Linux is NOT susceptible to the woes that plague the Windows platform: viruses, spybots, adware.
Email viruses are as likely to penetrate Linux as a bug is likely to pass through the windshield. Spybots for Linux don't exist. Adware is blocked easier than it takes to say how.
All these people whining about their internet experience are making ONE BIG ASSUMPTION: Windows is the only OS in town.
Last weekend I helped 5 people find out about Linux. A week later they report NO viruses, no spybots, and no adware. No crashes either. One is connecting to the web via a wireless that was configured using Windows sys and inf files, wrapped with ndiswrapper, so Windows software isn't totally worthless.
During the 15 years I ran my own computer consulting business it was common to be invited to make a bid, do the analysis and present a proposal, only to have the analysis given to a another to impliment. Sometimes the connection was nepotism, sometimes it was a competitor who under bid, so the putative client thought they'd save money by using the low bidder. They "Cherry Picked" me. That happened only a few times before I realized what was happening and begin charging for the analysis. If they wouldn't agree to pay for the anlaysis I wouldn't submit a proposal.
I am wondering if a similar thing isn't happening here. SAIC is, in effect, being paid to the system analysis, but the most lucrative part of the project will be given to an insider, a crony or for a political payoff.
Someone quoted from Hawkin's "A Brief History of Time" to ridicule the Pope. He could have quoted from the introduction, where Hawkins states that the Einstein Metric requires an "admixture" of philosophy, which he then goes on to describe. Basically, you have to accept some of the Metric's terms on Faith, because they can't be proven. Then there is Godell's Law.
Over the years I've observed some things: 1) Physicists at the top of the theoretical latter, like Hawkins, readily admit to the strenghts AND weakness of their models, but those at the bottom don't seem to understand the weakenss. They often speak in term os absolute knowledge, usually displaying lots of arrogance and insulting those who hold different views. No smear seems to be beneath them. The NTY science writer who ridiculed Goddard for believing man could fly to the Moon and said rockets couldn't fly in space because there was nothing to 'push against'. But, sometimes the 'expert' is not above arrogantly ridiculing the less trained. Prof. Langley denounced the Wright brothers efforts to build a flying machine as mis-guided, while crashing into the sea on both of his efforts.
2) Science seems like a spiny sea urchin, with the spines representing specific areas of 'advancement' in knowledge. Some of those spines have only a handful of scientists at the tip, some only one, speaking in mathematical terms few others, if any, can understand. Are they right, or are they merely building castles out of clouds? Who can say?
3) Biology has made advancements in direct proportion to its utilization of chemisty, then physics, then math. But even now, I have yet to read of any Evolutionist making a non-trivial prediction about some future event in the same way that Einstein precticed the bending of light grazing the eclipsed Sun and making a specific star appear to move a specific distance from its normal position relative to nearby stars. Claddists still hold to successive minute changes occuring over long stretches of time (gradualism) even though other Evolutionists don't believe the geologic record support gradualism, something Dawkin's called "Evolution's dirty little secret" in order to advance a theory he and Gould called "Puncuated Equilibrium". Punk Eek states that life forms are static for LONG periods of time then explode in a burst of new forms for a short (50K years) period of time because, they think, that is more in tune with what they think the geologic record is showing them. Both camps still argue about whose interpretation of the geologic record is right but always come together to fight those with divergent views. It seems that either view is preferable when compared to one which includes the actions of a Supreme Being, suggesting that the common element in both theories is that God is not.
History is littered with the carcases of "missing Links" which turned out to be distortions of fact, mis-identified or even faked. It seems to me that if supporters of Evolution are so sure of its being factual one of its members could devise a sophisticated hypothesis that would predict specific facts of a non-trivial future event, something on the order of Einstein's Special Theory of Relativeity prediction.
Well, I am going to suprise a few readers and state that such a prediction will soon be made (not by me!) and will prove overwhelmingly, by the best science we have today (DNA?), that Evolution is true and God is not. Those that witnessed for God will be destroyed, certainly in influence if not physically. Atheists and others who favored the demise of God will exchange gifts with one another in celebration of their achievement. These celebrations will go on for a few years. Very few people will continue to cling to Faith in God, and religious Faith might even cease to exist. Then the celebrations will cease. Then we shall know.
You really DON'T know what the GPL means or what rights it protects, do you? Read it: http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html
First, the only people who can "rip off" GPL code are corporate folks who take a copy, make changes and/or improvements, and put the result into their PROPRIETARY binaries, surrounded by restrictive EULAs. It's like someone damming off a public stream and then charging folks for access to it.
Second, NO ONE (repeat: NO ONE) is FORCED to use the GPL on their application. Those that do, do so voluntarily, usually because they agree with the principles stated in the Preamble to the GPL. I suggest you read at least the Preamble so you have even a slight clue as to what the GPL means.
Well, to make things easier for you, here is the Preamble: "Preamble
The licenses for most software are designed to take away your freedom to share and change it. By contrast, the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change free software--to make sure the software is free for all its users. This General Public License applies to most of the Free Software Foundation's software and to any other program whose authors commit to using it. (Some other Free Software Foundation software is covered by the GNU Library General Public License instead.) You can apply it to your programs, too.
When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs; and that you know you can do these things.
To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights. These restrictions translate to certain responsibilities for you if you distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it.
For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their rights.
We protect your rights with two steps: (1) copyright the software, and (2) offer you this license which gives you legal permission to copy, distribute and/or modify the software.
Also, for each author's protection and ours, we want to make certain that everyone understands that there is no warranty for this free software. If the software is modified by someone else and passed on, we want its recipients to know that what they have is not the original, so that any problems introduced by others will not reflect on the original authors' reputations.
Finally, any free program is threatened constantly by software patents. We wish to avoid the danger that redistributors of a free program will individually obtain patent licenses, in effect making the program proprietary. To prevent this, we have made it clear that any patent must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all.
The precise terms and conditions for copying, distribution and modification follow. "
What this is saying, in effect, is that for all the major countries of the world (at least 52 of them) the concept of "One World Government" has arrived, and the UN has had no hand in it at all.
The scarey part is that these enforcement actions appear to be focused on assuring the income streams of some of the worse examples of "free enterpise" corporations the USA has ever produced.
Sure, people like Thomas Jefferson, and a few other founding fathers and statesmen.
Jefferson's comparison is still valid: when you pass an idea on to someone else it is like lighting their candle. Doing so hasn't diminished your candle in the slightes. One passed on the idea cannot be taken back. Neither can a flame be returned to its source.
At work I have written several in-house apps using VFP6. One took over three years to complete its development. We have instituted a company policy that no NEW apps will be created with Microsoft development tools, only tools that are cross platform. However, because re-developing the big app would take too much time, there will be a W2K box running those MS legacy apps for probably 10 years. How long has DOS 6.2 been around, 15+ years? Yet we only this year replaced our DOS batch routines with browser apps running against an Oracle database.
What's really nice is that I discovered that I can run VFP6, and the apps I create with it, under WINE!!
We had a server running a proprietary KODAK Imaging program for 10 years. It crashed. The backups were corrupted. After trying for three weeks to recover the data using Windows tools they gave me an HD with the ghosted image on it. I plugged it into my FC2 Webserver, a 5 year old DELL 800MHz with 512MB RAM. I couldn't mount the hd as sysv because of inode corruption, but I could use dd to read the entire 2GB drive into 10 text files of 200MB each. My problems arose when I attempted to edit those files using PFE32 on my 2.6GHz, 512MBRAM DELL Gx260 W2K box. Crash, crash, crash, reboot, crash, crash, crash...
So, I used KWrite on the FC2 Webserver box. KWrite just worked. Records recovered.
After reading most of the replies from supporters of Windows they all amount to the same response:
You got infected because:
You didn't install the iron bars on your windows before you moved in...
Your definition of 'dark' is not correct.
You must've looked someone in the eyes and didn't realize it.
You're lying because I've lived in the ghetto for years without iron bars, I roam at night, and I look everyone in the eye and I haven't been shot. (This one must be one of the bad guys that make living in the ghetto so dangerous!)
Ad nauseum... The Stockholm Syndrome over and over and over...
People have been saying that about Linux for 5 years now. And they can't use the excuse that it's only because Linux isn't widely used because about 15% of web servers are using it and that's plenty large enough to get a virus rolling.
Exactly, but the case for Linux is even stronger. Over 70% of the internet is powered by Apache and about 43% of those servers are Linux, which makes the Linux share of Internet servers more than the Windows share of Internet servers. So, even though there are more Linux boxes powering the Internet, the VAST MAJORITY of server outages are due to Windows servers going down, many due to virus and trojan attacks, and many because Windows just falls over under load. It's so bad that even Microsoft uses Linux when they want security and stability on their critical servers.
A couple of years ago, in response to a claim that Linux had 'as many' viruses as Windows does, I researched ALL the real and putative viruses posted on Symantec and other such sites. At that time I found a total of 47 viruses and worms, of which only three did actually infect some computers. The slapper worm was the most recent and the worst, it infected about 14,000 computers in Eastern Europe in a two week period before it died out. Since slapper required the user to assist, running as root, it had no real chance of infecting millions of computers like CodeRed, released around the same time, did.
What stunned me most wasn't the fact that there were less than 1/2 a dozen viable but now defunct Linux viruses, it was the fact that Symantec reported finding 3/4ths of the 47 viruses on less than 3 PCs or saying that they were "proof of concept" viruses!!! What are the odds that a virus company could encounter three dozen viruses "in the wild" but on fewer than 3 PCs. My interpretation of that data is that Symantec was experimenting with Linux viruses. Were they developing Linux anti-virus stratagies, or were they developing Linux viruses?
About a month ago, again in response to the same "Linux has thousands of viruses" claim, I went looking for the same list, but found it missing. What I found in its place was a list of over 5,000 supposed Linux viruses. http://search.symantec.com/custom/us/que ry.html Following the first listed 'virus' leads to: http://securityresponse.symantec.com/avcenter /venc/data/life.is.beautiful.hoax.html
a windows hoax email. The three known wild Linux viruses were on the list, even though they hadn't been active for over two years and modern Linux OSs are immune to them. Multiple listings abound. And many of the supposed Linux viruses were actually windows viruses (w32*) with the world 'linux' in their name. Digging deeper I noticed that many were for the putative JPEG viruses which supposedly can infect both Windows and Linux. Following the embedded links of hundreds of them in search of the original security notice I found instead a Symantec "Policy Statement", but no virus information!!! Why would Symantec "pad the books" on Linux virus counts? To sell unneeded software?
My conclusion after my latest review of Linux viruses is that there are none. In fact, if another slapper were to appear and infect even as few as it did the last time it would be front page news, or MS would pay for an NYT full page ad to be sure everyone noticed.
The fact is that while my KMail is hit with a dozen WinXX viruses each day, like bugs hitting the windshield of my car, I have yet to see any sort of Linux bug arrive at my mailbox in seven years of using Linux, four of those years being online 24/7 with a broadband connection.
I believe it has been often discussed that Linux is not appropriate for all uses.
And the exact same thing can be said for Windows, so what's your point? WHEN IBM removes their XP statement then we'll know they are serious about Linux.
The Times spokesperson said the paper's mission has been to reach 'key Washington, D.C., and New York audiences,'
Sure.
The LA "International" Times merely wanted to exert "progressive" influence on the United Nations and the US Federal Government. They couldn't tilt the playing field they way they wanted because there were too many others using blogging, forums, and email to present alternate views and news that nullified the LA "International" Times world view.
You've obviously have never taken the opportunity to compare the install of Xandros with that of Ubuntu. Ubuntu's install is a step backward, Xandros' is a step forward.
I don't run either of them. My preference is with Sarge, but I put LibraNet 2.81 on my wife's box because it recognized her nVidia card and set up 3D automatically during the install. Works great, too. Give's her 1 GHz box with 500MB of RAM 800-1200 fp/s, IIRC. Plays Tux and Flight Gear nicely. AND, its copy of mplayer plays my protected DVDs nicely, without having to add those two special files.
The Linux native version of WP 8 was sweet and full featured. The only thing I didn't like about it was that it captured the printer and wouldn't let go of it when you closed WP8. A real PITA.
Since we standardized on WP Office at work I decided to buy WP Corel Office 2000 for Linux.
BIG MISTAKE.
Slow. Crash prone. When I ran strace against it to see what the problems were I discovered that it was running on top of WINE and it swallowed 25MB of memory and/or swap for each feature you opened, which was why it slowed down very quickly. Strace showed that the crashes were the result of unanswered calls to exe and dll stubs. I returned the product and got a refund.
With the advent of OpenOffice 1.x the race for a world class Open Source Office app to replace MS Office is over.
It apparently never dawned on them that their device could malfunction and explode, spraying them with shrapnel. Or, it could have gone off course and landed on them.
But stopping three people who are putting out hundreds/thousands of bootleg CDs is easier than trying to get 1000 who create just one or two bootleg CDs.
Besides, now the perps will know that they could be nailed at any time because the Law is watching for them.
ForGent Networks, like SCO, gave up a product based business model and now persues the litigation business model. Such 'businesses' should forever be designated as a 'SCO class' businesses because the 'product' they sell is EXACTLY the same type of product Al Capone's thugs sold, protection from attack by Al Capone's gang, except that the courts become pawns of the business and send out the police to attack businesses. And, their employees appear to be composed mostly of lawyers, with an occasional geek lawn jockey to lend credibility to the term "technology".
Compression Labs never enforced the JPEG patent and now, with only months remaining before the patent expires greedy lawyers are trying to extort cash out of users.
The USTPO and/or Congress should outlaw submarine patents, and tighten rules to cancel patents if prior violations are massive and public knowledge but the patent holder has made no attempt to enforce the patent.
The "scare tactic" is the method most commonly used by the Left for the last 50+ years to unduely influence political opinion. They are not as effective as they'd like to be because few folks believe their most recognizable spokesperson, Al Gore.
Dr Ed Lorenz proved that it was impossible to predict the weather beyond a few days, if at all.
Current techniques in weather prediction involve using several models (none of which can make accurate predictions) and then averaging the results of their inaccurate predictions as the 'best estimate'. Seven "I can't say for sure"'s make one "It's going to flood".
The weather channel has been predicting rain in our area every day for over a week. Our best chance was last night. They were right. My lawn got water last night after I turned on my sprinklers. Nothing has fallen from the sky though.
who phoned and asked Bay Star to invest in SCO, Bay Stars is reported as saying. So, the journalists reports that this isn't a 'smoking gun'. My question is, "What is the journalist smoking?"
Plausible deniability? He want us to believe that who ever it was at Microsoft who did phone Bay Star and ask them to fund SCO were never told by Balmer or Gates to do it? They just thought it was a whippy idea and took it upon themselves to make the call?
Ya. Right. Al Capone never bribed any cops, either.
My guess is that Bay Star was promised additional 'investments' or was reminded of how much financial clout Microsoft has, and how much could be directed against them if 'certain' people became displeased. Bay Star took the hint, or perhaps the bribe.
If cases in other lands would have little effect on cases pending in the USA why did Microsoft do ex parte filings against Lindows in several European countries?
The 'judegments' in those cases were rendered against Lindows because they weren't in court. They weren't in court because they weren't informed of the proceedings. That's part of what 'ex parte' filings means.
Now, Microsoft is attempting to use those European 'rulings' against Lindows in American courts because of reciprocicity laws. So far, the costs of fighting Microsoft has caused Lindows to change its name to Linspire because they cannot fight Microsoft in so many countries at the same time and then fight the effects those foreign courts have in the case ongoing in this country. It is a stinky and unethical way to use the legal system, but what else would you expect?
Slashdot Mirror
and produces junk science
The message?
Linux is NOT susceptible to the woes that plague the Windows platform: viruses, spybots, adware.
Email viruses are as likely to penetrate Linux as a bug is likely to pass through the windshield. Spybots for Linux don't exist. Adware is blocked easier than it takes to say how.
All these people whining about their internet experience are making ONE BIG ASSUMPTION: Windows is the only OS in town.
Last weekend I helped 5 people find out about Linux. A week later they report NO viruses, no spybots, and no adware. No crashes either. One is connecting to the web via a wireless that was configured using Windows sys and inf files, wrapped with ndiswrapper, so Windows software isn't totally worthless.
During the 15 years I ran my own computer consulting business it was common to be invited to make a bid, do the analysis and present a proposal, only to have the analysis given to a another to impliment. Sometimes the connection was nepotism, sometimes it was a competitor who under bid, so the putative client thought they'd save money by using the low bidder. They "Cherry Picked" me. That happened only a few times before I realized what was happening and begin charging for the analysis. If they wouldn't agree to pay for the anlaysis I wouldn't submit a proposal.
I am wondering if a similar thing isn't happening here. SAIC is, in effect, being paid to the system analysis, but the most lucrative part of the project will be given to an insider, a crony or for a political payoff.
Someone quoted from Hawkin's "A Brief History of Time" to ridicule the Pope. He could have quoted from the introduction, where Hawkins states that the Einstein Metric requires an "admixture" of philosophy, which he then goes on to describe. Basically, you have to accept some of the Metric's terms on Faith, because they can't be proven. Then there is Godell's Law.
Over the years I've observed some things:
1) Physicists at the top of the theoretical latter, like Hawkins, readily admit to the strenghts AND weakness of their models, but those at the bottom don't seem to understand the weakenss. They often speak in term os absolute knowledge, usually displaying lots of arrogance and insulting those who hold different views. No smear seems to be beneath them. The NTY science writer who ridiculed Goddard for believing man could fly to the Moon and said rockets couldn't fly in space because there was nothing to 'push against'. But, sometimes the 'expert' is not above arrogantly ridiculing the less trained. Prof. Langley denounced the Wright brothers efforts to build a flying machine as mis-guided, while crashing into the sea on both of his efforts.
2) Science seems like a spiny sea urchin, with the spines representing specific areas of 'advancement' in knowledge. Some of those spines have only a handful of scientists at the tip, some only one, speaking in mathematical terms few others, if any, can understand. Are they right, or are they merely building castles out of clouds? Who can say?
3) Biology has made advancements in direct proportion to its utilization of chemisty, then physics, then math. But even now, I have yet to read of any Evolutionist making a non-trivial prediction about some future event in the same way that Einstein precticed the bending of light grazing the eclipsed Sun and making a specific star appear to move a specific distance from its normal position relative to nearby stars. Claddists still hold to successive minute changes occuring over long stretches of time (gradualism) even though other Evolutionists don't believe the geologic record support gradualism, something Dawkin's called "Evolution's dirty little secret" in order to advance a theory he and Gould called "Puncuated Equilibrium". Punk Eek states that life forms are static for LONG periods of time then explode in a burst of new forms for a short (50K years) period of time because, they think, that is more in tune with what they think the geologic record is showing them. Both camps still argue about whose interpretation of the geologic record is right but always come together to fight those with divergent views. It seems that either view is preferable when compared to one which includes the actions of a Supreme Being, suggesting that the common element in both theories is that God is not.
History is littered with the carcases of "missing Links" which turned out to be distortions of fact, mis-identified or even faked. It seems to me that if supporters of Evolution are so sure of its being factual one of its members could devise a sophisticated hypothesis that would predict specific facts of a non-trivial future event, something on the order of Einstein's Special Theory of Relativeity prediction.
Well, I am going to suprise a few readers and state that such a prediction will soon be made (not by me!) and will prove overwhelmingly, by the best science we have today (DNA?), that Evolution is true and God is not. Those that witnessed for God will be destroyed, certainly in influence if not physically. Atheists and others who favored the demise of God will exchange gifts with one another in celebration of their achievement. These celebrations will go on for a few years. Very few people will continue to cling to Faith in God, and religious Faith might even cease to exist. Then the celebrations will cease. Then we shall know.
You really DON'T know what the GPL means or what rights it protects, do you? Read it: http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html
First, the only people who can "rip off" GPL code are corporate folks who take a copy, make changes and/or improvements, and put the result into their PROPRIETARY binaries, surrounded by restrictive EULAs. It's like someone damming off a public stream and then charging folks for access to it.
Second, NO ONE (repeat: NO ONE) is FORCED to use the GPL on their application. Those that do, do so voluntarily, usually because they agree with the principles stated in the Preamble to the GPL. I suggest you read at least the Preamble so you have even a slight clue as to what the GPL means.
Well, to make things easier for you, here is the Preamble:
"Preamble
The licenses for most software are designed to take away your freedom to share and change it. By contrast, the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change free software--to make sure the software is free for all its users. This General Public License applies to most of the Free Software Foundation's software and to any other program whose authors commit to using it. (Some other Free Software Foundation software is covered by the GNU Library General Public License instead.) You can apply it to your programs, too.
When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs; and that you know you can do these things.
To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights. These restrictions translate to certain responsibilities for you if you distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it.
For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their rights.
We protect your rights with two steps: (1) copyright the software, and (2) offer you this license which gives you legal permission to copy, distribute and/or modify the software.
Also, for each author's protection and ours, we want to make certain that everyone understands that there is no warranty for this free software. If the software is modified by someone else and passed on, we want its recipients to know that what they have is not the original, so that any problems introduced by others will not reflect on the original authors' reputations.
Finally, any free program is threatened constantly by software patents. We wish to avoid the danger that redistributors of a free program will individually obtain patent licenses, in effect making the program proprietary. To prevent this, we have made it clear that any patent must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all.
The precise terms and conditions for copying, distribution and modification follow. "
Interesting!
What this is saying, in effect, is that for all the major countries of the world (at least 52 of them) the concept of "One World Government" has arrived, and the UN has had no hand in it at all.
The scarey part is that these enforcement actions appear to be focused on assuring the income streams of some of the worse examples of "free enterpise" corporations the USA has ever produced.
Sure, people like Thomas Jefferson, and a few other founding fathers and statesmen.
Jefferson's comparison is still valid: when you pass an idea on to someone else it is like lighting their candle. Doing so hasn't diminished your candle in the slightes. One passed on the idea cannot be taken back. Neither can a flame be returned to its source.
I don't think it will either.
At work I have written several in-house apps using VFP6. One took over three years to complete its development. We have instituted a company policy that no NEW apps will be created with Microsoft development tools, only tools that are cross platform. However, because re-developing the big app would take too much time, there will be a W2K box running those MS legacy apps for probably 10 years. How long has DOS 6.2 been around, 15+ years? Yet we only this year replaced our DOS batch routines with browser apps running against an Oracle database.
What's really nice is that I discovered that I can run VFP6, and the apps I create with it, under WINE!!
We had a server running a proprietary KODAK Imaging program for 10 years. It crashed. The backups were corrupted. After trying for three weeks to recover the data using Windows tools they gave me an HD with the ghosted image on it. I plugged it into my FC2 Webserver, a 5 year old DELL 800MHz with 512MB RAM. I couldn't mount the hd as sysv because of inode corruption, but I could use dd to read the entire 2GB drive into 10 text files of 200MB each. My problems arose when I attempted to edit those files using PFE32 on my 2.6GHz, 512MBRAM DELL Gx260 W2K box. Crash, crash, crash, reboot, crash, crash, crash...
So, I used KWrite on the FC2 Webserver box. KWrite just worked. Records recovered.
After reading most of the replies from supporters of Windows they all amount to the same response:
You got infected because:
You didn't install the iron bars on your windows before you moved in...
Your definition of 'dark' is not correct.
You must've looked someone in the eyes and didn't realize it.
You're lying because I've lived in the ghetto for years without iron bars, I roam at night, and I look everyone in the eye and I haven't been shot. (This one must be one of the bad guys that make living in the ghetto so dangerous!)
Ad nauseum... The Stockholm Syndrome over and over and over...
Can I beat that?
Easily!
The computer I never bought was infected within 0.01 seconds after it was assembled, when they inserted the CPU chip.
Exactly, but the case for Linux is even stronger.
Over 70% of the internet is powered by Apache and about 43% of those servers are Linux, which makes the Linux share of Internet servers more than the Windows share of Internet servers. So, even though there are more Linux boxes powering the Internet, the VAST MAJORITY of server outages are due to Windows servers going down, many due to virus and trojan attacks, and many because Windows just falls over under load. It's so bad that even Microsoft uses Linux when they want security and stability on their critical servers.
I wouldn't be skeptical if I were you.
e ry.htmlr /venc /data/life.is.beautiful.hoax.html
A couple of years ago, in response to a claim that Linux had 'as many' viruses as Windows does, I researched ALL the real and putative viruses posted on Symantec and other such sites. At that time I found a total of 47 viruses and worms, of which only three did actually infect some computers. The slapper worm was the most recent and the worst, it infected about 14,000 computers in Eastern Europe in a two week period before it died out. Since slapper required the user to assist, running as root, it had no real chance of infecting millions of computers like CodeRed, released around the same time, did.
What stunned me most wasn't the fact that there were less than 1/2 a dozen viable but now defunct Linux viruses, it was the fact that Symantec reported finding 3/4ths of the 47 viruses on less than 3 PCs or saying that they were "proof of concept" viruses!!! What are the odds that a virus company could encounter three dozen viruses "in the wild" but on fewer than 3 PCs. My interpretation of that data is that Symantec was experimenting with Linux viruses. Were they developing Linux anti-virus stratagies, or were they developing Linux viruses?
About a month ago, again in response to the same "Linux has thousands of viruses" claim, I went looking for the same list, but found it missing. What I found in its place was a list of over 5,000 supposed Linux viruses.
http://search.symantec.com/custom/us/qu
Following the first listed 'virus' leads to:
http://securityresponse.symantec.com/avcente
a windows hoax email.
The three known wild Linux viruses were on the list, even though they hadn't been active for over two years and modern Linux OSs are immune to them. Multiple listings abound. And many of the supposed Linux viruses were actually windows viruses (w32*) with the world 'linux' in their name. Digging deeper I noticed that many were for the putative JPEG viruses which supposedly can infect both Windows and Linux. Following the embedded links of hundreds of them in search of the original security notice I found instead a Symantec "Policy Statement", but no virus information!!! Why would Symantec "pad the books" on Linux virus counts? To sell unneeded software?
My conclusion after my latest review of Linux viruses is that there are none. In fact, if another slapper were to appear and infect even as few as it did the last time it would be front page news, or MS would pay for an NYT full page ad to be sure everyone noticed.
The fact is that while my KMail is hit with a dozen WinXX viruses each day, like bugs hitting the windshield of my car, I have yet to see any sort of Linux bug arrive at my mailbox in seven years of using Linux, four of those years being online 24/7 with a broadband connection.
And the exact same thing can be said for Windows, so what's your point? WHEN IBM removes their XP statement then we'll know they are serious about Linux.
It can always be turned back on when the threat has passed, or selectively turned on at specific times to allow for a strategic response.
Sure.
The LA "International" Times merely wanted to exert "progressive" influence on the United Nations and the US Federal Government. They couldn't tilt the playing field they way they wanted because there were too many others using blogging, forums, and email to present alternate views and news that nullified the LA "International" Times world view.
You've obviously have never taken the opportunity to compare the install of Xandros with that of Ubuntu. Ubuntu's install is a step backward, Xandros' is a step forward.
I don't run either of them. My preference is with Sarge, but I put LibraNet 2.81 on my wife's box because it recognized her nVidia card and set up 3D automatically during the install. Works great, too. Give's her 1 GHz box with 500MB of RAM 800-1200 fp/s, IIRC. Plays Tux and Flight Gear nicely. AND, its copy of mplayer plays my protected DVDs nicely, without having to add those two special files.
True, and I bought both of them.
The Linux native version of WP 8 was sweet and full featured. The only thing I didn't like about it was that it captured the printer and wouldn't let go of it when you closed WP8. A real PITA.
Since we standardized on WP Office at work I decided to buy WP Corel Office 2000 for Linux.
BIG MISTAKE.
Slow. Crash prone.
When I ran strace against it to see what the problems were I discovered that it was running on top of WINE and it swallowed 25MB of memory and/or swap for each feature you opened, which was why it slowed down very quickly. Strace showed that the crashes were the result of unanswered calls to exe and dll stubs. I returned the product and got a refund.
With the advent of OpenOffice 1.x the race for a world class Open Source Office app to replace MS Office is over.
It apparently never dawned on them that their device could malfunction and explode, spraying them with shrapnel. Or, it could have gone off course and landed on them.
Sheesh!
Gee, Mexico and Canada I knew about, but I didn't know I could walk to Britain or Singapore from Lincoln. ;-)
But stopping three people who are putting out hundreds/thousands of bootleg CDs is easier than trying to get 1000 who create just one or two bootleg CDs.
Besides, now the perps will know that they could be nailed at any time because the Law is watching for them.
deploy Solar Power Towers II move toward the Hydrogen Economy, eliminate the energy crisis and dependency on Mid-East oil.
e ne rgy/sol_thermal/powertower.html
http://rhlx01.rz.fht-esslingen.de/projects/alt_
ForGent Networks, like SCO, gave up a product based business model and now persues the litigation business model. Such 'businesses' should forever be designated as a 'SCO class' businesses because the 'product' they sell is EXACTLY the same type of product Al Capone's thugs sold, protection from attack by Al Capone's gang, except that the courts become pawns of the business and send out the police to attack businesses. And, their employees appear to be composed mostly of lawyers, with an occasional geek lawn jockey to lend credibility to the term "technology".
Compression Labs never enforced the JPEG patent and now, with only months remaining before the patent expires greedy lawyers are trying to extort cash out of users.
The USTPO and/or Congress should outlaw submarine patents, and tighten rules to cancel patents if prior violations are massive and public knowledge but the patent holder has made no attempt to enforce the patent.
Good points!
The "scare tactic" is the method most commonly used by the Left for the last 50+ years to unduely influence political opinion. They are not as effective as they'd like to be because few folks believe their most recognizable spokesperson, Al Gore.
Dr Ed Lorenz proved that it was impossible to predict the weather beyond a few days, if at all.
Current techniques in weather prediction involve using several models (none of which can make accurate predictions) and then averaging the results of their inaccurate predictions as the 'best estimate'. Seven "I can't say for sure"'s make one "It's going to flood".
The weather channel has been predicting rain in our area every day for over a week. Our best chance was last night. They were right. My lawn got water last night after I turned on my sprinklers. Nothing has fallen from the sky though.
who phoned and asked Bay Star to invest in SCO, Bay Stars is reported as saying. So, the journalists reports that this isn't a 'smoking gun'. My question is, "What is the journalist smoking?"
Plausible deniability? He want us to believe that who ever it was at Microsoft who did phone Bay Star and ask them to fund SCO were never told by Balmer or Gates to do it? They just thought it was a whippy idea and took it upon themselves to make the call?
Ya. Right. Al Capone never bribed any cops, either.
My guess is that Bay Star was promised additional 'investments' or was reminded of how much financial clout Microsoft has, and how much could be directed against them if 'certain' people became displeased. Bay Star took the hint, or perhaps the bribe.
If cases in other lands would have little effect on cases pending in the USA why did Microsoft do ex parte filings against Lindows in several European countries?
The 'judegments' in those cases were rendered against Lindows because they weren't in court. They weren't in court because they weren't informed of the proceedings. That's part of what 'ex parte' filings means.
Now, Microsoft is attempting to use those European 'rulings' against Lindows in American courts because of reciprocicity laws. So far, the costs of fighting Microsoft has caused Lindows to change its name to Linspire because they cannot fight Microsoft in so many countries at the same time and then fight the effects those foreign courts have in the case ongoing in this country. It is a stinky and unethical way to use the legal system, but what else would you expect?