Oh, okay. I'm beginning to see how this works. When IE is vulnerable to an attack and Microsoft says "alright, well turn off this, this, and this convience and you can browse safely", we scream bloody murder that they don't fix the problem AND keep the convenience. When Mozilla developers ignore an exploitable hole in a mechanism that doesn't even really provide any worthwhile fuinctionality for most people, we're supposed to overlook the foot dragging because it would break all sorts of programs.
The biggest problem with open source is the community itself, not external threats. If FOSS dies it's going to be because so many more people in the community would rather sit around praising their straw house while it falls down around them than shore it up. The reactionary approach that rabid FOSS users take to Linux, Mozilla, Thunderbird, OOo, etc. are counter-productive to the work that the serious developers want to do. I don't know why it's so hard for FOSS people to acknowledge problems within the community and software when they spend so much time railing against vendor problems. The whole community is just an idealogical nuthouse anymore - full of people who would rather spend all their time hating competitors instead of understanding, nurturing, and furthering the good things they have in front of them.
Mark my words: FOSS will die if it continues to grow the way it is now. The reason Linux isn't desktop ready for the non-savvy userbase is because so many people spent so much time maligning suggestions to simplify things and arguing that it WAS ready, people just had to learn and adapt in non-normal ways. The reason there are two year old exploits in Mozilla's software is because people would just as soon brush off exploitable areas of the software as acknowledge the mistake and contribute a patch.
Whatever. This is why I don't like to advocate open source anymore. The whole community sounds like a stomping lynch mob headed to the Castle of Dr. Gatesenstien to kill the monster instead of a bunch of good natured folks looking to give people an honestly good alternative. When the community grows up and drops this two-year old hissy fit behavioral pattern, I'll rejoin. Until then - have fun ripping yourselves apart from the inside out.
Yes, bad ideas happen. However, actively destroying expected behavior of the entire internet is just plain sinister. The only thing they can fall back on is that "technically" they didn't break anything in the sense that wildcards are legitimate.
Mistakes happen, sure. Sitefinder, however, was just malicious profiteering and status abuse.
Perhaps they are trying to win over the geeks before they turn on sitefinder?
Maybe. However, my bet is on friendlifying (hey, I just coined a word!) the service for something far more sinister. This wreaks of targetting manadrones with all sorts of feelgood updates that don't serve that much purpose for real geeks...
Maybe I'm paranoid, but when you're dealing with a group like this, you can't look at it with too much suspicion.
Whether this goes anywhere or not, Diebold's abuses are finally going to the mainstream. The number one weapon that people have on their side to affect a change in an unfair system is information, and this information hitting major news outlets with some degree of regularity is happening just in time to ensure that this nonsense DIES.
Remember, when your friends ask what this is all about, you have everything from blackboxvoting.com to the damning Diebold memos themselves to point to as evidence of the abuse and incompetence plaguing such a vital issue.
Wow. Gee. I'm humbled by your inate ability to completely misunderstand things and sound like a blubbering moron in the process. Now, please do explain to me how that fallacy could possibly apply to the statement above. A statement which is a direct observation of Howard Stern and his imitators. Please, do. I'm intrigued.
You know, I find it amusing how you Slashdolts lock on to memes like this and then insist on perpetuating them even when you have NO idea what you're talking about.
Oh wait, research shows that statement isn't true, especially for young kids.
And the research indicating that hearing "bad" words has a detrimental effect on kids is... where? I'd like to see some evidence that there's a developmental impairment in some category as a result of hearing swearing.
You think watching violence, sex, abusive behaviour, yada yada on TV has no negative effect on kids whatsoever?
Fortunately, I never said that. Niether did you until just now. Are you attempting to change the subject and apply it to my previous statement as evidence of my erroneous beliefs?
In both cases it seems to be speech tempered because of mere potential harm
No, it doesn't. Account numbers can be treated as objects. They're not speech. You're not expressing anything with your assigned account number. Here, I'll help you pick a controversial example to highlight your argument: child pornography. Regulating the distribution of child pornography is often much easier than stopping its production, but the agument is made from time to time that the distribution is an expression of some kind.
Interesting point: how does sticking your head in the sand by copping out on your responsibility to stop the actual abuse help solve the underlying problem? In much the same way, why does it make sense to advocate the censorship of, for example, violence in the media when the actual problem is violence in the real world? You're copping out on your responsibility to solve the real problem by attacking the channels that are only superficially supporting it.
Are you a troll, or are you just stupid? You ever heard of the <p> tag? Or transitions? Or.. well, you know.... an actual clear line of thought? Cripes... you managed to cover about 15 different topics in that mess, and you didn't say a single intelligent thing about any of them.
I can't give out bank account or credit card numbers on the internet or distribute viruses and I don't pretend that's abridging my freedom of speech
Brilliant argument, Einstien. When you can show some of the detrimental psychological or physical effects that "bad" words have on people, come back and try again. Because, you see, the problem here is that you're confusing speech that doesn't cause any harm with activites that quite definitely have measurably negative effects on people's lives.
Because Howard Stern popularized it on mainstream radio and now people's idiot kids are just immitating the behavior?
I think the ultimate irony in Howard Stern is that the people who whine about how stupid he is are too stupid to just take it as the mindless entertainment it is and actually sat down and analyzed what he was saying... who's dumber? The guy saying stupid shit, or the people complaining about it because they're taking it seriously?
First of all, you're wrong about speech in public. The courts have ruled that emotive language, while potentially offensive, is protected speech. The trick is generally in how it's used. For example, slinging vulgarities at someone as an insult isn't going to endear you to the court. However, if you are using it in an emotive way to actually make a point, you've got a pretty good shot at "protected" status for your speech.
Also, one significant point that the courts made when ruling on the broadcasting angle, was that it was possible for broadcasters to burst in unexpectadly with "vulgar" or "offensive" statements that could surprise unwary listeners (the Super Bowl non-incident is a prime example). My question, then, is this: how does that apply to someone like Howard Stern? His broadcast is regularly syndicated at a specific time of day on specific stations. You must actively tune to those stations in order to hear him. Therefore, on what grounds does the FCC base persecution on Stern or similar DJs and media figures when the contents of their show are publicly known to be vulgar, and the contents are confined to specific times and stations?
WTF? You explicitly said that Linux was "virus-safe". Don't give me that bullshit. You said it. Explicitly. You're wrong. Explicity. No operating system that does anything is, was, or ever will be "virus-safe" unless it's completely controlled by some sort of trusted computing. On top of that, a lot of what you're counting as viruses are application and user problems more than Operating System problems. Linux is secure like UNIX. UNIX has fallen victim to worms and viruses. Linux can too. Not only that, a stupid user running as root - which is exactly what will happen the first time Joe Sixpack gets pissed off that he can't run xyz without jumping through even the most insignificant of hoops - can do a SHITLOAD more damage to a Linux system than they usually can a Windows XP system anymore. Quit ignoring the stupid user problem. Shifting dumb people from one place to another doesn't solve the fact that they're dumb. In fact, what you folks are advocating is sort of like worrying they might poke their eye out with a pencil, so you give them a grenade instead.
Considering your aggressive attitude, I'd be tempted to go with b) at this point.
Yea, okay Mr. Linux Guru. As an AC already pointed out, the lo probably died. Why? No fucking clue. Why don't you tell me you 1337 penguin, because I sure as hell couldn't find anything wrong.
I seriously doubt this. What distro were you using? Were you using beta versions of software?
Red Hat 8.0 with regular updates. No special software beyond what Red Hat installed was ever put on it except Firefox, Thunderbird, and a glib upgrade some time back.
Ah yes. I've done nothing but complain about X and the two popular window managers and that's anti-Linux even though the two are only superficially related. Of course. So, because X sucks (X being a perfectly viable BSD app, mind you), which invalidates Linux as a good desktop system since nobody seems to be willing to implement an alternative, that's anti-Linux.
Go ahead man. Keep going. You're doing well, really.
Don't be ignorant. If people were keeping themselves in their own damned user accounts on Windows we wouldn't have to worry about viruses that require privileges either. To think they wouldn't gleefully type in the root password every time they were prompted or, worse, just run as root all the time, is to think they're going to magically get that much more computer literate just because they run Linux.
The hard truth is that Linux is virus-safe, and will remain so for years.
Although you'll undoubtedly take this as a personal attack, that statement right there is an example of the wealth of ignorance that plagues the people who insist on touting Linux as some cure all for the computer world's ills. QEDDouble QED
Kinda ironic, considering you're the whining one.
Why is it that when someone relates a negative experience about Linux they're "whining"? This is NOT EXPECTED BEHAVIOR. There were NO changes done to the system during the uptime prior to it crashing. For no apparent reason, the lo just took a shit. There doesn't appear to be any hardware problem, unless it is one that requires time to creep up. A reinstall of Linux failed to resolve the issue. A fresh install of FreeBSD resolved it. Where does the problem most likely reside?
It would only matter if Windows or BSD were themselves unambiguous in the same situation.
Good answer. "I'm advocating Linux. Windows is bad because of x. Linux isn't bad because of y, however, because other systems aren't good when y occurs"
Yes, something changed through no explicit action of my own. Had I doen something recently such as swap hardware or install / uninstall / reconfigure something, that would be a different story. However, if I'm using my machine to painfully wade through large directory structures (did I ever mention that the file management utilities for Gnome and KDE blow goats. I have directories with upwards of 1200 files that load faster in Windows than my 200-300 file directories do on Nautilius), shut it down, then bring it back up and the whole thing is b0rked, that's probably not my fault. See, you keep skirting this fact: I was using a Linux desktop system to do typical desktop functions and it STOPPED WORKING. That's a HUGE problem.
And you're incredibly condescending. May I politely suggest that you go screw yourself?
Oh, what? You're going to sit here and try to tell me that the Linux community doesn't give itself a bad name the way it acts? Respond to my point about why I should switch to Linux then. This is exactly why the phrase "Linux is for people who hate Windows" isn't just a silly saying. The Linux community is fanatically stupid about the way it goes about pushing its system. Linux isn't bad, but an awful lot of its users are. They're obnoxious, condescending, boorish, arrogant, and ignorant. I regularly see the dumbest questions appearing in Linux forums, not UNIX, BSD, or Windows. Yet, the Linux community constantly pushes itself as some golden-winged cherubim sent from on high to save us all from Microsoft. Bullshit. BSD is frequently a better performer than Linux and Windows is much easier to use. Linux just tries to combine the two. A noble effort, sure, but don't sit there and pretend you've got something you don't.
attachments cannot be made executable by default.
RPMs don't have to be executable. The last system I installed had, by default, files ending in.rpm bound to the rpm tool so that double-clicking them launched an install procedure. The only extra step here is saving the files from Thunderbird to the disk first. You think that's going to stop people from seeing this awesome new screensaver that joe@sdjklfdsljkfds.com just emailed them? I could see Linux being a desktop solution in companies where admins control the boxes, but for home users who control their systems, the stupid-user-executed-virus isn't going to magically disappear. Hell, people have to rename half the damn things now from.zip to.exe and they're STILL getting infected. You could e-mail shell scripts to this idiots with instructions on making them executable and they'd do it, and you know it.
Yea, okay, I'm a troll. Whatever bud. I guess it doesn't sit well with you when someone points out that you can't solve a stupid user problem by switching their systems, does it? Whatever - when you can tell me why I should switch, I'll give you an ear and listen. Until then, you're just a bunch of whiny children who think you're oh-so-cool because you're not using Windows.
Did you consider the fact that your Linux system was misconfigured?
So that one day, after no changes what-so-ever, it just stopped working? I'd say that's a good argument for not using Linux on the desktop...
One could say exactly the same thing about your comment and *BSD supporters.
Ummm. No. I'm not advocating BSD for the desktop. I'm merely stating that if my Linux box can't handle it's desktop duties, I may as well just use a CLI-only BSD for regular work and Windows desktops for media/gaming and standard home duties.
See, all you Linux people are amusing. You can't actually tell anyone why they should start using Linux, only why they should stop using Windows. Why is that? Are most Linux distros secure out of the box? HA! Hell no. Anything that gives a desktop user the option of running sendmail is, IMHO, broken right out the ass. X servers are a userspace risk themselves, ironically enough. There's no reason to expect that mailed executables targetted at most of the home users wouldn't still largely be run. It's not hard to package shit in an RPM folks.
When someone can explain to me why I'd WANT to run Linux as a desktop - not counting that little fact that there are hardly any worthwhile apps for it since companies will follow the money if it swtiches to Linux - I'll consider it. Until then, this little Windows XP box with ICF running has done just fine for standard desktop duties. No viruses. Minimal crashing. Simple to use.
Or, to put it more simply, I'm tired of Linux advocates pointing at stupid Windows users and saying that's why those same, stupid users should switch to Linux.
Do you know why you're posting AC? Because you're an idiot. That's why.
Hear, hold still while I hammer the point into your brain. I realize it's the size of a dried lima bean and that's why ideas have a hard time hitting it, but please, give me a chance to get it in there:
If the Linux desktop system is wholly inadequate to the point that it's totally unusable, I have no desktop. If I'm not going to have a desktop, I may as well just use a better performing BSD system with no desktop.
Got it? Good. Now go away you stupid little troll.
I just dumped Linux altogether for FreeBSD for one reason: it was a HORRIBLE desktop system.
I went to log in one day and then ran startx. Imagine my surprise when xinit took over five minutes to run. Imagine my surprise when it took several minutes to launch a single Firefox or Nautilus window. Imagine my surprise when, under Gnome, it took several minutes to resolve hosts on my cable connection.
Linux is NOT ready for the desktop. I dumped it for FreeBSD because I figured that if the desktop part was just going to stop working I might as well just run a BSD and forgo the prettiness altogether. Switching to Linux just because IE sucks ass is ridiculous. This is the sort of assinine nonsense that makes Linux supporters look like completely raving idiots.
Insightful? How is it insightful to brush off a potential egregious abuse of the justice system by saying that because he was charged with a crime it's his own fault?
You must live in America (yes, with me). I've noticed a lot of Americans these days seem to think it's acceptable to just brush aside any abuse of the justice system because someone was accused of a crime. Whether Mitnick was a criminal or not does not excuse any wrongdoing that may have occurred on the other side of the bench, no matter how warped your twisted little mind gets on the subject. In case you haven't noticed, the justice system exists largely to determine whether or not people accused of a crime are actually guilty. Until they've been proven guilty, then, they are innocent. Even if they were known to be guitly before the verdict, that doesn't justify excusing abuses in the system, and I'm sorry I live in a country where so many people seem to think that's the case. The irony is too much..
And where is the FBI actually using this to spy on 'average people'?
I am so sick and tired of seeing people try to brush this nonsense off like that. Use some critical thinking for god's sake.
First of all, what is the problem that's being solved here? That people are reading subversive material they checked out at the library? So, is the problem that there's material out there that the government doesn't want you to read, and therefore they need to know if you are reading it? Well, hoooowwwdy. Bring out the gas-o-line and matches, we got some book burnin' t'do!
Or, are we solving the problem of "terrorists" reading subversive material? Since terrorism indicates criminal intent, it seems logical to label terrorists as criminals. Then, we're making sure that criminals dont' get subversive materials? So, why does the FBI have the power to view EVERYONE's reading materials? Why can they go get a subpeona to see what *I* check out of the library. I'm not a terrorist, I'm just an average citizen. If they don't need to know what I'm reading, why can they find out?
You can't just brush off abusive investigative powers by saying they're not using it because that means they don't need it and shouldn't have it. You can't just brush them off by saying that if you're a law abiding citizen you have nothing to worry about either because that means that the power is too broad and they don't need all of it.
Ignoring all that, there's also the fact that if the government wants a power, they ought to be proving that they need it. Since they haven't had a need for it once in three years, I'd say that's a pretty good indication that they DON'T need it and it's time they lose it, wouldn't you?
Oh darn. I've always wanted to kill an anonymous coward, and I don't have any mod points right now. Someone, please do it for me!
Want a more mature forum than Slashdot? Try Technocrat.net [technocrat.net]
Heh heh.... ooookay. I guess that means you don't make comments like this one over on technocrat?;-)
You know, this whole thread is a perfect example of why I have a +3 modifier on Offtopic. Plus, it will help me see my own comment after this gets modded to shit along with the rest of them!
...the problem is rapidly spreading to cell phones in the form of text messages...
Freaking AT&T. These bastards have been spamming my phone with their stupid "updates" since I got the service. It's "opt out", of course, even though I never "opted in" and the bastards STILL haven't moved on the request to knock it the hell off. Nothing is more irritating than when I'm doing something, here a text come in, drop what I'm doing to check it, and it turns out to be some stupid sales pitch from AT&T.
Here's some "standard" protocol a lot of people would probably back: shoot any marketeering moron who is ever responsible in any way for any unsolicited pitch EVER.
Slashdot Mirror
And they're probably all 14 year old dweebs on a dial up connection that changes IP everytime the idiot gets called by his mother.
This is a stupid idea and, if they're serious, the people who are proposing it are stupid for doing so.
ENIAC
The beautiful irony is that you just wasted how much time whining about it?
Oh, okay. I'm beginning to see how this works. When IE is vulnerable to an attack and Microsoft says "alright, well turn off this, this, and this convience and you can browse safely", we scream bloody murder that they don't fix the problem AND keep the convenience. When Mozilla developers ignore an exploitable hole in a mechanism that doesn't even really provide any worthwhile fuinctionality for most people, we're supposed to overlook the foot dragging because it would break all sorts of programs.
The biggest problem with open source is the community itself, not external threats. If FOSS dies it's going to be because so many more people in the community would rather sit around praising their straw house while it falls down around them than shore it up. The reactionary approach that rabid FOSS users take to Linux, Mozilla, Thunderbird, OOo, etc. are counter-productive to the work that the serious developers want to do. I don't know why it's so hard for FOSS people to acknowledge problems within the community and software when they spend so much time railing against vendor problems. The whole community is just an idealogical nuthouse anymore - full of people who would rather spend all their time hating competitors instead of understanding, nurturing, and furthering the good things they have in front of them.
Mark my words: FOSS will die if it continues to grow the way it is now. The reason Linux isn't desktop ready for the non-savvy userbase is because so many people spent so much time maligning suggestions to simplify things and arguing that it WAS ready, people just had to learn and adapt in non-normal ways. The reason there are two year old exploits in Mozilla's software is because people would just as soon brush off exploitable areas of the software as acknowledge the mistake and contribute a patch.
Whatever. This is why I don't like to advocate open source anymore. The whole community sounds like a stomping lynch mob headed to the Castle of Dr. Gatesenstien to kill the monster instead of a bunch of good natured folks looking to give people an honestly good alternative. When the community grows up and drops this two-year old hissy fit behavioral pattern, I'll rejoin. Until then - have fun ripping yourselves apart from the inside out.
Dr. Evil WAS number one. That's how he met number two.
Your powers-foo is not strong today.... either that or you had something better to do with your time than I did mine ;)
I assume you're referring to Sitefinder?
Yes, bad ideas happen. However, actively destroying expected behavior of the entire internet is just plain sinister. The only thing they can fall back on is that "technically" they didn't break anything in the sense that wildcards are legitimate.
Mistakes happen, sure. Sitefinder, however, was just malicious profiteering and status abuse.
Perhaps they are trying to win over the geeks before they turn on sitefinder?
Maybe. However, my bet is on friendlifying (hey, I just coined a word!) the service for something far more sinister. This wreaks of targetting manadrones with all sorts of feelgood updates that don't serve that much purpose for real geeks...
Maybe I'm paranoid, but when you're dealing with a group like this, you can't look at it with too much suspicion.
Whether this goes anywhere or not, Diebold's abuses are finally going to the mainstream. The number one weapon that people have on their side to affect a change in an unfair system is information, and this information hitting major news outlets with some degree of regularity is happening just in time to ensure that this nonsense DIES.
Remember, when your friends ask what this is all about, you have everything from blackboxvoting.com to the damning Diebold memos themselves to point to as evidence of the abuse and incompetence plaguing such a vital issue.
Wow. Gee. I'm humbled by your inate ability to completely misunderstand things and sound like a blubbering moron in the process. Now, please do explain to me how that fallacy could possibly apply to the statement above. A statement which is a direct observation of Howard Stern and his imitators. Please, do. I'm intrigued.
You know, I find it amusing how you Slashdolts lock on to memes like this and then insist on perpetuating them even when you have NO idea what you're talking about.
Oh wait, research shows that statement isn't true, especially for young kids.
And the research indicating that hearing "bad" words has a detrimental effect on kids is... where? I'd like to see some evidence that there's a developmental impairment in some category as a result of hearing swearing.
You think watching violence, sex, abusive behaviour, yada yada on TV has no negative effect on kids whatsoever?
Fortunately, I never said that. Niether did you until just now. Are you attempting to change the subject and apply it to my previous statement as evidence of my erroneous beliefs?
In both cases it seems to be speech tempered because of mere potential harm
No, it doesn't. Account numbers can be treated as objects. They're not speech. You're not expressing anything with your assigned account number. Here, I'll help you pick a controversial example to highlight your argument: child pornography. Regulating the distribution of child pornography is often much easier than stopping its production, but the agument is made from time to time that the distribution is an expression of some kind.
Interesting point: how does sticking your head in the sand by copping out on your responsibility to stop the actual abuse help solve the underlying problem? In much the same way, why does it make sense to advocate the censorship of, for example, violence in the media when the actual problem is violence in the real world? You're copping out on your responsibility to solve the real problem by attacking the channels that are only superficially supporting it.
"Broadcast speech" != "public speech."
I didn't say it was. The parent I responded to drew an implicit relationship between the airwaves and public areas and I responded by separating them.
....
Are you a troll, or are you just stupid? You ever heard of the <p> tag? Or transitions? Or.. well, you know.... an actual clear line of thought? Cripes... you managed to cover about 15 different topics in that mess, and you didn't say a single intelligent thing about any of them.
I can't give out bank account or credit card numbers on the internet or distribute viruses and I don't pretend that's abridging my freedom of speech
Brilliant argument, Einstien. When you can show some of the detrimental psychological or physical effects that "bad" words have on people, come back and try again. Because, you see, the problem here is that you're confusing speech that doesn't cause any harm with activites that quite definitely have measurably negative effects on people's lives.
Because Howard Stern popularized it on mainstream radio and now people's idiot kids are just immitating the behavior?
I think the ultimate irony in Howard Stern is that the people who whine about how stupid he is are too stupid to just take it as the mindless entertainment it is and actually sat down and analyzed what he was saying... who's dumber? The guy saying stupid shit, or the people complaining about it because they're taking it seriously?
First of all, you're wrong about speech in public. The courts have ruled that emotive language, while potentially offensive, is protected speech. The trick is generally in how it's used. For example, slinging vulgarities at someone as an insult isn't going to endear you to the court. However, if you are using it in an emotive way to actually make a point, you've got a pretty good shot at "protected" status for your speech.
Also, one significant point that the courts made when ruling on the broadcasting angle, was that it was possible for broadcasters to burst in unexpectadly with "vulgar" or "offensive" statements that could surprise unwary listeners (the Super Bowl non-incident is a prime example). My question, then, is this: how does that apply to someone like Howard Stern? His broadcast is regularly syndicated at a specific time of day on specific stations. You must actively tune to those stations in order to hear him. Therefore, on what grounds does the FCC base persecution on Stern or similar DJs and media figures when the contents of their show are publicly known to be vulgar, and the contents are confined to specific times and stations?
WTF? You explicitly said that Linux was "virus-safe". Don't give me that bullshit. You said it. Explicitly. You're wrong. Explicity. No operating system that does anything is, was, or ever will be "virus-safe" unless it's completely controlled by some sort of trusted computing. On top of that, a lot of what you're counting as viruses are application and user problems more than Operating System problems. Linux is secure like UNIX. UNIX has fallen victim to worms and viruses. Linux can too. Not only that, a stupid user running as root - which is exactly what will happen the first time Joe Sixpack gets pissed off that he can't run xyz without jumping through even the most insignificant of hoops - can do a SHITLOAD more damage to a Linux system than they usually can a Windows XP system anymore. Quit ignoring the stupid user problem. Shifting dumb people from one place to another doesn't solve the fact that they're dumb. In fact, what you folks are advocating is sort of like worrying they might poke their eye out with a pencil, so you give them a grenade instead.
Considering your aggressive attitude, I'd be tempted to go with b) at this point.
Yea, okay Mr. Linux Guru. As an AC already pointed out, the lo probably died. Why? No fucking clue. Why don't you tell me you 1337 penguin, because I sure as hell couldn't find anything wrong.
I seriously doubt this. What distro were you using? Were you using beta versions of software?
Red Hat 8.0 with regular updates. No special software beyond what Red Hat installed was ever put on it except Firefox, Thunderbird, and a glib upgrade some time back.
Ah yes. I've done nothing but complain about X and the two popular window managers and that's anti-Linux even though the two are only superficially related. Of course. So, because X sucks (X being a perfectly viable BSD app, mind you), which invalidates Linux as a good desktop system since nobody seems to be willing to implement an alternative, that's anti-Linux.
Go ahead man. Keep going. You're doing well, really.
Don't be ignorant. If people were keeping themselves in their own damned user accounts on Windows we wouldn't have to worry about viruses that require privileges either. To think they wouldn't gleefully type in the root password every time they were prompted or, worse, just run as root all the time, is to think they're going to magically get that much more computer literate just because they run Linux.
The hard truth is that Linux is virus-safe, and will remain so for years.
Although you'll undoubtedly take this as a personal attack, that statement right there is an example of the wealth of ignorance that plagues the people who insist on touting Linux as some cure all for the computer world's ills. QED Double QED
Kinda ironic, considering you're the whining one.
Why is it that when someone relates a negative experience about Linux they're "whining"? This is NOT EXPECTED BEHAVIOR. There were NO changes done to the system during the uptime prior to it crashing. For no apparent reason, the lo just took a shit. There doesn't appear to be any hardware problem, unless it is one that requires time to creep up. A reinstall of Linux failed to resolve the issue. A fresh install of FreeBSD resolved it. Where does the problem most likely reside?
It would only matter if Windows or BSD were themselves unambiguous in the same situation.
Good answer. "I'm advocating Linux. Windows is bad because of x. Linux isn't bad because of y, however, because other systems aren't good when y occurs"
Well, definitely something changed, right?
Yes, something changed through no explicit action of my own. Had I doen something recently such as swap hardware or install / uninstall / reconfigure something, that would be a different story. However, if I'm using my machine to painfully wade through large directory structures (did I ever mention that the file management utilities for Gnome and KDE blow goats. I have directories with upwards of 1200 files that load faster in Windows than my 200-300 file directories do on Nautilius), shut it down, then bring it back up and the whole thing is b0rked, that's probably not my fault. See, you keep skirting this fact: I was using a Linux desktop system to do typical desktop functions and it STOPPED WORKING. That's a HUGE problem.
And you're incredibly condescending. May I politely suggest that you go screw yourself?
Oh, what? You're going to sit here and try to tell me that the Linux community doesn't give itself a bad name the way it acts? Respond to my point about why I should switch to Linux then. This is exactly why the phrase "Linux is for people who hate Windows" isn't just a silly saying. The Linux community is fanatically stupid about the way it goes about pushing its system. Linux isn't bad, but an awful lot of its users are. They're obnoxious, condescending, boorish, arrogant, and ignorant. I regularly see the dumbest questions appearing in Linux forums, not UNIX, BSD, or Windows. Yet, the Linux community constantly pushes itself as some golden-winged cherubim sent from on high to save us all from Microsoft. Bullshit. BSD is frequently a better performer than Linux and Windows is much easier to use. Linux just tries to combine the two. A noble effort, sure, but don't sit there and pretend you've got something you don't.
attachments cannot be made executable by default.
RPMs don't have to be executable. The last system I installed had, by default, files ending in .rpm bound to the rpm tool so that double-clicking them launched an install procedure. The only extra step here is saving the files from Thunderbird to the disk first. You think that's going to stop people from seeing this awesome new screensaver that joe@sdjklfdsljkfds.com just emailed them? I could see Linux being a desktop solution in companies where admins control the boxes, but for home users who control their systems, the stupid-user-executed-virus isn't going to magically disappear. Hell, people have to rename half the damn things now from .zip to .exe and they're STILL getting infected. You could e-mail shell scripts to this idiots with instructions on making them executable and they'd do it, and you know it.
Yea, okay, I'm a troll. Whatever bud. I guess it doesn't sit well with you when someone points out that you can't solve a stupid user problem by switching their systems, does it? Whatever - when you can tell me why I should switch, I'll give you an ear and listen. Until then, you're just a bunch of whiny children who think you're oh-so-cool because you're not using Windows.
Did you consider the fact that your Linux system was misconfigured?
So that one day, after no changes what-so-ever, it just stopped working? I'd say that's a good argument for not using Linux on the desktop...
One could say exactly the same thing about your comment and *BSD supporters.
Ummm. No. I'm not advocating BSD for the desktop. I'm merely stating that if my Linux box can't handle it's desktop duties, I may as well just use a CLI-only BSD for regular work and Windows desktops for media/gaming and standard home duties.
See, all you Linux people are amusing. You can't actually tell anyone why they should start using Linux, only why they should stop using Windows. Why is that? Are most Linux distros secure out of the box? HA! Hell no. Anything that gives a desktop user the option of running sendmail is, IMHO, broken right out the ass. X servers are a userspace risk themselves, ironically enough. There's no reason to expect that mailed executables targetted at most of the home users wouldn't still largely be run. It's not hard to package shit in an RPM folks.
When someone can explain to me why I'd WANT to run Linux as a desktop - not counting that little fact that there are hardly any worthwhile apps for it since companies will follow the money if it swtiches to Linux - I'll consider it. Until then, this little Windows XP box with ICF running has done just fine for standard desktop duties. No viruses. Minimal crashing. Simple to use.
Or, to put it more simply, I'm tired of Linux advocates pointing at stupid Windows users and saying that's why those same, stupid users should switch to Linux.
Do you know why you're posting AC? Because you're an idiot. That's why.
Hear, hold still while I hammer the point into your brain. I realize it's the size of a dried lima bean and that's why ideas have a hard time hitting it, but please, give me a chance to get it in there:
If the Linux desktop system is wholly inadequate to the point that it's totally unusable, I have no desktop. If I'm not going to have a desktop, I may as well just use a better performing BSD system with no desktop.
Got it? Good. Now go away you stupid little troll.
I just dumped Linux altogether for FreeBSD for one reason: it was a HORRIBLE desktop system.
I went to log in one day and then ran startx. Imagine my surprise when xinit took over five minutes to run. Imagine my surprise when it took several minutes to launch a single Firefox or Nautilus window. Imagine my surprise when, under Gnome, it took several minutes to resolve hosts on my cable connection.
Linux is NOT ready for the desktop. I dumped it for FreeBSD because I figured that if the desktop part was just going to stop working I might as well just run a BSD and forgo the prettiness altogether. Switching to Linux just because IE sucks ass is ridiculous. This is the sort of assinine nonsense that makes Linux supporters look like completely raving idiots.
Insightful? How is it insightful to brush off a potential egregious abuse of the justice system by saying that because he was charged with a crime it's his own fault?
You must live in America (yes, with me). I've noticed a lot of Americans these days seem to think it's acceptable to just brush aside any abuse of the justice system because someone was accused of a crime. Whether Mitnick was a criminal or not does not excuse any wrongdoing that may have occurred on the other side of the bench, no matter how warped your twisted little mind gets on the subject. In case you haven't noticed, the justice system exists largely to determine whether or not people accused of a crime are actually guilty. Until they've been proven guilty, then, they are innocent. Even if they were known to be guitly before the verdict, that doesn't justify excusing abuses in the system, and I'm sorry I live in a country where so many people seem to think that's the case. The irony is too much..
And where is the FBI actually using this to spy on 'average people'?
I am so sick and tired of seeing people try to brush this nonsense off like that. Use some critical thinking for god's sake.
First of all, what is the problem that's being solved here? That people are reading subversive material they checked out at the library? So, is the problem that there's material out there that the government doesn't want you to read, and therefore they need to know if you are reading it? Well, hoooowwwdy. Bring out the gas-o-line and matches, we got some book burnin' t'do!
Or, are we solving the problem of "terrorists" reading subversive material? Since terrorism indicates criminal intent, it seems logical to label terrorists as criminals. Then, we're making sure that criminals dont' get subversive materials? So, why does the FBI have the power to view EVERYONE's reading materials? Why can they go get a subpeona to see what *I* check out of the library. I'm not a terrorist, I'm just an average citizen. If they don't need to know what I'm reading, why can they find out?
You can't just brush off abusive investigative powers by saying they're not using it because that means they don't need it and shouldn't have it. You can't just brush them off by saying that if you're a law abiding citizen you have nothing to worry about either because that means that the power is too broad and they don't need all of it.
Ignoring all that, there's also the fact that if the government wants a power, they ought to be proving that they need it. Since they haven't had a need for it once in three years, I'd say that's a pretty good indication that they DON'T need it and it's time they lose it, wouldn't you?
Oh darn. I've always wanted to kill an anonymous coward, and I don't have any mod points right now. Someone, please do it for me!
Want a more mature forum than Slashdot? Try Technocrat.net [technocrat.net]
Heh heh.... ooookay. I guess that means you don't make comments like this one over on technocrat? ;-)
You know, this whole thread is a perfect example of why I have a +3 modifier on Offtopic. Plus, it will help me see my own comment after this gets modded to shit along with the rest of them!
Freaking AT&T. These bastards have been spamming my phone with their stupid "updates" since I got the service. It's "opt out", of course, even though I never "opted in" and the bastards STILL haven't moved on the request to knock it the hell off. Nothing is more irritating than when I'm doing something, here a text come in, drop what I'm doing to check it, and it turns out to be some stupid sales pitch from AT&T.
Here's some "standard" protocol a lot of people would probably back: shoot any marketeering moron who is ever responsible in any way for any unsolicited pitch EVER.