I agree with most of your points, and think we're coming to a common ground here. You make a valid point about Mozilla, although I don't think it makes Mozilla as dangerous as IE. With Mozilla, at least you have to decide to run whatever it is; you always have the option of saying "no". And, the option that lets you block unrequested pop-up windows makes it less likely that a careless site will get you redirected to some other, more nefarious site.
One thing that worries me about IE is, what if I'm looking at something like a pr0n site (I don't admit that I do this, but it's a likely scenario for lots of people, wink, wink) and I get the obligitory twenty pop-up windows, one of which has a malicious ActiveX file on it. If I'm Joe User (instead of paranoid John Programmer, like you and I) I could be hosed instantly, without even knowing what happened.
On the other hand, if I check out that pr0n site with Mozilla, first of all I can turn off the popup windows, which lots of naiive users do because pop-ups annoy them and they read about it on a news site. So I reduce my exposure right there. On top of that, Mozilla doesn't have all the weird bugs IE has, so you're a little safer still. And, Mozilla doesn't support Active X unless you've downloaded the plugin, so you're still safer. And, even if there IS something ugly there, you still have to agree to the popup window that asks you if you want to install it.
I think it just raises the bar considerably for a malicious app, and gives you numerous ways of avoiding trouble even for well-designed malicious apps.
Really, the best thing is that Mozilla is just an application. IE is a part of the system now. Boy, was that an ugly decision on Microsoft's part. Sometimes, they really make me scratch my head.
I'm starting to like you, by the way. You argue very well, and are obviously pretty sharp.
Consider the character of the vulnerabilities I listed for IE in my other post; many of them relate directly to its support for ActiveX. Many others relate to the browser being so tightly integrated with the O/S. THIS is what I mean when I say that Mozilla has a better design. When Mozilla's running, it's just an application. IE, in contrast, has been bound down deep in the Windows O/S. It's got hooks into everything. So, when a vuln pops up, it's a lot more likely to be dangerous.
You can lie, and claim that I don't have any technical points to make here, but I think most slashdotters are smart enough to understand what I'm saying. Hell, three quarters of them are probably techies. Keep trying though. It's killing a lot of time.
IntlHarvester said: " Wake up man. You're playing a pure advocacy game here. You can't reply to the technical point, so the only thing you've got is to cast those who disagree as IE/MS lovers, without evidence."
(Then he asks a question that seems to imply I have some kind of ulterior motive -- here's a clue, dude, I'm bored and killing time, ok? No conspiracy here. And, if I was such an "AOL Astroturfer" as you've said in the past, how come I'm using Mozilla and not Nutscrape 7? But I suspect logic won't work with you, you're too far gone).
My reply:
Au contraire. I DID reply to the technical point. More than once in this thread alone. However, since you insist that I have not, I will reply to it again. One last time, this time summing up the basic issue at hand. Here goes:
1. IE is fundamentally insecure because it uses ActiveX technology, which means that it is fairly easy for one to accidentally run untrusted code on his/her machine and get totally screwed as a result -- and it is turned on by default. Since most users aren't even aware of the security issues involved, this means that for most of these people, IE is a great big bear trap waiting to close on their foot. Furthermore, even if you take steps to secure IE, you will never know how effective your steps are going to be; it isn't open source, so there has been NO PEER AUDIT of the code. They may or may not have done a good job of securing the browser. Who can tell?
2) Mozilla is more secure than IE for several reasons. First of all, it is open source so it has been extensively peer reviewed, and when a vulnerability is discovered patches are issued fairly quickly. And, no one had to EMBARASS them into it, either. Ok, moving right along, Mozilla does NOT internally support the use of ActiveX controls, and thus does not have the problem of that pesky untrusted code running rampant on your system without so much as a warning. It is true, that if you are a weirdo and MUST HAVE ActiveX, you can buy a plugin that will let you do so. But you must actively seek it out, it isn't built in when you download Mozilla. So you will be aware of what you are doing when you do it. It is also true that you can download third party plugins for Mozilla. But you don't have to; it is completely up to you. You might mention that Flash Player recently had an exploit; however, this isn't a hit against Mozilla, as the exploit affected all browsers supported by Flash, and anyway, they fixed it immediately. One plugin for Mozilla, the Java plugin, will let you run dynamic code from a website however that code runs in its own sandbox and cannot harm your system. Vulnerabilities do occasionally pop up but those are patched fairly quickly so they aren't a very significant threat (Now that I think of it, I don't remember any in recent history).
Now, how's that for a nice sum-up of the issues? Go ahead and try to disprove any of the things I've said.
Here's a list of citations of ActiveX vulnerabilities and problems with IE, just so you don't think I'm complaining "without evidence".
CITATION LIST:
Here's a list of unpatched IE vulnerabilities: http://www.pivx.com/larholm/unpa tched/
Here's a fun one dealing with Microsoft's IM tool: http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/archiv e/24004.html
This one looks interesting: http://www.theregister.co.uk/content /archive/28215.html
This one relates to Windows Help, and an ActiveX control there... Not so much a browser issue, but it gives a hint of the traps ActiveX can set... http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/archi ve/27409.html
Here's a good one; check out the ActiveX vuln listed: http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/arch ive/26807.html
Here's one for those of you who think your IE security settings actually MATTER: http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/arch ive/24168.html
Here's a good one that'll interest all you MSDN jocks: http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/archi ve/26765.html
Man... There are so many of these I'm running out of blurbs. Here's another: http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/arc hive/26147.html
Here's a really fun one that mentions Outlook too: http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/archive /24274.html
Now, can I stop here, or should I go to some other websites, and capture a few more citations? This is taking too long. I mean, come on, dude, I have work to do. Is this enough "evidence" that IE sucks, or what???
Hate to burst your bubble, but it just had to be done.;)
IntlHarvester, in saying "Crazy Philman...Is it because he wants to preserved (sic) his own proud stupidity on the matter, or is he an AOL astroturfer", demonstrates that he has the grammar skills of a ten year old and thus, is in no position to call me stupid. But I digress.
Before I give this up as a hopeless cause, I might point out that yes, there is a Flash plugin for Mozilla (and every other browser in Christendom) and it recently had an exploit for which they put out an advisory, I downloaded the new version, and the hole was closed. Whoopee, fucking do. It STILL doesn't make IE a good browser.
And, as far as my "heroic anti-M$ bullshit in the bowels of slashdot" go, I have a few points to make:
A) Expressing an opinion about the relative merits of a couple of web browsers does not count as "heroic... bullshit". It is an opinion, nothing more.
B) Slashdot is a website with blogging and message threading features, and thus does not have bowels. If it did, though, I'm sure you would give it diarrhea.
C) You seem to think that I am here trying to "make a difference". Let me reassure you that I am only killing some time, sharing opinions with like minded (and not-so-like-minded) people. I am not an activist, and I genuinely do not care which browser you use. In fact, I find your adoration of IE amusing and would not dream of talking you out of it.
Maybe you're taking all this a little too seriously.
P.S. IE sucks! Nyah, nyah! Tag, you're it.
P.P.S. "Proud stupidity"? "astroturfer"?? Too funny.
For my money, the best way to deal with coworkers, particularly in reference to a technical problem, is email. You can take your time and frame your thoughts, organize them, edit them... Include source code and links to citations... It's really much better than face-to-face conversation. It even gives you an audit trail, in case someone "forgets" that he promised you a deliverable ("Oh? You never said you would write that component? Hmm... let me see" -- fishing in list of printouts -- "Huh. Isn't this your email describing what you were going to do for me?"). Face to face contact is a dodge, a way for people to stay off the record. Fuck 'em; always get it on "paper".
Besides, I'm not exactly a friendly person. Other people are fine in concept, provided I am permitted to observe them from a distance, but I don't like having too much face-to-face contact with them. Email lets me maintain some degree of solitude at work, which preserves my overall level of happiness.
Int'lHarvester told me a fairy story about how because a plugin exists that lets Mozilla run ActiveX files, Mozilla is no better than IE, to which I say, "Ha! What a load of bullshit."
Here's a quote from the web page he linked me to:
"This plug-in is not part of the Mozilla distribution and even if it were it would be disabled by default. It is extremely, hell-freezing-overly, unlikely that Mozilla is ever going to support ActiveX by default. This plug-in is designed for custom, legacy and intranet solutions and nothing else."
Looks like he doesn't even read his own citations.
He accuses me of FUD, but really, he's just another Microsoft apologist trying to make a shit sandwich sound like roast beef. It's good for a laugh though.
Sorry for the rant... On a second reading, it sounds harsher than I originally meant to write it.;)
But, as a programmer, I think that if I can assume that most of my end-users are going to be a) dumb as bricks, and b) so lazy they won't even read the manual, much less try to learn anything about security, then I'm either going to chuck it all and become a plumber (I've thought about it) or I'm going to write my stuff to be as idiotproof as possible. I don't see Microsoft doing this. I see them building in all the bells and whistles they can, and not worrying about what a not-too-bright end user will do to himself with their stuff.
You know what really bothers me the most, is that the users who rely on Microsoft products don't only harm themselves. If Joe Blow from Pismo beach were to be lackadasical in his use of Outlook, and get his email account nuked as a result, I would feel sympathy but I wouldn't care particularly. But when Joe Blow's system turns into part of a DDOS network because of it, suddenly it's MY problem, and yours too.
Microsoft COULD fix a lot of these problems, but I don't know if they will. I think they are too led by public demand for pretty, flashy things. Maybe they'll change their mind though.;)
Well, there is one point I'd like to make, which I think you might grudgingly agree with. IE supports ActiveX, which is implemented by having Windows download small chunks of executable code right into the Windows "System" directory. These chunks of code run on your system just like any other chunk of code (compare with Java applets, which run in a sandbox). Mozilla, in contrast, does not support Active X controls. So it is inherently safer, even for stupid users. Furthermore, Mozilla is not integrated as fully with the operating system, or with MS Outlook, as IE is. This also makes Mozilla a lot safer to use.
Remember that even the most well-trained user may occasionally slip up. Trusting your settings to protect you from things that should never have been built in in the first place isn't as smart as you seem to think it is. Sorry, but it's true. No matter how "safe" you think IE is, Mozilla will *always* be safer by virtue of its design.
By the way, isn't "blame the users" the standard Microsoft mantra? For years, they pretended that they had good security, and said that most problems were the fault of users, who didn't patch and so on, etc, blah blah blah. But, the root of the problem is, if you didn't build in the hole, *it wouldn't be there, would it*. And, as far as "stupid users" goes, well, who's to blame for that? Perhaps a company which uses the "no-brainer" character of their software as a major selling point? Hmm? Who was it, exactly, who started the trend of creating programming systems that were explicitly designed for non-comp. sci grads? Who started the trend of point-and-click systems administration, so that any jackass can walk off the street and start babysitting a network? Hmm?
You're not saying anything. Cat caught your tongue? PERHAPS the problem of "stupid users" is a symptom of a greater problem endemic to the entire Microsoft way of doing things. Hmm? We never had problems like this back in the mainframe and Unix days, when most people in the biz had some related education first. But, I'm an elitist swine, I know, how dare I expect programmers to, oh, I don't know, GET THEIR C.S. DEGREE BEFORE BECOMING AN ADMIN, OR DOING SYSTEMS WORK??? AUUGH, AUUUUGGH!!! Sorry, got a little heated up there for a second. I'm bitter. Long story.
Think about this for a sec: Would you be willing to defend a car company which builds a randomly activating self-destruct system into each car, with a cancel button in the dash? Where the company then says, "Well, we mentioned in the manual that you have to hit the cancel button when the self destruct light comes on, so it's really the driver's fault that the car blew. Stupid drivers..."
Not at all -- liking a different product is a matter of taste. I like Mozilla, personally, but I don't expect *everyone* to. I just meant that it's a nice thing to have available, because it can streamline things. It's like this (for me): I may not want to use tool A, but I feel much better that tool A is available, so my not using it is a matter of choice. I love alternatives. I think they make life worth living. And, browser innovation ensures that alternatives are available.
(by the way, I admit, that on my Red Hat system, I've been using KMail instead of Mozilla mail for my main email account. No reason, particularly, just bloody-mindedness I guess. But I do use Mozilla for usenet and web mail, because of the filters!).
1) Because in some ways, the browser is the most important piece of software we use. Modern computers are valuable not so much for computation, but for communication.
2) Because if the browser is done well (like Mozilla or Opera) it can handle other tasks as well, like email and usenet, thus improving the whole user experience (yes, I know some versions of Opera don't do email anymore, but some do, or at least did).
3) Because if the browser is done well (like Mozilla) it can become a platform for running new classes of application, which brings all sorts of interesting things to light.
4) BUT, MOST IMPORTANTLY, if the browser is done badly (IE), it becomes a ready-made backdoor into your system, a virus and worm propagator, a stumbling block in the way of people trying to innovate in other areas, and in general, a royal pain in the ass. If there weren't alternatives to IE, there would be wailing and gnashing of teeth (cats and dogs, living together, etc).
To sum up:
Browser innovation is what saves us from having to use crappy proprietary tools like the rest of the rubes, and what allows us to actually get some use out of our computers (instead of being hacked ten times a day by bored script kiddies).
I know you and I are going to get flamed for this, but I have to say I agree with you. Sharing music, non-free software and movies is against the law (and correctly so); people who defy the law and share copyrighted stuff are creeps, especially when there are free alternatives they can share without restrictions.
Why would someone pirate a bootleg copy of Windows and take all that risk when they can share Linux for free, totally legally? Why would someone pirate music and risk the wrath of the RIAA when they can download and listen to small, local bands' music for free, and legally? I don't think expensive, RIAA music is better than freely-available independent music. And, why download movies at all? If you have a high-speed connection, you already have cable, right? Just watch it on your TV, or (better) read a book...
I guess I don't understand the whole piracy thing. I don't get why anyone would want to do anything like that. It just seems so bizarre and senseless.
Raids are to be expected. But I don't think ISPs should be punished for the actions of a bunch of jerks. I think the cops should work with the ISPs, giving the ISPs time to write up perl scripts to filter their logs for the data the cops need. It's not like a bunch of cops are going to be able to sift the data effectively themselves...
I agree with your point about education, but I have one additional reason for feeling that it isn't the answer. I was recently reading a nonfiction work (that will remain nameless because everyone's lawyer-happy these days) when I came upon a chapter in which the author described how, as someone trained entirely in mathematics with no computer science experience whatsoever, he managed to get a college in California to hire him as a comp. sci professor. He was then assigned, as his first class, *assembly language*! So, what he did was go to the morning assembly class, led by another professor, write down everything the professor said, and basically say that during his lecture. The next semester he had to teach something else, which he knew nothing about, and basically faked it, but justified it by saying something like "we all learned a lot and had a great time".
I told my friend about this, and he said, "the problem is that teachers have this idea that any good teacher can teach anything. Experience, or expert knowledge, isn't necessary."
Another interesting thing is that when I was in school, when they started a class in Unix system administration, the teacher taught himself the subject the summer before, and was still in the process of learning the material while we were in his class.
So, think about it: you go to college, you pay thousands of dollars in hopes of being taught useful arts by experts who actually know the material, and what do you get? You don't get experts; you might as well read the books yourself. It doesn't seem like a value proposition to me.
Instead of getting a Master's degree, I'll hang around Borders or Barnes and Noble and pick up books by someone with some industry experience. 40 bucks per subject is a whole lot cheaper than 600 bucks per course (and that's for a state school!).
Actually, what's more likely is, you're driving down the L.A. Expressway when a script kiddie in a beat up GEO Metro running on three cylinders thinks you cut him off, and CarNukes you, causing your system to BSOD and *CRASH*. Of course, your car brings down the whole LAN, resulting in a fifty-car pileup, all with blue screens blinking.
I said nothing about communism. What I described was small businesses working together locally, to provide services or goods cheaply, and people bartering between themselves for services and goods they can't afford to buy directly. Sounds more like a modified version of capitalism to me.
I'm a hippie, not a commie.
Having said that, Marx got one thing right: modern history HAS been about the conflict between the owners of the means of production and the workers who do the actual producing. What I disagree with is his conclusion. I think he could have saved a whole lot of trouble by pursuing a Management/Union structure, and going for a balance of power between worker and owner. Collectivising everything eliminates all motivation and makes life a pointless masturbatory experience.
My ideal is a balanced mixture between large and small businesses, with more individual participation in commerce. Again, this is not communism.
That's kind of interesting, about the shipping companies. However, I still think our modern mass-production oriented society mostly evolved in the industrial revolution. Perhaps the problem isn't with the corporation per se, but rather with the modern approach to managing resources.
As far as CEOs go, I'll grant you the point you made is a fair one. Given that they're human, it may only be natural that at least some will behave well and show loyalty to their staff... Perhaps I'm a little jaded. Nevertheless, I'd still rather work for a small business.
I'm not sure if I actually hate "corporate personhood"; I think with me, it's more a matter of feeling that the current trend towards globalism is destructive and will eventually act as a limiting factor to corporate expansion for the reasons I mentioned. I see the current corporate and global structure as being like a gigantic, mushrooming amoeba. It eats, and eats, and grows, and grows, spreading all over the world, right? But eventually, the amount of material inside the amoeba is great enough that internal pressure is greater than the strength of the amoeba's surface and it pops. Then all the other little amoebas go about their business, eating up all the scraps that have been blown all over. So for a while we continue to have huge megacorporations, but eventually their reach exceeds their grasp and they fall, leaving behind all the smaller corporations that arose in their colossal shadow.
Kind of a neat idea, isn't it? Of course, I don't think the big corps will totally die off, I just think their influence will be reduced. There'll be room for small, local players in other words, and local economies will reemerge.
Maybe it's a little utopian, but I think there's a really solid chance of this occurring. I think the early stages are already happening around the country.
Planesdragon said: "Ah, there you go. Two faults right there."
No; you misunderstood me. Fault number one, in which you claimed that the phenomenon was a civilisational one instead of a cultural one, was no fault of mine -- you completely misapprehend the situation. It is in fact a cultural one. Our civilization is made up of many cultures, not just one. And, over the past thousand years, it has changed time and time again, going from a purely agrarian, barter-based economy, through a feudal stage, through the rise of a merchant class, the creation of a monetary system, a renaissance and an industrial revolution... Your comment that it is a single civilization dating back to the Romans is simply incorrect. If you want to get down to brass tacks, our current system of capitalism is an artifact of the industrial revolution, and thus only about 150 years old. The more nasty pieces of the current state of affairs were crafted in the seventies and eighties, so they're only thirty years old! So my first "fault" is no fault at all.
My second "fault" as you claim is in not giving CEO's enough credit. To this I say, "balderdash" (try it, it's fun: "BALDERDASH". Every time I say it I think of Baron Munchausen. Come on, just say it once...). BALDERDASH. Man, I like the sound of that... But, on to my point:
CEOs are not necessarily evil. I agree with your point that some might even have redeeming qualities. However, I disagree with your conclusion. A CEO is a slave to his board of directors, and in turn, to his stockholders. If he tries to improve employee morale instead of increasing his bottom line, he could get sued, fired, or hollered at by the board. Also I might point out that in the example you used, when one CEO had blown a bunch of money and gotten himself fired, the younger CEO you suggested would be hired wouldn't be hanging around being friendly to the staff. Far from it. He would be cracking the whip and chopping heads, because the board would want him to make up the money the previous guy lost and the easiest way to cut costs is to cut staff and increase the workload of the remainder. If you look at it honestly, this is EXACTLY what's been happening during this downturn at just about every company out there.
But, just in case you think I'm against all things company and business, I should point out that I am all for smaller, privately owned companies. They're good for local areas, and they're good for individuals. Why? Because they're owned by individual people, not faceless masses of stockholders. When everyone in the company knows the boss, and everyone is part of the same team, the whole dynamic changes. I'm not saying that all small businessmen are saints, far from it. But it's possible to find a small businessman who actually cares about his people, and work for HIM. A private owner isn't trapped by a board of directors. If he wants to take a slight hit during a tough year, and not fire people, he can without getting sued or fired. If he wants to help out someone on his staff, he can do so. And, in return, if his staff treats him well, he knows who's doing a good job and what's being done.
When I complain about corporatism, I am not complaining about companies. I am complaining about giant, faceless multinational companies to whom an individual employee is a number on a balance sheet, to be laid off if the market is soft or outsourced to improve a quarterly figure.
Anyway, you watch. People are going to get fed up with corporate bullshit and they're going to start to live more locally. Things are going to get interesting. There'll still be corporations; car companies, large manufacturers, supermarket chains... But, there'll be a lot more local business balancing things out.
Well, I don't think that markets don't work; what I think is that the balance of activity is going to start leaning towards localized markets rather than corporate, national ones. Not in the sense that we won't have supermarkets or car manufacturers anymore, because obviously there are some things that corporations do that private individuals cannot (although, I do think that many individuals will continue to restore OLD cars, and buy locally-grown food instead of the grocery-store stuff). But in realms where corporations don't enjoy any special advantages, or where they're producing things that people consider nonessential (read: luxury items) I think they're going to get walloped.
By the way, it's extremely rude to tell someone to go read a textbook. Condescending, even. I took Macroeconomics in college just like you did, and I listened to everything that was said. Unlike you, apparently, I took a lot of it with a grain of salt.
I agree with you, though, that "Things will pick back up". But, I suspect we have very different ideas of HOW they will pick up.
Yikes... I feel your pain, my laptops are the same way. I've been getting memory on Ebay, but the best I've done is 96MB of RAM per system. Tell the truth, I think that's about the limit of what this model of machine will accept. I wish I had a CF-72...
The only time I have trouble on my 167 is when I get a little squirrelly and try something written in Java. Otherwise, it works fine, KDE and all. I miss Java; it's like a slightly (or seriously, depending on POV) perverted ex-girlfriend who won't take my calls anymore because she thinks my car sucks. Sorta... At least C++ still likes me.
But, most of the apps you get when you run Linux as a desktop seem to be written in C or C++, so it works out nicely for me. I do miss Java. It is kind of a nice language, isn't it? I just wish it would run faster on my poor little P-167's.
Well... My using the P-167's is maybe a little perverse... But they're special. They're Panasonic CF-25's, which are almost indestructible as laptops go. The screen is armored, the laptop is made of die-cast metal (magnesium or aluminum, I forget which) the hard disk is shock-mounted, and everything is highly water resistant. I like 'em, you know? They're my little armadillo monsters.
Besides, they do work pretty well, except for java related stuff. Sigh... I gave up Java and went back to C++. Still, considering the laptops only cost me about 150.00 each (I have three left, after doing strange things with two others, Frankenstein-style) I think I got a pretty good deal. And 7.3 does work pretty well on 'em. It's a little slow, but not so's you'd be annoyed by it.;)
Hey, serious question: I noticed that Red Hat is only going to "support" releases for a year, and then orphan them. I think I might be able to get by by just manually updating the packages I'm worried about, like to fix a vuln I see listed on the web, etc -- what's your opinion? Am I taking too big a chance? Because I'm pretty happy with 7.3 and I'm not crazy about getting into an upgrade cycle. What do you think? I'm torn on this issue...
I think you're right, but I think it is for different reasons. I agree that within ten years, there won't be any more 200.00 consumer operating systems... But I think there also won't be any 2000.00 gamer PCs, or, well, pretty much *anything* expensive.
See, I think our culture (I mean, U.S. culture, but the phenomenon is reaching out to the rest of the world) is entering a nasty feedback loop. First, corporations try to maximize profits by laying everyone off and outsourcing everything outsourceable. All the laid-off ex-middle-class workers try to find jobs, but only a fraction do, and those generally take lower pay because the market's flooded with competition. The rest ultimately either end up giving up, and not even bothering to find work, or working in dead-end wage-slave jobs (think "service economy"). Less money in the economy means less spent on consumer goods, which means a less confident stock market and lower corporate profits. They respond with more layoffs, making the situation worse. The feedback loop feeds off itself as long as there are still workers that can be laid off, or at least, as long as corporations are run the way they are currently.
So, what happens when the only people still working at corporations are the suits running them, and virtually EVERYTHING has been outsourced around the world to the lowest bidder?
* People naturally end up scaling down their expectations. They start trying to live within their means, because *they have no other choice*.
* Product lines get forced into scaling down, to a "just good enough" cheap-and-dirty version which people will actually buy. New, small companies form which produce cheap local knockoffs of tools and gear, and they achieve modest success. Economies end up becoming more local as a result. Hint: there might be an opportunity here. For instance, when people can't afford to buy the latest HP or Compaq, you might be able to sell them a custom built gamer PC if you can find the parts on inexpensive web-catalog sites.
* The whole culture starts to scale down into a grey-market, local co-op, sort of thing. Everything gets smaller, cheaper, more efficient. SUVs morph into small, gas-electric hybrids... Six bedroom houses become harder to sell, and are displaced from the market by townhouses and bungaloes (cheaper to heat, lower taxes, etc).
I see EVERTHING becoming smaller, cheaper, purchased over the web on the cheap, and very, very low-key. And, getting back to O/S'es, when everyone ends up getting everything on the cheap over the web or from a local shop, downloads of Debian become the norm, instead of that 200.00 MS Windows XP license... People will say, "200.00 for a CD? Are you nuts? I can get a bicycle, a computer, some new shoes, new clothes, the entire run of Outlaw Star, and a bunch of software suites for that." Then they'll take their 200.00 to ebay, and do it just for spite.
That, as they say, will be that. Ah, Bill, we barely knew ye...
Chef Raekwon said, "try running your RedHat 8.0 on a 486, or better yet, an early Pentium 1 (with KDE or GNOME). Please post results."
I don't know about Red Hat 8.0, but I'm running Red Hat 7.3 on a Pentium 167 laptop with 96mb of Ram and about 3GB of disk space... It runs everything pretty well, albeit not as quickly as I'd prefer... The only problem I've noticed is that you can pretty much forget about running anything java-based on it (Forte, for example, dies a morbid death). This doesn't affect me that much, though -- almost everything for Linux is written in C++, so the stuff I'm using runs fairly well.
I think it comes down to what sort of apps you're running. If you're just using productivity stuff, and doing programming (in anything except java, that is) you're probably going to be fine.
In contrast, man, I wouldn't even TRY to get Windows 2000 or XP running on one of my pokey little laptops. 'Course, Windows 98 seems to run ok, if you're into that sort of thing. And, I have heard a rumor about a friend of mine putting Windows XP on a Pentium 100, and he swears it works, but then, he and I are always fencing about windows vs. Linux, so he may just be toying with me.:)
Slashdot Mirror
I agree with most of your points, and think we're coming to a common ground here. You make a valid point about Mozilla, although I don't think it makes Mozilla as dangerous as IE. With Mozilla, at least you have to decide to run whatever it is; you always have the option of saying "no". And, the option that lets you block unrequested pop-up windows makes it less likely that a careless site will get you redirected to some other, more nefarious site.
One thing that worries me about IE is, what if I'm looking at something like a pr0n site (I don't admit that I do this, but it's a likely scenario for lots of people, wink, wink) and I get the obligitory twenty pop-up windows, one of which has a malicious ActiveX file on it. If I'm Joe User (instead of paranoid John Programmer, like you and I) I could be hosed instantly, without even knowing what happened.
On the other hand, if I check out that pr0n site with Mozilla, first of all I can turn off the popup windows, which lots of naiive users do because pop-ups annoy them and they read about it on a news site. So I reduce my exposure right there. On top of that, Mozilla doesn't have all the weird bugs IE has, so you're a little safer still. And, Mozilla doesn't support Active X unless you've downloaded the plugin, so you're still safer. And, even if there IS something ugly there, you still have to agree to the popup window that asks you if you want to install it.
I think it just raises the bar considerably for a malicious app, and gives you numerous ways of avoiding trouble even for well-designed malicious apps.
Really, the best thing is that Mozilla is just an application. IE is a part of the system now. Boy, was that an ugly decision on Microsoft's part. Sometimes, they really make me scratch my head.
I'm starting to like you, by the way. You argue very well, and are obviously pretty sharp.
BY THE WAY:
Consider the character of the vulnerabilities I listed for IE in my other post; many of them relate directly to its support for ActiveX. Many others relate to the browser being so tightly integrated with the O/S. THIS is what I mean when I say that Mozilla has a better design. When Mozilla's running, it's just an application. IE, in contrast, has been bound down deep in the Windows O/S. It's got hooks into everything. So, when a vuln pops up, it's a lot more likely to be dangerous.
You can lie, and claim that I don't have any technical points to make here, but I think most slashdotters are smart enough to understand what I'm saying. Hell, three quarters of them are probably techies. Keep trying though. It's killing a lot of time.
IntlHarvester said: " Wake up man. You're playing a pure advocacy game here. You can't reply to the technical point, so the only thing you've got is to cast those who disagree as IE/MS lovers, without evidence."
a tched/
v e/24004 .html
t /archive/28215 .html
i ve/27409 .html
h ive/26807 .html
h ive/24168 .html
i ve/26765 .html
c hive/26147 .html
e /24274 .html
;)
(Then he asks a question that seems to imply I have some kind of ulterior motive -- here's a clue, dude, I'm bored and killing time, ok? No conspiracy here. And, if I was such an "AOL Astroturfer" as you've said in the past, how come I'm using Mozilla and not Nutscrape 7? But I suspect logic won't work with you, you're too far gone).
My reply:
Au contraire. I DID reply to the technical point. More than once in this thread alone. However, since you insist that I have not, I will reply to it again. One last time, this time summing up the basic issue at hand. Here goes:
1. IE is fundamentally insecure because it uses ActiveX technology, which means that it is fairly easy for one to accidentally run untrusted code on his/her machine and get totally screwed as a result -- and it is turned on by default. Since most users aren't even aware of the security issues involved, this means that for most of these people, IE is a great big bear trap waiting to close on their foot. Furthermore, even if you take steps to secure IE, you will never know how effective your steps are going to be; it isn't open source, so there has been NO PEER AUDIT of the code. They may or may not have done a good job of securing the browser. Who can tell?
2) Mozilla is more secure than IE for several reasons. First of all, it is open source so it has been extensively peer reviewed, and when a vulnerability is discovered patches are issued fairly quickly. And, no one had to EMBARASS them into it, either. Ok, moving right along, Mozilla does NOT internally support the use of ActiveX controls, and thus does not have the problem of that pesky untrusted code running rampant on your system without so much as a warning. It is true, that if you are a weirdo and MUST HAVE ActiveX, you can buy a plugin that will let you do so. But you must actively seek it out, it isn't built in when you download Mozilla. So you will be aware of what you are doing when you do it. It is also true that you can download third party plugins for Mozilla. But you don't have to; it is completely up to you. You might mention that Flash Player recently had an exploit; however, this isn't a hit against Mozilla, as the exploit affected all browsers supported by Flash, and anyway, they fixed it immediately. One plugin for Mozilla, the Java plugin, will let you run dynamic code from a website however that code runs in its own sandbox and cannot harm your system. Vulnerabilities do occasionally pop up but those are patched fairly quickly so they aren't a very significant threat (Now that I think of it, I don't remember any in recent history).
Now, how's that for a nice sum-up of the issues? Go ahead and try to disprove any of the things I've said.
Here's a list of citations of ActiveX vulnerabilities and problems with IE, just so you don't think I'm complaining "without evidence".
CITATION LIST:
Here's a list of unpatched IE vulnerabilities:
http://www.pivx.com/larholm/unp
Here's a fun one dealing with Microsoft's IM tool:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/archi
This one looks interesting:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/conten
This one relates to Windows Help, and an ActiveX control there... Not so much a browser issue, but it gives a hint of the traps ActiveX can set...
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/arch
Here's a good one; check out the ActiveX vuln listed:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/arc
Here's one for those of you who think your IE security settings actually MATTER:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/arc
Here's a good one that'll interest all you MSDN jocks:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/arch
Man... There are so many of these I'm running out of blurbs. Here's another:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/ar
Here's a really fun one that mentions Outlook too:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/archiv
Now, can I stop here, or should I go to some other websites, and capture a few more citations? This is taking too long. I mean, come on, dude, I have work to do. Is this enough "evidence" that IE sucks, or what???
Hate to burst your bubble, but it just had to be done.
IntlHarvester, in saying "Crazy Philman...Is it because he wants to preserved (sic) his own proud stupidity on the matter, or is he an AOL astroturfer", demonstrates that he has the grammar skills of a ten year old and thus, is in no position to call me stupid. But I digress.
Before I give this up as a hopeless cause, I might point out that yes, there is a Flash plugin for Mozilla (and every other browser in Christendom) and it recently had an exploit for which they put out an advisory, I downloaded the new version, and the hole was closed. Whoopee, fucking do. It STILL doesn't make IE a good browser.
And, as far as my "heroic anti-M$ bullshit in the bowels of slashdot" go, I have a few points to make:
A) Expressing an opinion about the relative merits of a couple of web browsers does not count as "heroic... bullshit". It is an opinion, nothing more.
B) Slashdot is a website with blogging and message threading features, and thus does not have bowels. If it did, though, I'm sure you would give it diarrhea.
C) You seem to think that I am here trying to "make a difference". Let me reassure you that I am only killing some time, sharing opinions with like minded (and not-so-like-minded) people. I am not an activist, and I genuinely do not care which browser you use. In fact, I find your adoration of IE amusing and would not dream of talking you out of it.
Maybe you're taking all this a little too seriously.
P.S. IE sucks! Nyah, nyah! Tag, you're it.
P.P.S. "Proud stupidity"? "astroturfer"?? Too funny.
For my money, the best way to deal with coworkers, particularly in reference to a technical problem, is email. You can take your time and frame your thoughts, organize them, edit them... Include source code and links to citations... It's really much better than face-to-face conversation. It even gives you an audit trail, in case someone "forgets" that he promised you a deliverable ("Oh? You never said you would write that component? Hmm... let me see" -- fishing in list of printouts -- "Huh. Isn't this your email describing what you were going to do for me?"). Face to face contact is a dodge, a way for people to stay off the record. Fuck 'em; always get it on "paper".
Besides, I'm not exactly a friendly person. Other people are fine in concept, provided I am permitted to observe them from a distance, but I don't like having too much face-to-face contact with them. Email lets me maintain some degree of solitude at work, which preserves my overall level of happiness.
hehehe... Must have been cool to have been there, seeing it, though... ;)
Int'lHarvester told me a fairy story about how because a plugin exists that lets Mozilla run ActiveX files, Mozilla is no better than IE, to which I say, "Ha! What a load of bullshit."
Here's a quote from the web page he linked me to:
"This plug-in is not part of the Mozilla distribution and even if it were it would be disabled by default. It is extremely, hell-freezing-overly, unlikely that Mozilla is ever going to support ActiveX by default. This plug-in is designed for custom, legacy and intranet solutions and nothing else."
Looks like he doesn't even read his own citations.
He accuses me of FUD, but really, he's just another Microsoft apologist trying to make a shit sandwich sound like roast beef. It's good for a laugh though.
Sorry for the rant... On a second reading, it sounds harsher than I originally meant to write it. ;)
;)
But, as a programmer, I think that if I can assume that most of my end-users are going to be a) dumb as bricks, and b) so lazy they won't even read the manual, much less try to learn anything about security, then I'm either going to chuck it all and become a plumber (I've thought about it) or I'm going to write my stuff to be as idiotproof as possible. I don't see Microsoft doing this. I see them building in all the bells and whistles they can, and not worrying about what a not-too-bright end user will do to himself with their stuff.
You know what really bothers me the most, is that the users who rely on Microsoft products don't only harm themselves. If Joe Blow from Pismo beach were to be lackadasical in his use of Outlook, and get his email account nuked as a result, I would feel sympathy but I wouldn't care particularly. But when Joe Blow's system turns into part of a DDOS network because of it, suddenly it's MY problem, and yours too.
Microsoft COULD fix a lot of these problems, but I don't know if they will. I think they are too led by public demand for pretty, flashy things. Maybe they'll change their mind though.
Phil
Well, there is one point I'd like to make, which I think you might grudgingly agree with. IE supports ActiveX, which is implemented by having Windows download small chunks of executable code right into the Windows "System" directory. These chunks of code run on your system just like any other chunk of code (compare with Java applets, which run in a sandbox). Mozilla, in contrast, does not support Active X controls. So it is inherently safer, even for stupid users. Furthermore, Mozilla is not integrated as fully with the operating system, or with MS Outlook, as IE is. This also makes Mozilla a lot safer to use.
Remember that even the most well-trained user may occasionally slip up. Trusting your settings to protect you from things that should never have been built in in the first place isn't as smart as you seem to think it is. Sorry, but it's true. No matter how "safe" you think IE is, Mozilla will *always* be safer by virtue of its design.
By the way, isn't "blame the users" the standard Microsoft mantra? For years, they pretended that they had good security, and said that most problems were the fault of users, who didn't patch and so on, etc, blah blah blah. But, the root of the problem is, if you didn't build in the hole, *it wouldn't be there, would it*. And, as far as "stupid users" goes, well, who's to blame for that? Perhaps a company which uses the "no-brainer" character of their software as a major selling point? Hmm? Who was it, exactly, who started the trend of creating programming systems that were explicitly designed for non-comp. sci grads? Who started the trend of point-and-click systems administration, so that any jackass can walk off the street and start babysitting a network? Hmm?
You're not saying anything. Cat caught your tongue? PERHAPS the problem of "stupid users" is a symptom of a greater problem endemic to the entire Microsoft way of doing things. Hmm? We never had problems like this back in the mainframe and Unix days, when most people in the biz had some related education first. But, I'm an elitist swine, I know, how dare I expect programmers to, oh, I don't know, GET THEIR C.S. DEGREE BEFORE BECOMING AN ADMIN, OR DOING SYSTEMS WORK??? AUUGH, AUUUUGGH!!! Sorry, got a little heated up there for a second. I'm bitter. Long story.
Think about this for a sec: Would you be willing to defend a car company which builds a randomly activating self-destruct system into each car, with a cancel button in the dash? Where the company then says, "Well, we mentioned in the manual that you have to hit the cancel button when the self destruct light comes on, so it's really the driver's fault that the car blew. Stupid drivers..."
Would YOU buy a car from a company like that? No?
Not at all -- liking a different product is a matter of taste. I like Mozilla, personally, but I don't expect *everyone* to. I just meant that it's a nice thing to have available, because it can streamline things. It's like this (for me): I may not want to use tool A, but I feel much better that tool A is available, so my not using it is a matter of choice. I love alternatives. I think they make life worth living. And, browser innovation ensures that alternatives are available.
(by the way, I admit, that on my Red Hat system, I've been using KMail instead of Mozilla mail for my main email account. No reason, particularly, just bloody-mindedness I guess. But I do use Mozilla for usenet and web mail, because of the filters!).
1) Because in some ways, the browser is the most important piece of software we use. Modern computers are valuable not so much for computation, but for communication.
2) Because if the browser is done well (like Mozilla or Opera) it can handle other tasks as well, like email and usenet, thus improving the whole user experience (yes, I know some versions of Opera don't do email anymore, but some do, or at least did).
3) Because if the browser is done well (like Mozilla) it can become a platform for running new classes of application, which brings all sorts of interesting things to light.
4) BUT, MOST IMPORTANTLY, if the browser is done badly (IE), it becomes a ready-made backdoor into your system, a virus and worm propagator, a stumbling block in the way of people trying to innovate in other areas, and in general, a royal pain in the ass. If there weren't alternatives to IE, there would be wailing and gnashing of teeth (cats and dogs, living together, etc).
To sum up:
Browser innovation is what saves us from having to use crappy proprietary tools like the rest of the rubes, and what allows us to actually get some use out of our computers (instead of being hacked ten times a day by bored script kiddies).
Or is that too cynical a take on this?
...And, the bastards are giving them RIBS and POTATO SALAD! Oh, the humanity! Oh, the humanity... Poor little Johnny, we barely knew ye...
I know you and I are going to get flamed for this, but I have to say I agree with you. Sharing music, non-free software and movies is against the law (and correctly so); people who defy the law and share copyrighted stuff are creeps, especially when there are free alternatives they can share without restrictions.
Why would someone pirate a bootleg copy of Windows and take all that risk when they can share Linux for free, totally legally? Why would someone pirate music and risk the wrath of the RIAA when they can download and listen to small, local bands' music for free, and legally? I don't think expensive, RIAA music is better than freely-available independent music. And, why download movies at all? If you have a high-speed connection, you already have cable, right? Just watch it on your TV, or (better) read a book...
I guess I don't understand the whole piracy thing. I don't get why anyone would want to do anything like that. It just seems so bizarre and senseless.
Raids are to be expected. But I don't think ISPs should be punished for the actions of a bunch of jerks. I think the cops should work with the ISPs, giving the ISPs time to write up perl scripts to filter their logs for the data the cops need. It's not like a bunch of cops are going to be able to sift the data effectively themselves...
I agree with your point about education, but I have one additional reason for feeling that it isn't the answer. I was recently reading a nonfiction work (that will remain nameless because everyone's lawyer-happy these days) when I came upon a chapter in which the author described how, as someone trained entirely in mathematics with no computer science experience whatsoever, he managed to get a college in California to hire him as a comp. sci professor. He was then assigned, as his first class, *assembly language*! So, what he did was go to the morning assembly class, led by another professor, write down everything the professor said, and basically say that during his lecture. The next semester he had to teach something else, which he knew nothing about, and basically faked it, but justified it by saying something like "we all learned a lot and had a great time".
I told my friend about this, and he said, "the problem is that teachers have this idea that any good teacher can teach anything. Experience, or expert knowledge, isn't necessary."
Another interesting thing is that when I was in school, when they started a class in Unix system administration, the teacher taught himself the subject the summer before, and was still in the process of learning the material while we were in his class.
So, think about it: you go to college, you pay thousands of dollars in hopes of being taught useful arts by experts who actually know the material, and what do you get? You don't get experts; you might as well read the books yourself. It doesn't seem like a value proposition to me.
Instead of getting a Master's degree, I'll hang around Borders or Barnes and Noble and pick up books by someone with some industry experience. 40 bucks per subject is a whole lot cheaper than 600 bucks per course (and that's for a state school!).
Or am I getting too cynical?
Actually, what's more likely is, you're driving down the L.A. Expressway when a script kiddie in a beat up GEO Metro running on three cylinders thinks you cut him off, and CarNukes you, causing your system to BSOD and *CRASH*. Of course, your car brings down the whole LAN, resulting in a fifty-car pileup, all with blue screens blinking.
I said nothing about communism. What I described was small businesses working together locally, to provide services or goods cheaply, and people bartering between themselves for services and goods they can't afford to buy directly. Sounds more like a modified version of capitalism to me.
I'm a hippie, not a commie.
Having said that, Marx got one thing right: modern history HAS been about the conflict between the owners of the means of production and the workers who do the actual producing. What I disagree with is his conclusion. I think he could have saved a whole lot of trouble by pursuing a Management/Union structure, and going for a balance of power between worker and owner. Collectivising everything eliminates all motivation and makes life a pointless masturbatory experience.
My ideal is a balanced mixture between large and small businesses, with more individual participation in commerce. Again, this is not communism.
That's kind of interesting, about the shipping companies. However, I still think our modern mass-production oriented society mostly evolved in the industrial revolution. Perhaps the problem isn't with the corporation per se, but rather with the modern approach to managing resources.
As far as CEOs go, I'll grant you the point you made is a fair one. Given that they're human, it may only be natural that at least some will behave well and show loyalty to their staff... Perhaps I'm a little jaded. Nevertheless, I'd still rather work for a small business.
I'm not sure if I actually hate "corporate personhood"; I think with me, it's more a matter of feeling that the current trend towards globalism is destructive and will eventually act as a limiting factor to corporate expansion for the reasons I mentioned. I see the current corporate and global structure as being like a gigantic, mushrooming amoeba. It eats, and eats, and grows, and grows, spreading all over the world, right? But eventually, the amount of material inside the amoeba is great enough that internal pressure is greater than the strength of the amoeba's surface and it pops. Then all the other little amoebas go about their business, eating up all the scraps that have been blown all over. So for a while we continue to have huge megacorporations, but eventually their reach exceeds their grasp and they fall, leaving behind all the smaller corporations that arose in their colossal shadow.
Kind of a neat idea, isn't it? Of course, I don't think the big corps will totally die off, I just think their influence will be reduced. There'll be room for small, local players in other words, and local economies will reemerge.
Maybe it's a little utopian, but I think there's a really solid chance of this occurring. I think the early stages are already happening around the country.
Planesdragon said: "Ah, there you go. Two faults right there."
No; you misunderstood me. Fault number one, in which you claimed that the phenomenon was a civilisational one instead of a cultural one, was no fault of mine -- you completely misapprehend the situation. It is in fact a cultural one. Our civilization is made up of many cultures, not just one. And, over the past thousand years, it has changed time and time again, going from a purely agrarian, barter-based economy, through a feudal stage, through the rise of a merchant class, the creation of a monetary system, a renaissance and an industrial revolution... Your comment that it is a single civilization dating back to the Romans is simply incorrect. If you want to get down to brass tacks, our current system of capitalism is an artifact of the industrial revolution, and thus only about 150 years old. The more nasty pieces of the current state of affairs were crafted in the seventies and eighties, so they're only thirty years old! So my first "fault" is no fault at all.
My second "fault" as you claim is in not giving CEO's enough credit. To this I say, "balderdash" (try it, it's fun: "BALDERDASH". Every time I say it I think of Baron Munchausen. Come on, just say it once...). BALDERDASH. Man, I like the sound of that... But, on to my point:
CEOs are not necessarily evil. I agree with your point that some might even have redeeming qualities. However, I disagree with your conclusion. A CEO is a slave to his board of directors, and in turn, to his stockholders. If he tries to improve employee morale instead of increasing his bottom line, he could get sued, fired, or hollered at by the board. Also I might point out that in the example you used, when one CEO had blown a bunch of money and gotten himself fired, the younger CEO you suggested would be hired wouldn't be hanging around being friendly to the staff. Far from it. He would be cracking the whip and chopping heads, because the board would want him to make up the money the previous guy lost and the easiest way to cut costs is to cut staff and increase the workload of the remainder. If you look at it honestly, this is EXACTLY what's been happening during this downturn at just about every company out there.
But, just in case you think I'm against all things company and business, I should point out that I am all for smaller, privately owned companies. They're good for local areas, and they're good for individuals. Why? Because they're owned by individual people, not faceless masses of stockholders. When everyone in the company knows the boss, and everyone is part of the same team, the whole dynamic changes. I'm not saying that all small businessmen are saints, far from it. But it's possible to find a small businessman who actually cares about his people, and work for HIM. A private owner isn't trapped by a board of directors. If he wants to take a slight hit during a tough year, and not fire people, he can without getting sued or fired. If he wants to help out someone on his staff, he can do so. And, in return, if his staff treats him well, he knows who's doing a good job and what's being done.
When I complain about corporatism, I am not complaining about companies. I am complaining about giant, faceless multinational companies to whom an individual employee is a number on a balance sheet, to be laid off if the market is soft or outsourced to improve a quarterly figure.
Anyway, you watch. People are going to get fed up with corporate bullshit and they're going to start to live more locally. Things are going to get interesting. There'll still be corporations; car companies, large manufacturers, supermarket chains... But, there'll be a lot more local business balancing things out.
It's just my opinion. We'll see what happens.
Well, I don't think that markets don't work; what I think is that the balance of activity is going to start leaning towards localized markets rather than corporate, national ones. Not in the sense that we won't have supermarkets or car manufacturers anymore, because obviously there are some things that corporations do that private individuals cannot (although, I do think that many individuals will continue to restore OLD cars, and buy locally-grown food instead of the grocery-store stuff). But in realms where corporations don't enjoy any special advantages, or where they're producing things that people consider nonessential (read: luxury items) I think they're going to get walloped.
By the way, it's extremely rude to tell someone to go read a textbook. Condescending, even. I took Macroeconomics in college just like you did, and I listened to everything that was said. Unlike you, apparently, I took a lot of it with a grain of salt.
I agree with you, though, that "Things will pick back up". But, I suspect we have very different ideas of HOW they will pick up.
Yikes... I feel your pain, my laptops are the same way. I've been getting memory on Ebay, but the best I've done is 96MB of RAM per system. Tell the truth, I think that's about the limit of what this model of machine will accept. I wish I had a CF-72...
The only time I have trouble on my 167 is when I get a little squirrelly and try something written in Java. Otherwise, it works fine, KDE and all. I miss Java; it's like a slightly (or seriously, depending on POV) perverted ex-girlfriend who won't take my calls anymore because she thinks my car sucks. Sorta... At least C++ still likes me.
Ummmmmm... Ok, you got me there. ;)
;P
But, most of the apps you get when you run Linux as a desktop seem to be written in C or C++, so it works out nicely for me. I do miss Java. It is kind of a nice language, isn't it? I just wish it would run faster on my poor little P-167's.
They're cute little things.
Well... My using the P-167's is maybe a little perverse... But they're special. They're Panasonic CF-25's, which are almost indestructible as laptops go. The screen is armored, the laptop is made of die-cast metal (magnesium or aluminum, I forget which) the hard disk is shock-mounted, and everything is highly water resistant. I like 'em, you know? They're my little armadillo monsters.
;)
Besides, they do work pretty well, except for java related stuff. Sigh... I gave up Java and went back to C++. Still, considering the laptops only cost me about 150.00 each (I have three left, after doing strange things with two others, Frankenstein-style) I think I got a pretty good deal. And 7.3 does work pretty well on 'em. It's a little slow, but not so's you'd be annoyed by it.
Hey, serious question: I noticed that Red Hat is only going to "support" releases for a year, and then orphan them. I think I might be able to get by by just manually updating the packages I'm worried about, like to fix a vuln I see listed on the web, etc -- what's your opinion? Am I taking too big a chance? Because I'm pretty happy with 7.3 and I'm not crazy about getting into an upgrade cycle. What do you think? I'm torn on this issue...
I think you're right, but I think it is for different reasons. I agree that within ten years, there won't be any more 200.00 consumer operating systems... But I think there also won't be any 2000.00 gamer PCs, or, well, pretty much *anything* expensive.
;)
See, I think our culture (I mean, U.S. culture, but the phenomenon is reaching out to the rest of the world) is entering a nasty feedback loop. First, corporations try to maximize profits by laying everyone off and outsourcing everything outsourceable. All the laid-off ex-middle-class workers try to find jobs, but only a fraction do, and those generally take lower pay because the market's flooded with competition. The rest ultimately either end up giving up, and not even bothering to find work, or working in dead-end wage-slave jobs (think "service economy"). Less money in the economy means less spent on consumer goods, which means a less confident stock market and lower corporate profits. They respond with more layoffs, making the situation worse. The feedback loop feeds off itself as long as there are still workers that can be laid off, or at least, as long as corporations are run the way they are currently.
So, what happens when the only people still working at corporations are the suits running them, and virtually EVERYTHING has been outsourced around the world to the lowest bidder?
* People naturally end up scaling down their expectations. They start trying to live within their means, because *they have no other choice*.
* Product lines get forced into scaling down, to a "just good enough" cheap-and-dirty version which people will actually buy. New, small companies form which produce cheap local knockoffs of tools and gear, and they achieve modest success. Economies end up becoming more local as a result. Hint: there might be an opportunity here. For instance, when people can't afford to buy the latest HP or Compaq, you might be able to sell them a custom built gamer PC if you can find the parts on inexpensive web-catalog sites.
* The whole culture starts to scale down into a grey-market, local co-op, sort of thing. Everything gets smaller, cheaper, more efficient. SUVs morph into small, gas-electric hybrids... Six bedroom houses become harder to sell, and are displaced from the market by townhouses and bungaloes (cheaper to heat, lower taxes, etc).
I see EVERTHING becoming smaller, cheaper, purchased over the web on the cheap, and very, very low-key. And, getting back to O/S'es, when everyone ends up getting everything on the cheap over the web or from a local shop, downloads of Debian become the norm, instead of that 200.00 MS Windows XP license... People will say, "200.00 for a CD? Are you nuts? I can get a bicycle, a computer, some new shoes, new clothes, the entire run of Outlaw Star, and a bunch of software suites for that." Then they'll take their 200.00 to ebay, and do it just for spite.
That, as they say, will be that. Ah, Bill, we barely knew ye...
Just my theory. Feel free to shred it.
Chef Raekwon said, "try running your RedHat 8.0 on a 486, or better yet, an early Pentium 1 (with KDE or GNOME). Please post results."
:)
I don't know about Red Hat 8.0, but I'm running Red Hat 7.3 on a Pentium 167 laptop with 96mb of Ram and about 3GB of disk space... It runs everything pretty well, albeit not as quickly as I'd prefer... The only problem I've noticed is that you can pretty much forget about running anything java-based on it (Forte, for example, dies a morbid death). This doesn't affect me that much, though -- almost everything for Linux is written in C++, so the stuff I'm using runs fairly well.
I think it comes down to what sort of apps you're running. If you're just using productivity stuff, and doing programming (in anything except java, that is) you're probably going to be fine.
In contrast, man, I wouldn't even TRY to get Windows 2000 or XP running on one of my pokey little laptops. 'Course, Windows 98 seems to run ok, if you're into that sort of thing. And, I have heard a rumor about a friend of mine putting Windows XP on a Pentium 100, and he swears it works, but then, he and I are always fencing about windows vs. Linux, so he may just be toying with me.
FYI...