Dude, he uses GENTOO! His OS is so optimized that girls will actually sleep with him.
Disclaimer: This is, of course, only after he text messages them crap that basically equals out to the output of a OpenOffice compile, and lasts for at least as long.
Implying that because someones product isn't open source that they must be afraid of something is most definitely not apolitical. It's neat that you completely ignored that point though, especially since it is the basis of my post and the reason I attacked.
Why aren't you walking around town naked. What are YOU so afraid of? Wait, right, slashdot. Guess that was an easy one.
You know. I love open source, but people like you annoy me. Claiming that because someone doesn't subscribe to the same ideology as you that they are "afraid" is stupid. It's all about freedom, until someone exercises the freedom to not open their sandbox for the public to pee in.
In reality, if closed source was such a horrible thing, Opera would either be an insecure or crappy webbrowser, and it is neither. On the same token, I love Firefox. How about we judge things by their merits and not by weither or not RMS approves of it.
Security is a process, a state of mind, not a product.
Buffer Overflows are not the only kinds of programming errors that make something insecure. Besides, between ProPolice and all the memory protection OpenBSD ships with I seriously doubt that Buffer Overflows affect it anyway.... but, again, they are bugs, and bugs should be squashed, even if they cause no harm.
His specific example is correct though. VMware is closed source and has several propritary kernel modules that are required for proper operation ( or maybe even operation at all ).
While Linux binary emulation is good, there is no Linux kernel module layer and thus recent versions of VMWare don't work on FreeBSD. A pity, but not unmanageable. Personally I give props to the qemu team, but your mileage may vary.
It's designed and named to look like an official apple product, and it is not.
It's a derivative of an apple computer, it isn't one the instant the modded it.
His Linux "snipe" was well on topic. Do you actually read the BSD is dying posts? How many of them attempt to discredit any BSD success by comparing it to Linux?
Clearly this means that some Linux users, the Linux users he was referring to, are behind it.
Also... Linux comes into "it" because it's in the news all the time. It's like asking happy Linux users to never, ever, ever mention Windows. It's unreasonable and stupid. If you're that sensitive about Linux and friendly competition you should stay off the Internet.
I just love it when you have a bunch of capitalism fanboys telling us that being born rich and riding on other people's coat-tails is a flawless business plan that indicates some sort of infallible genius.
But Bill Gates wasn't born rich at all.... Do you even know what the topic is?
Do you know what profit means? It means the money they MADE that quarter, MINUS operation fees. It's money that isn't allocated to ANYTHING. Money in the bank. Chaching.
I find it interesting that Port Colborne, Ontario ( URL:http://maps.google.com/maps?q=port+colborne,on tario&ll=42.898690,-79.253300&spn=0.005697,0.01011 1&t=k&hl=en>) is done in high res, despite only having a population of 19,000. I mean, granted, it's only because of the Welland Canal, but still.
Which of course is all stored in shared memory, so any program you launch that uses those very libraries will consume less free RAM than it usually would.
Not in the way you can with Diablo II. You are limited to three modes:
2 Player, where you can have 3 party members.
3 Player, where you can have 2 party members.
and 6 player, where you can have 1 party member, your main hero.
The multiplayer experience is almost identical to the single player experience, it's just that you all share quests and quest items. Lots of fun at LANs, but I doubt it'd be very entertaining online with people you don't know.
I don't take pity on anything. In all actuality, I hate Windows. BUT, I hate unfair arguments even more. And quite honestly, it's retarded. "Hey, look at this product I just put out, it's not vulnerable to all those 2001,2002,2003, and 2004 vulnerbilities that this 2001 product is!
What are you saying? That it's impossible to enable the Windows firewall so that you can patch your system? Or even better, just don't allow Printer and file sharing/etc on the NIC that's exposed to the Internet? That'll give you enough time to patch. Of course, most users that I know of are behind routers anyway and don't have any ports open to the Internet.
The point is, really, that Windows IS MAINTAINED. It has service packs, it has security errata, they are easy to install. So why are Linux advocates so bent at comparing themselves to an unpatched fresh XP install from 2001? I actually find the argument itself to be somewhat misleading, because the distro they are comparing it to is at most 5 months old, and has had 4 years of security errata that the Windows XP install (again, this is never a SP1/SP2 install, always a fresh Windows XP install; a worst case scenario) wasn't afforded.
The point is that the comparison is unfair. Let's compare Linux distros from 2001 to A version of Windows from 2001. Or, if you insist on this, let's at least compare the Windows XP versions with SP2 integrated into them.
I don't see a whole lot of that, though. I don't even see people comparing a fully patched Windows XP system against a fully patched Linux system. It's always Fresh installs. Windows XP from 2001, against the latest Linux distribution, WHICH of course, by the pure nature of the release date, will already be patched against all recent vulnerbilities.
But I suppose if you are that insecure about your argument.....
You know what. Fuck you. Fuck every single god damn one of you idiots.
Windows XP - 2001.
When was the distro you're talking about released? 2005?
Oh, really, one has more vulnerbilities than the other on a fresh install. That's fucking amazing! Let me sit here for a few minutes and figure out which one. Oh man, this is fucking hard. Is it Windows? Really? It is. Well LOL, Windows blows. It's so insecure. Clearly Linux is more secure because out of the box Linux lasts longer.
Slashdot Mirror
Dude, he uses GENTOO! His OS is so optimized that girls will actually sleep with him.
Disclaimer: This is, of course, only after he text messages them crap that basically equals out to the output of a OpenOffice compile, and lasts for at least as long.
Implying that because someones product isn't open source that they must be afraid of something is most definitely not apolitical. It's neat that you completely ignored that point though, especially since it is the basis of my post and the reason I attacked.
Why aren't you walking around town naked. What are YOU so afraid of? Wait, right, slashdot. Guess that was an easy one.
You know. I love open source, but people like you annoy me. Claiming that because someone doesn't subscribe to the same ideology as you that they are "afraid" is stupid. It's all about freedom, until someone exercises the freedom to not open their sandbox for the public to pee in.
In reality, if closed source was such a horrible thing, Opera would either be an insecure or crappy webbrowser, and it is neither. On the same token, I love Firefox. How about we judge things by their merits and not by weither or not RMS approves of it.
1) Great Singer
2) Very clever paraodies.
3) Albums contain a slew of hilarious original songs as well.
Security is a process, a state of mind, not a product.
Buffer Overflows are not the only kinds of programming errors that make something insecure. Besides, between ProPolice and all the memory protection OpenBSD ships with I seriously doubt that Buffer Overflows affect it anyway.... but, again, they are bugs, and bugs should be squashed, even if they cause no harm.
His specific example is correct though. VMware is closed source and has several propritary kernel modules that are required for proper operation ( or maybe even operation at all ).
While Linux binary emulation is good, there is no Linux kernel module layer and thus recent versions of VMWare don't work on FreeBSD. A pity, but not unmanageable. Personally I give props to the qemu team, but your mileage may vary.
If you actually read the article you would have read this line:
"The new Hi-MD format offers 1GB per disc"...
The line that you are holding against it is this one, again, you should actually have read it:
"In fact-- formatting an ordinary MD using the Hi-MD filesystem actually doubles its original capacity from 170MB to 305 MB!"
What I meant is that FreeBSD 4.0 is a new version, FreeBSD 4.1 is effectively a FreeBSD 4.0 service pack.
Same with FreeBSD 6.1, when it comes out.
It's the same concept, symantics aside.
FreeBSD's 4.x, 5.x, and 6.x releases beyond the inital release are effectively service packs. It's the same concept.
It's designed and named to look like an official apple product, and it is not. It's a derivative of an apple computer, it isn't one the instant the modded it.
Calling a design poor without providing ideas for how you would improve it is generally pretty lame.
If you need a reason to try it out, don't.
His Linux "snipe" was well on topic. Do you actually read the BSD is dying posts? How many of them attempt to discredit any BSD success by comparing it to Linux?
Clearly this means that some Linux users, the Linux users he was referring to, are behind it.
Also... Linux comes into "it" because it's in the news all the time. It's like asking happy Linux users to never, ever, ever mention Windows. It's unreasonable and stupid. If you're that sensitive about Linux and friendly competition you should stay off the Internet.
http://www.google.com/search?&q=%22KDE%20blah%20bl ah%20and%20Gnome%20BLaH%20blah%22
:(
It didn't work.
There is a flashblock extension that works VERY well.
Basically when I finally got around to installing flash, the internet became 50x more annoying. It's not just the popups, it's the audio ads as well.
I just love it when you have a bunch of capitalism fanboys telling us that being born rich and riding on other people's coat-tails is a flawless business plan that indicates some sort of infallible genius.
But Bill Gates wasn't born rich at all.... Do you even know what the topic is?
I just love when you have a bunch of crackhead slashdot posters telling billionares that their buisness plan is flawed. Good job, fucker.
If I was Bill Gates I'd pay your mother a million dollars to star in a porno where she had "I get it right here" tattoed over her vaginal region.
Do you know what profit means? It means the money they MADE that quarter, MINUS operation fees. It's money that isn't allocated to ANYTHING. Money in the bank. Chaching.
I find it interesting that Port Colborne, Ontario ( URL:http://maps.google.com/maps?q=port+colborne,on tario&ll=42.898690,-79.253300&spn=0.005697,0.01011 1&t=k&hl=en>) is done in high res, despite only having a population of 19,000. I mean, granted, it's only because of the Welland Canal, but still.
Which of course is all stored in shared memory, so any program you launch that uses those very libraries will consume less free RAM than it usually would.
Bitch, I just ran out of milk! I blame you and your apathy!
Not in the way you can with Diablo II. You are limited to three modes:
2 Player, where you can have 3 party members.
3 Player, where you can have 2 party members.
and 6 player, where you can have 1 party member, your main hero.
The multiplayer experience is almost identical to the single player experience, it's just that you all share quests and quest items. Lots of fun at LANs, but I doubt it'd be very entertaining online with people you don't know.
I don't take pity on anything. In all actuality, I hate Windows. BUT, I hate unfair arguments even more. And quite honestly, it's retarded. "Hey, look at this product I just put out, it's not vulnerable to all those 2001,2002,2003, and 2004 vulnerbilities that this 2001 product is!
What are you saying? That it's impossible to enable the Windows firewall so that you can patch your system? Or even better, just don't allow Printer and file sharing/etc on the NIC that's exposed to the Internet? That'll give you enough time to patch. Of course, most users that I know of are behind routers anyway and don't have any ports open to the Internet.
The point is, really, that Windows IS MAINTAINED. It has service packs, it has security errata, they are easy to install. So why are Linux advocates so bent at comparing themselves to an unpatched fresh XP install from 2001? I actually find the argument itself to be somewhat misleading, because the distro they are comparing it to is at most 5 months old, and has had 4 years of security errata that the Windows XP install (again, this is never a SP1/SP2 install, always a fresh Windows XP install; a worst case scenario) wasn't afforded.
The point is that the comparison is unfair. Let's compare Linux distros from 2001 to A version of Windows from 2001. Or, if you insist on this, let's at least compare the Windows XP versions with SP2 integrated into them.
I don't see a whole lot of that, though. I don't even see people comparing a fully patched Windows XP system against a fully patched Linux system. It's always Fresh installs. Windows XP from 2001, against the latest Linux distribution, WHICH of course, by the pure nature of the release date, will already be patched against all recent vulnerbilities.
But I suppose if you are that insecure about your argument.....
You know what. Fuck you. Fuck every single god damn one of you idiots.
Windows XP - 2001.
When was the distro you're talking about released? 2005?
Oh, really, one has more vulnerbilities than the other on a fresh install. That's fucking amazing! Let me sit here for a few minutes and figure out which one. Oh man, this is fucking hard. Is it Windows? Really? It is. Well LOL, Windows blows. It's so insecure. Clearly Linux is more secure because out of the box Linux lasts longer.