them. I am no OS guru, but I don't think that an app should have the power to bring down the system or make it grind to a halt.
Again I say to you, look above and below. It IS possible to do the same thing to Linux. I imagine if we had the same companies making Linux versions of their same crappy releases, Linux would be plagued with many of the same problems as Windows. And again I ask, how does it not matter whether the point of failure is the OS or the applications being run? Your point of contention lies with Microsoft Windows, as evidenced by several comments through your postings, my point is that I have a stable, secure and fully functional, work and play, 8+ hour PC running Windows XP that does not go into standby and has an uptime of one week+. It's not magic, we are using the same versions of MS applications (provided we are both up to date on patches;), heh) so what's the difference? Hardware, drivers and other applications. Bad or incompatible hardware is just as likely to cause problems with Linux, same thing with drivers. If the same programmers wrote the same software for Linux as the ones you already conceeded are unstable on your work box, you would probably have an equal number of problems on a Linux box.
Hrm, posting while drinking first cup of coffee does not make for good editing... Ignore the blatent grammar/syntax problems above...:/ It's still legible even though you're != your (lol) and so on...
I started a reply to this then deleted it, saving myself from a coronary just in the nick of time. Gosand, no offense, your post was just the last one I read before deciding I had to say something.
As many others have said, it is possible to do the same thing on a Linux box; easy to do I would say for those that are inexperienced/tired/lazy. The fact that you're Linux box has been up for 79 days, while sounding impressive doesn't give much insight since we don't have any type of baseline to compare between your work/home machines.
You ask if the OS or the apps you run (on your work machines) are to blame and say it doesn't matter. Actually it does. There's plenty of beta software for Linux out there. Put some on your box at home and run it as hard as your work machines, then come back and tell us how long your Linux box has been up. What? You didn't say anything about beta software? But you did say that whether the problems lie with the OS or the apps you run is irrelevant.
Ok second scenario, I want you to try running Lindows and run the same programs you're using at work... What? I'm looking for the same functionality, the same familiar GUI's, etc. on your Linux box, and I want to see how stable it is then. OK, OK, don't get mad. Sheesh. Just trying to prove my point that there are plenty of things to take into account for system stability, Linux is not untouchable and there are plenty of things that can ruin the pristine track record it has for stability, it's just that most of us that actually use Linux on a regular basis usually aren't willing to do those things, at least not on their stable/production box.
So why aren't most Linux lackeys willing to apply that same devotion to making their Win-boxes as secure/stable as possible??? My "stable" XP box goes for a week+ easily without a reboot, it gets more daily use and abuse than the Debian Sarge box sitting right next to it. I play my games on it, do all my browsing, etc. What I do not have on it is beta or known unstable apps, cracked programs or any type of warez. Yes it is a legitimate purchased copy of windows XP and Office XP, etc. In addition to the rest of the network security it has a virus scanner and a software firewall. The email accounts I check from here are pretty secure and spam free... It's very rare for me to have a problem on this box and this is my main box (read 8+ hours at the keyboard -- work from home)! Sure it takes a bit of patching/updating, some of which require a reboot -- big deal, so once a week at the most I lose about a minute of my time waiting for a reboot.
So how is it that my windows box which is used for Office, IRC, anime, gaming, webwork, and so on be more stable than someone's work PC??? Maybe it does have something to do with your OS (or components thereof, like drivers) or the apps you are running. There is just SO MUCH CRAP out there that runs on a windows box and all it takes is one badly coded program to start causing problems. Seriously, if your windows box is having hardcore stability problems (like the guy that posted claiming he used his system's crash time as a means of keeping track of when it was time to go home... give me a fucking break, a box that crashes at the same time every day has more serious issues than whether or not MS sux) you should take a long hard look at how you handle what is installed/patched/etc on that box. If you give a Windows box as much time and care as a typical Linux box you would be surpised. Well, more time actually... there are nth times more people trying to compromise security, writing shitty code and so on for Windows. A smart person that chooses/has to use a Windows box should dedicate some time making that box as solid as it can be instead of using that time to bitch about how much MS sucks on/.
...give out the administrator password for people to log in with. (Its a windows box, how much does it really matter?)
You're kidding right? When the vast majority of virii, trojans, hacks, etc. are targetted at MS platforms, to take the stance that security doesn't matter because it is a Windows box is just plain stupid. It's this kind of attitude that makes me sick.
I can see it now...
"Bah, fuck it, it's just Windows."
[four days later...]
"Man MS sucks ass, it's just a timebomb waiting to explode. It figures that the one Windows box we have on our network is the one that got compromised, has 23 virii and 10 trojans. What a piece of crap!"
There are security minded ways of doing this and there are half-cocked hacks that will work as well. If people would spend the same amount of time making their win-boxes secure as they do their Lin-boxes... bah, nevermind, once a zealot always a zealot...
Social networks are only as useful as your own perceptions. While not a proponent myself, I've seen valid declarations for and against them (in general), open or closed (to the public), etc. It seems that those that look to them for substitutions for an actual social life are typically disappointed since male to female ratios are nominal at best. On the other hand those that look to these networks as opportunities to meet people (or keep in contact with people) from varied backgrounds and locations who share interests or needs (programming help, contractors, games, etc.) generally have much better luck than say randomly talking to someone in a bar.
If these networks were to try and cater to the lonely hearts out there, they would be no better than dating services, except they would likely prove to be disappointing in that regard, little better than just jumping into any of the myriad chat rooms out there. Perhaps this is validating invitation only networks (ala Orkut), who's to say?
A drawback to social networks is end user propagation and activity. Maintaining, checking, browsing and so on seems, to me at least, like a time consuming activity. One which I lack the desire and the time to follow. I tend to be a bit of a hermit, often times putting my IMs as away just to concentrate on the task at hand while I sit at my computer. I suppose when the "killer" social network comes along, I'll sign up and stay, until then they remain little more than academic interests in a field that is reaching oversaturation and little innovation.
See DEBIAN? LOL, I thought Debian was rather easy to install, and with apt-get even easier to maintain packages. IMO, Gentoo is more of a mental workout for installing, but even then only if you're building totally from scratch. It's been years and years since I've bothered with Slackware and other granddaddies of distros, so I can't say whether or not these are easier or harder to install/maintain.
Since I'm already OT, why am I lately compelled to only reply OT? *shrug* Oh well. One has to wonder if actually saying "certizilied" would even be worth the effort of finding ways of using it:P.
[smartass]
Well, that just goes to show that/. has effectively reached critical mass where in order to post anything "new", the editors have to recycle previous posts. Sorta like the old arcade games where your score is reset to 000000 because of the player's mastery. Good job/. I look forward to re-reading more fine articles like this.
[/smartass]
Seriously though, I missed this the first time it was posted. It looks interesting, but I got distracted with making the text different sizes. By the time I was done playing, I remembered I wanted to make this post...
Beat me to the punch on this. Nullsoft has had such an excellent grasp on audio and video streaming, I'm surprised more companies aren't jumping all over that wagon.
Ah, you left out one important IE problem. It also doesn't follow standards; there are a lot of display issues when working out a design in CSS that require hacks to get them to display right in IE.
If Microsoft will actually re-release IE with better security, less proprietary crap and more standards adherence, they will get a win/win instead of a losing all around. Their end users will be happy, the designers of websites will be happy, and while IE will always be a major target, their patchers may get a little relief.
Nope, I'm not a MS basher (heh, look at my previous posts), but in the same respect I'm not a MS zealot either. The bottom line is, IE definitely is in need of a long overdue major overhaul.
LOL, how very true. But just think, every/. reader would read the same ten articles (9 of which are +1 Funny -- but not really), skip the rest be bored for the rest of their lunch/evening and maybe do something else. It'd be the fall of/., therefore it will never happen.
Anyway, to remain slightly on topic... While I've never used OSX, I would think that someone who agonizes over what OS their using has more to worry about than just computer stuff. I can see it now, "Ooooh, I love OS Y, but I really should be using X. Gosh, the joy I get from using Y is almost eclipsed by the agony of neglecting my beloved X. Is this guilt normal? Maybe I should go see Dr. Petres... Shh! Did someone knock? Quickly, quickly! Reboot, select Linux..../LookLikeImWorking.sh... [yells]COMING!!!... ok, there... [answers door]"
So, er, you're saying that F2 and F3 don't work in Linux? There's nothing similar to a start menu in any of the GUI's for Linux either? Lemme get this straight... Where you work, the postal outlet, if someone replaced all the Windows machines with Linux, set up a nice program that used the same keys (this is for a register or something?), none of the current Windows users will be able to operate?
I think you completely missed the point of the parent while you tripped all over yourself to call him a troll. If you take someone who has used a point and click interface from Windows, the learning curve for a Linux GUI would be drastically reduced over someone who has never used anything more sophisticated than say, an electric typerwriter.
Regardless of you're proficency in a given GUI, smart GUI design, basic GUI tennents (menu bars, icons, etc.) and so on, make for a semi-familiar experience regardless of platform.
Get off the bandwagon and actually read a post. Not everybody who mentions Microsoft without substituting the 's' for a dollar sign or mangling the name is a troll.
Ahh, but sift throught the vast number of blogs that are done primarily to keep friends and family up to date on what Timmy is doing while he's away from home or whatnot and find the truly interesting Blogs that are sources of information on specific topics like Zeldman, or the blogs that gather information for similiar minded people, oh wait, you're already familiar with those, technically Slashdot is one of the greatest in that realm.
That doesn't mean that the small fries are to be discounted. There are tons of truly interesting, but small, blogs that are out there that give a varied view on topics with a personal touch. If you separate the wheat from the chaff, just like the rest of the WWW, you can find some real gems.
On that note, here's a shameless plug for my new blog,.: Bent Double:.. Lacking in content, but only because it is still very new.
No wonder there aren't any posts on this article, everyone has fallen asleep reading the long-winded crap that was linked. I saved myself with a quick click on the back button.
Think of how they portayed killing in the basement scene in the first matrix, how 'COOL' was that; a computer hacker/nerd in sunnies and a trenchcoat, with a hot female in latex blasting away numerous innocent people without even flinching - with the propellerheads soundtrack pumping.
Should we question the sanity (or the potential to "snap") of the people who had a hand in this particular scene? The actors, screenwriters, sound crew, etc... Can we make a reasonable leap of faith and say that they are not all riding the edge of sanity and insanity? How can one say then that the ability of a group of moderately sane people can visualize, then act out and produce a scene that can not be visualized by a creative but mentally unstable person -- a person who has "snapped"? Remember the postal worker fiasco? Should we assume this person played violent video games or had an above average desire to watch bloody action flicks? Remember the Dungeons & Dragons fiasco? I don't recall how they killed but I am pretty sure they did not wander around with a Bastard Sword +2... Maybe this whole vengeful killing spree is triggered by the carbinated beverage Coke? Ah, maybe there's some strange chemical in Wonder Bread; have we checked to see if all these killers liked white bread???
Sorry, this isn't a flame on you and I agree, I'm divided to a point... Sure I concede that it's possible that violent media may provide a seed for an idea that has already started festering. Is that bad? Let's look at this a different way.
Let's say Joe Shotgun is a farm kid way out in the boonies, no TV, no movie theaters, no computer, but an excellent collection of books are available for his enjoyment. Now Joe Shotgun is not ignorant, nooooo. In fact he's pretty damn intelligent, is a voracious reader and is even more advanced in his home schooling than a typical city kid. But therein is the problem. Joe spends most of his time alone (awww). None of the other farm kids like him because he's different from the norm and they don't understand him. Now kids will be kids and poor Joe has lived with the occasional pranks and name calling which is all too common the world over.
The thing is, Joe is slightly, um... unstable. Maybe pa dropped him on his head when he was young, who knows? But the Shotgun's have always known about Joe's dark moods. They usually leave him alone and after a while he's back to his good old self. One day Joe just snaps... Pa's been yelling at him, Ma got mad at him because he knocked the apple pies from the sill. The kids have been unmerciful lately, etc. Poor Joe hatches a plan. He hates being different, he's tired of always being alone. Nobody ever understands him and in his teenage angst ridden mind, it is just not worth going through what, 50 or 60 more years of this shit. Suicide??? Hrm, let those little bastages grow up and make more little shits that will make some other kid's life miserable? Hell no, if he's going out, Joe's gonna take a few with him.
So a few days later Joe has a plan. What's his plan? I leave it to you to think of various violent ways a farm boy could take out people based only on literature you've read.
My point? Joe is isolated from all the vast media that is (ironically enough) so big in the media as being responsible for inspiring killers. We give him one link to the rest of the world (the books) and now we have to place the blame on this one form of media. Should we revert to book burning in this farm community? Whatever means Joe decides to use as his vehicle of vengence, it is resonable to assume he will be influenced by the literature he read. Maybe Ma and Pa (if they survived) should go through the books and censor out the violent parts of this vast library, you know, to keep other kids from getting these crazy ideas in their heads.
In my opinion, this is very similar to the idea that there are many bad things to be found on the Internet, so let's heavily regulate it and make it completely 'G
Where do you live? And should I ask which bank? I'm in Denver and could use a bank reference since my home bank doesn't appear to exist here. Most of the cities I've travelled to (due to work) almost always have ATMs still using dialup. My view may be skewed by the fact that most ATMs I hit are typically convenience stores, grocery stores and the like. Come to think of it, most stand-alones in shelters tend to be on dial-up also. The only place I can think of that doesn't use dial-up are ATMs that are located in bank branches. Remember, just because you don't hear the modem handshake tones doesn't mean it's on frame-relay. Hehe, the sad thing is, now I'm going to be too tempted to casually time my transactions from $20 --> Ok to cash dispensed just to see if maybe I'm using some wired ATMs without even knowing it.:P
Starting to get the picture? Now do try and think before insulting one's intelligence.
I throw your own words back at you and append "well, you started it." By insulting my intelligence first, you opened the doors to that room all on your own. So in the future if you can't take the heat...
Imagine the destructive DDoS effects of Nimda, Code Red, or Slammer doubled...
I never disputed the fact that had those virii been targetting Apache the damage would have been greater. The Internet is not just web servers, the WWW being a late player in the game. You're going to tell me that the virii I listed did not affect more than half the Internet because the Apache servers that were allowed to remain connected were not affected? What about clients? What about businesses that shut down their connection to the Internet? What about all those Apache servers that were being hammered with requests coming from infected machines? What about those networks that are using SQL Server somewhere on the same network as their Apache servers? Your coveted Apache servers do not need to be infected to be affected. I still maintain that you comment about affecting the Internet through attacking the majority was not as well thought out as the rest of your post. Yes it's true if you want to affect more than 50% of the Internet attacking the most common web server is one way, but certainly not the only...
Excellent points, and for once, it seems someone that actually thinks before jumping on one bandwagon or another. I apologize for not taking the time to write my original post with more thought. In truth I was just checking the headlines while wasting 15 minutes before going on a work call. I really did mean that first sentance. Hehe, I'm sorry if I sounded TOO hostile further down, but I met hostility with hostility. The fact that I had to read and reply to some mindless bandwagon jumpers prior to reading and replying to your comment probably stoked the fire too. It was fun speaking with you and I hope you can at least see my reasoning, if not necessarily agree with it. This will be my final post in this thread also.
Slashdot Mirror
In all seriousness, think of the practicaly applications for hikers, hunters and trail enthusiasts. Bobcat problem? Bears? Wouldn't it be nice if you happened to stumble upon a normally hostile animal only to find that its disregard of your presence is almost enough to hurt your feelings...
Um, I'm not sure how this ties in to the parent you responded to (one of my posts)... Uh, do you have a goal set to crash your machines? You say you run them hard but "apparently not hard enough..." Did you read the whole parent or just misunderstand what I was saying or just bragging about your uptime? *shrug* elaborate if you want, if not... *shrug*
Hmm, 15 minutes to get your environment back to how you want it? It sounds like you have more issues than just once a week rebooting my friend. If you seriously take 15 minutes to log back into several systems, and open, oh let's say even 15 documents, I'd hate to see an analysis on your productivity.
Anyway, sure reboots are inconvenient, but they are, unfortunately a necessary evil if we are to keep current with patches. Yes, yes, I know, there are other OS's that patch on the fly with no downtimes, etc. etc. I'm not the one whining about rebooting after a patch.
Trust me brotha, you don't know me and likely you never will. Just because my remark about measuring your peepee hit too close to the bone doesn't mean an off handed remark insinuating that all I use my computer for is to play "Quake 8" is going to redeem you in the eyes of your peers at work (who are likely spending 30 minutes redoing their work environment as we speak).
As for putting your XP box into hibernation, I guess if you are a disorganized nuclear scientist or something and can't keep your stuff straight at work and that mean machine of yours takes 5 minutes to reboot, I guess I can see your point with using hibernation as opposed to simply shutting down.
As for what's the big deal to me whether or not you want to reboot "every other day" (which is an exageration unless you're rebooting for something other than the MS autopatcher), honestly I could care less, but having to look at your post about how patching windows affects your uptimes just to get to other people's posts that have some merit and interest to me. Then, only to have you puff out your chest and attempt to make yourself look like you have a more important job than me (or whatever that was supposed to be...) is mildly unpleasant but not so much as to keep me from returning to this article. Now look what you've done! Not only have people had to read through your drivel, now I've written a lot of stuff that is o/t and now they have to read through mine as well. Nice job, oh wait, im suppozed 2 b a gamez player, NJ, GG.
Thank you for helping me find the humor in /. again, I was afraid I had lost it.
And other than bragging rights... what actual use is a long uptime??? You already said that your machines are put in hibernation, LOL, unless you have some mission critical 24/7 application that suffers during that one minute reboot period, what's the big deal if you have to reboot after a patch? Do you have a ruler sewn into your zipper too?
You say a reboot is a reboot, claiming that you're playing a little bit of devil's advocate... but I don't understand why? Just to bash on Windows? I completely fail to see the original point of your post when you are now admitting that the likely cause of your problems is an application that has nothing to do with the OS. You say an OS should be able to contain problematic programs, and yet close your eyes to any comparisons to Linux. Come on, saying Windows falls short because it is not unbreakable is just plain dumb. You show me an OS, that is unbreakable and has real world applications I can use and I'll make the switch immediately. Nothing is perfect.
Unless there is something more compelling other than venting my frustration and trying to figure out exactly what you're saying among all these contradictions, I will not reply to anything else on this thread. Get your final words in now, if you give me something that is concrete as opposed to bandwagon MS bashing or misdirected frustrations ("Since I don't control the apps I can use...") I'll be happy to continue our talk.
Heh, so your Windows PC at work is percieved as unstable because of corporate policy requires you to patch and reboot too often? You're losing me here. I'm not sure where "acceptable stability" is given a nod, and yet in your next sentence you say you do not consider it stable. I can only assume it is because of whatever policies are in place at your work.
Saying that your windows box has constant attention because of an autopatcher that seems to constantly be doing something is like saying my 2 year old daughter is safe because my 4 year old son is always keeping an eye on her and tells me when she's in trouble. The main point of my original post was to point out that people don't take on the personal responsibility of securing and maintaining their Windows boxes. You think that the constant flux of patches for Windows contributes to the instability, and yet I've already stated that my box is rock solid, is patched weekly and sometimes requires a reboot due to these patches. Sometimes I have to reboot several weeks in a row, sometimes it goes longer. Like I said, nature of the beast, big deal, I lose one minute of productivity. Bragging rights on longest uptime is just that, bragging rights. If we were comparing Linux and Windows Server instead of XP then it would be relevant, but I have no experience running windows enterprise software so...
Again I say to you, look above and below. It IS possible to do the same thing to Linux. I imagine if we had the same companies making Linux versions of their same crappy releases, Linux would be plagued with many of the same problems as Windows. And again I ask, how does it not matter whether the point of failure is the OS or the applications being run? Your point of contention lies with Microsoft Windows, as evidenced by several comments through your postings, my point is that I have a stable, secure and fully functional, work and play, 8+ hour PC running Windows XP that does not go into standby and has an uptime of one week+. It's not magic, we are using the same versions of MS applications (provided we are both up to date on patches ;), heh) so what's the difference? Hardware, drivers and other applications. Bad or incompatible hardware is just as likely to cause problems with Linux, same thing with drivers. If the same programmers wrote the same software for Linux as the ones you already conceeded are unstable on your work box, you would probably have an equal number of problems on a Linux box.
Hrm, posting while drinking first cup of coffee does not make for good editing... Ignore the blatent grammar/syntax problems above... :/ It's still legible even though you're != your (lol) and so on...
I started a reply to this then deleted it, saving myself from a coronary just in the nick of time. Gosand, no offense, your post was just the last one I read before deciding I had to say something. As many others have said, it is possible to do the same thing on a Linux box; easy to do I would say for those that are inexperienced/tired/lazy. The fact that you're Linux box has been up for 79 days, while sounding impressive doesn't give much insight since we don't have any type of baseline to compare between your work/home machines.
You ask if the OS or the apps you run (on your work machines) are to blame and say it doesn't matter. Actually it does. There's plenty of beta software for Linux out there. Put some on your box at home and run it as hard as your work machines, then come back and tell us how long your Linux box has been up. What? You didn't say anything about beta software? But you did say that whether the problems lie with the OS or the apps you run is irrelevant.
Ok second scenario, I want you to try running Lindows and run the same programs you're using at work... What? I'm looking for the same functionality, the same familiar GUI's, etc. on your Linux box, and I want to see how stable it is then. OK, OK, don't get mad. Sheesh. Just trying to prove my point that there are plenty of things to take into account for system stability, Linux is not untouchable and there are plenty of things that can ruin the pristine track record it has for stability, it's just that most of us that actually use Linux on a regular basis usually aren't willing to do those things, at least not on their stable/production box.
So why aren't most Linux lackeys willing to apply that same devotion to making their Win-boxes as secure/stable as possible??? My "stable" XP box goes for a week+ easily without a reboot, it gets more daily use and abuse than the Debian Sarge box sitting right next to it. I play my games on it, do all my browsing, etc. What I do not have on it is beta or known unstable apps, cracked programs or any type of warez. Yes it is a legitimate purchased copy of windows XP and Office XP, etc. In addition to the rest of the network security it has a virus scanner and a software firewall. The email accounts I check from here are pretty secure and spam free... It's very rare for me to have a problem on this box and this is my main box (read 8+ hours at the keyboard -- work from home)! Sure it takes a bit of patching/updating, some of which require a reboot -- big deal, so once a week at the most I lose about a minute of my time waiting for a reboot.
So how is it that my windows box which is used for Office, IRC, anime, gaming, webwork, and so on be more stable than someone's work PC??? Maybe it does have something to do with your OS (or components thereof, like drivers) or the apps you are running. There is just SO MUCH CRAP out there that runs on a windows box and all it takes is one badly coded program to start causing problems. Seriously, if your windows box is having hardcore stability problems (like the guy that posted claiming he used his system's crash time as a means of keeping track of when it was time to go home... give me a fucking break, a box that crashes at the same time every day has more serious issues than whether or not MS sux) you should take a long hard look at how you handle what is installed/patched/etc on that box. If you give a Windows box as much time and care as a typical Linux box you would be surpised. Well, more time actually... there are nth times more people trying to compromise security, writing shitty code and so on for Windows. A smart person that chooses/has to use a Windows box should dedicate some time making that box as solid as it can be instead of using that time to bitch about how much MS sucks on /.
...give out the administrator password for people to log in with. (Its a windows box, how much does it really matter?)
You're kidding right? When the vast majority of virii, trojans, hacks, etc. are targetted at MS platforms, to take the stance that security doesn't matter because it is a Windows box is just plain stupid. It's this kind of attitude that makes me sick.There are security minded ways of doing this and there are half-cocked hacks that will work as well. If people would spend the same amount of time making their win-boxes secure as they do their Lin-boxes... bah, nevermind, once a zealot always a zealot...
http://www.streamerp2p.com/
came across this by chance, I see Howard Stern 4-1-04 as the 2nd station down.
Social networks are only as useful as your own perceptions. While not a proponent myself, I've seen valid declarations for and against them (in general), open or closed (to the public), etc. It seems that those that look to them for substitutions for an actual social life are typically disappointed since male to female ratios are nominal at best. On the other hand those that look to these networks as opportunities to meet people (or keep in contact with people) from varied backgrounds and locations who share interests or needs (programming help, contractors, games, etc.) generally have much better luck than say randomly talking to someone in a bar.
If these networks were to try and cater to the lonely hearts out there, they would be no better than dating services, except they would likely prove to be disappointing in that regard, little better than just jumping into any of the myriad chat rooms out there. Perhaps this is validating invitation only networks (ala Orkut), who's to say?
A drawback to social networks is end user propagation and activity. Maintaining, checking, browsing and so on seems, to me at least, like a time consuming activity. One which I lack the desire and the time to follow. I tend to be a bit of a hermit, often times putting my IMs as away just to concentrate on the task at hand while I sit at my computer. I suppose when the "killer" social network comes along, I'll sign up and stay, until then they remain little more than academic interests in a field that is reaching oversaturation and little innovation.
See DEBIAN? LOL, I thought Debian was rather easy to install, and with apt-get even easier to maintain packages. IMO, Gentoo is more of a mental workout for installing, but even then only if you're building totally from scratch. It's been years and years since I've bothered with Slackware and other granddaddies of distros, so I can't say whether or not these are easier or harder to install/maintain.
Since I'm already OT, why am I lately compelled to only reply OT? *shrug* Oh well. One has to wonder if actually saying "certizilied" would even be worth the effort of finding ways of using it :P.
[smartass] /. has effectively reached critical mass where in order to post anything "new", the editors have to recycle previous posts. Sorta like the old arcade games where your score is reset to 000000 because of the player's mastery. Good job /. I look forward to re-reading more fine articles like this.
Well, that just goes to show that
[/smartass]
Seriously though, I missed this the first time it was posted. It looks interesting, but I got distracted with making the text different sizes. By the time I was done playing, I remembered I wanted to make this post...
um, yeah, what he said...
Beat me to the punch on this. Nullsoft has had such an excellent grasp on audio and video streaming, I'm surprised more companies aren't jumping all over that wagon.
Ah, you left out one important IE problem. It also doesn't follow standards; there are a lot of display issues when working out a design in CSS that require hacks to get them to display right in IE.
If Microsoft will actually re-release IE with better security, less proprietary crap and more standards adherence, they will get a win/win instead of a losing all around. Their end users will be happy, the designers of websites will be happy, and while IE will always be a major target, their patchers may get a little relief.
Nope, I'm not a MS basher (heh, look at my previous posts), but in the same respect I'm not a MS zealot either. The bottom line is, IE definitely is in need of a long overdue major overhaul.
LOL, how very true. But just think, every /. reader would read the same ten articles (9 of which are +1 Funny -- but not really), skip the rest be bored for the rest of their lunch/evening and maybe do something else. It'd be the fall of /., therefore it will never happen.
./LookLikeImWorking.sh... [yells]COMING!!!... ok, there... [answers door]"
Anyway, to remain slightly on topic... While I've never used OSX, I would think that someone who agonizes over what OS their using has more to worry about than just computer stuff. I can see it now, "Ooooh, I love OS Y, but I really should be using X. Gosh, the joy I get from using Y is almost eclipsed by the agony of neglecting my beloved X. Is this guilt normal? Maybe I should go see Dr. Petres... Shh! Did someone knock? Quickly, quickly! Reboot, select Linux...
Christ, I wish I could mod the original article -1 Troll.
/.
This has to be one of the more useless articles I've read on
So, er, you're saying that F2 and F3 don't work in Linux? There's nothing similar to a start menu in any of the GUI's for Linux either? Lemme get this straight... Where you work, the postal outlet, if someone replaced all the Windows machines with Linux, set up a nice program that used the same keys (this is for a register or something?), none of the current Windows users will be able to operate?
I think you completely missed the point of the parent while you tripped all over yourself to call him a troll. If you take someone who has used a point and click interface from Windows, the learning curve for a Linux GUI would be drastically reduced over someone who has never used anything more sophisticated than say, an electric typerwriter.
Regardless of you're proficency in a given GUI, smart GUI design, basic GUI tennents (menu bars, icons, etc.) and so on, make for a semi-familiar experience regardless of platform.
Get off the bandwagon and actually read a post. Not everybody who mentions Microsoft without substituting the 's' for a dollar sign or mangling the name is a troll.
That doesn't mean that the small fries are to be discounted. There are tons of truly interesting, but small, blogs that are out there that give a varied view on topics with a personal touch. If you separate the wheat from the chaff, just like the rest of the WWW, you can find some real gems.
On that note, here's a shameless plug for my new blog, .: Bent Double :.. Lacking in content, but only because it is still very new.
No wonder there aren't any posts on this article, everyone has fallen asleep reading the long-winded crap that was linked. I saved myself with a quick click on the back button.
Hrm, forgot to throw quotes around that first paragraph... Just an FYI, it's a quote from the partent of this post.
Think of how they portayed killing in the basement scene in the first matrix, how 'COOL' was that; a computer hacker/nerd in sunnies and a trenchcoat, with a hot female in latex blasting away numerous innocent people without even flinching - with the propellerheads soundtrack pumping.
Should we question the sanity (or the potential to "snap") of the people who had a hand in this particular scene? The actors, screenwriters, sound crew, etc... Can we make a reasonable leap of faith and say that they are not all riding the edge of sanity and insanity? How can one say then that the ability of a group of moderately sane people can visualize, then act out and produce a scene that can not be visualized by a creative but mentally unstable person -- a person who has "snapped"? Remember the postal worker fiasco? Should we assume this person played violent video games or had an above average desire to watch bloody action flicks? Remember the Dungeons & Dragons fiasco? I don't recall how they killed but I am pretty sure they did not wander around with a Bastard Sword +2... Maybe this whole vengeful killing spree is triggered by the carbinated beverage Coke? Ah, maybe there's some strange chemical in Wonder Bread; have we checked to see if all these killers liked white bread???
Sorry, this isn't a flame on you and I agree, I'm divided to a point... Sure I concede that it's possible that violent media may provide a seed for an idea that has already started festering. Is that bad? Let's look at this a different way.
Let's say Joe Shotgun is a farm kid way out in the boonies, no TV, no movie theaters, no computer, but an excellent collection of books are available for his enjoyment. Now Joe Shotgun is not ignorant, nooooo. In fact he's pretty damn intelligent, is a voracious reader and is even more advanced in his home schooling than a typical city kid. But therein is the problem. Joe spends most of his time alone (awww). None of the other farm kids like him because he's different from the norm and they don't understand him. Now kids will be kids and poor Joe has lived with the occasional pranks and name calling which is all too common the world over.
The thing is, Joe is slightly, um... unstable. Maybe pa dropped him on his head when he was young, who knows? But the Shotgun's have always known about Joe's dark moods. They usually leave him alone and after a while he's back to his good old self. One day Joe just snaps... Pa's been yelling at him, Ma got mad at him because he knocked the apple pies from the sill. The kids have been unmerciful lately, etc. Poor Joe hatches a plan. He hates being different, he's tired of always being alone. Nobody ever understands him and in his teenage angst ridden mind, it is just not worth going through what, 50 or 60 more years of this shit. Suicide??? Hrm, let those little bastages grow up and make more little shits that will make some other kid's life miserable? Hell no, if he's going out, Joe's gonna take a few with him.
So a few days later Joe has a plan. What's his plan? I leave it to you to think of various violent ways a farm boy could take out people based only on literature you've read.
My point? Joe is isolated from all the vast media that is (ironically enough) so big in the media as being responsible for inspiring killers. We give him one link to the rest of the world (the books) and now we have to place the blame on this one form of media. Should we revert to book burning in this farm community? Whatever means Joe decides to use as his vehicle of vengence, it is resonable to assume he will be influenced by the literature he read. Maybe Ma and Pa (if they survived) should go through the books and censor out the violent parts of this vast library, you know, to keep other kids from getting these crazy ideas in their heads.
In my opinion, this is very similar to the idea that there are many bad things to be found on the Internet, so let's heavily regulate it and make it completely 'G
Where do you live? And should I ask which bank? I'm in Denver and could use a bank reference since my home bank doesn't appear to exist here. Most of the cities I've travelled to (due to work) almost always have ATMs still using dialup. My view may be skewed by the fact that most ATMs I hit are typically convenience stores, grocery stores and the like. Come to think of it, most stand-alones in shelters tend to be on dial-up also. The only place I can think of that doesn't use dial-up are ATMs that are located in bank branches. Remember, just because you don't hear the modem handshake tones doesn't mean it's on frame-relay. Hehe, the sad thing is, now I'm going to be too tempted to casually time my transactions from $20 --> Ok to cash dispensed just to see if maybe I'm using some wired ATMs without even knowing it. :P
- Starting to get the picture? Now do try and think before insulting one's intelligence.
I throw your own words back at you and append "well, you started it." By insulting my intelligence first, you opened the doors to that room all on your own. So in the future if you can't take the heat...- Imagine the destructive DDoS effects of Nimda, Code Red, or Slammer doubled...
I never disputed the fact that had those virii been targetting Apache the damage would have been greater. The Internet is not just web servers, the WWW being a late player in the game. You're going to tell me that the virii I listed did not affect more than half the Internet because the Apache servers that were allowed to remain connected were not affected? What about clients? What about businesses that shut down their connection to the Internet? What about all those Apache servers that were being hammered with requests coming from infected machines? What about those networks that are using SQL Server somewhere on the same network as their Apache servers? Your coveted Apache servers do not need to be infected to be affected. I still maintain that you comment about affecting the Internet through attacking the majority was not as well thought out as the rest of your post. Yes it's true if you want to affect more than 50% of the Internet attacking the most common web server is one way, but certainly not the only...Excellent points, and for once, it seems someone that actually thinks before jumping on one bandwagon or another. I apologize for not taking the time to write my original post with more thought. In truth I was just checking the headlines while wasting 15 minutes before going on a work call. I really did mean that first sentance. Hehe, I'm sorry if I sounded TOO hostile further down, but I met hostility with hostility. The fact that I had to read and reply to some mindless bandwagon jumpers prior to reading and replying to your comment probably stoked the fire too. It was fun speaking with you and I hope you can at least see my reasoning, if not necessarily agree with it. This will be my final post in this thread also.