The opportunities for humor start here and go on forever. I guess we might as well start:
"My God! Its full of fails!" "Like buying antibiotics from the hooker." "TrunkMonkey equipped with chair." "Would you like Warez with that?" "Antivirus vendors: Oooh. That's what 'gold partner' means!" "Hi, I'm a Mac... and I'm a PC (achoo)." Good Lord this stuff writes itself. Hold on while I microwave some popcorn.
This is a place where I'm torn. I'm pretty cynical about the ability of anybody who's capable of being elected president to enact real change. I'm not a fan of the economic vision of the Left, though I'm fond of their social vision. I've considered myself a Republican since Carter - I joined the army to survive the effects of his economic policies. I've never been a fan of the Right's desire to intrude on the individual's domain though. Although I generally prefer a divided and ineffective government, in times of crisis a unity of purpose can be helpful.
I see some good signs in Obama. Maybe I'm starting to open up to the idea that he might have some good stuff. I certainly don't envy him the job he's got before him. We shall see whether he requites himself well in the issue in TFA as well as others. I do think that if he will do well, he will not seek to follow in the footsteps of anybody else. The environment today is different that it was in FDR's day, and while some of FDR's policies helped us through a difficult time Obama hasn't got that much time. FDR was elected to four terms in office and Obama won't be.
Whether he's good or bad, we've got some hard times before us.
While I share your respect for the Founders' vision, the system of copyright we have now is founded in British common law, and in fact harks back to 1662. Copyrights originally carried for 27 years, and currently go for over 100 years. Thomas Jefferson considered 14 years and he was reluctant about even that and was swayed (or more likely, conceded to get a more important concession) by James Madison. Patents originated further back in ancient Greece, around 500BC and originally carried for 1 year but now extend to up to 20 years. Both have been extended to include things not then invented that are far beyond the original scope.
Should every modern presentation of the dramatic arts credit the contribution of Aeschylus? Should each modern electronic inventor credit Julius Edgar Lilienfeld? Maybe. But should some portion of the profits go to them? Probably not. Each was standing on the shoulders of prior giants after all, as are we all, and neither (being dead) would benefit from the cash.
Innovation happens in a climate that encourages or requires it. Perhaps the defining characteristic of Men is that we take the inventions of others and improve them. Each inventor and creator owes a debt to the culture and climate that fostered him or her. That debt is fulfilled when their creation becomes the property of all in the commons from whence a new generation of creator draws from the well and adds their contribution, to profit from for a limited time but ultimately to become part of the common pool again.
The current climate encourages neither business nor innovation. This is a lawyer's paradise where they can make claims of infringements for forgotten claims decades - no, even a whole century - from a prior claim of invention and need prevail only one time in a dozen to reap ridiculous wealth. In the mean time their suits and The duration is being stretched beyond imagining, supported and extended by the wealth of those who support and exploit the inventions of others without inventing, creating, or building anything (NPE). The Crazy Years are truly upon us. I believe there was once a popular author whose histrionic vision included such a period that ended in "the year they hanged the lawyers".
Copyrights and patents have become monsters that must be slain.
Well this at least seems like a sure thing. No worries on this score. Lots of things are going to get a lot worse faster than most of us would believe possible.
Again, patents were created as a bridge between creators and the market to promote progress. They have mutated into trolls that prevent progress. Patents are now a monster that must be slain.
Did you know that the entirety of the President's speeches & news conferences are available on whitehouse.gov and have been for a very long time?
Yes, I did know that. I also knew that there have been accusations of revisionism, some warranted and some not. Let's get past that.
Riiight, because clearly the media were blocking Obama's message.
The election is over. Coverage will drop. That's not necessarily a bad thing, as immersion in divisive issues has ramped the rhetoric to unpleasant levels. The work of the republic goes on even if, and probably especially when, nobody is watching.
For too long the public policy of the US has been weighed and measured in three second clips cherry picked by the media to push their own agenda. Presidents have given addresses, but unless you block out the time to listen to the whole message at the time it was given then the republication and further dissemination were prohibited by copyright. What was left were tiny snippets chosen, perhaps to educate and inform but more often chosen to catch attention and spark a fire for pundits to fan into a heated argument between commercials. This doesn't serve the intent of the policy makers at all, and does nothing to improve public policy.
There is an opportunity here for the President Elect to circumvent the established media and get his message out in a way that preserves the whole message and conveys more substance than can be carried by a sound bite. This is a risk - policies as a whole can be unloved - but at least people will discuss them as whole policies and not be as swayed by a single implementation detail.
Getting more public information into the hands of the people is also a good thing. The government of the US collects, stores and transmits huge volumes of information. They pay for research, they study trends, they map and photograph, illustrate and write code and generate a lot of other content. Putting more of this online in open formats is a great way to allow the people to share in the progress and become more informed if they choose. It's also an opportunity for the people to take advantage of the information to cross-correlate, rethink and discover what gems might be in the tailings of this information mine, since publications of the US government generally aren't covered by copyright. This could promote a great deal of progress.
Government agencies at all levels are more and more making their services - information, permitting, licensing, and so on - accessible over the Internet. This makes interacting with government much easier and less prone to error. It makes government more accessible to the handicapped and the poor. The Internet doesn't "close", so people can interact with the government at times of day that are available to them. Accelerating this trend would be a good thing, but we need to be aware of a potential issue: if the Internet is a face of government, then access to that interaction must be preserved and protected. If the Internet becomes the road to City Hall then local broadband monopolies cannot continue to be the gatekeepers, choosing which region is deserving of bandwidth and which is not.
Copyright was created as a bridge between creators and the market to promote progress. It has mutated into a troll that prevents progress. Copyright is now a monster that must be slain.
If its mostly read then yeah the SSD would kick butt but throw in frequent writing and I'd get worried.
You use SLC SSD for database stores. It's quicker and less vulnerable to degradation. And 80,000 IOPS for an individual drive is hard to beat for this application except as someone else wrote with huge pools of RAMdisk, but that has issues too.
Obviously the flamebait part wasn't that part, it was the rest of the post:
If Linux had the greatest market share, it would have the most viruses.
Which is widely held not to be true, and for which the refutation is above.
But please - believe whatever you want. You just won't go spreading that particular lie around here without being both contradicted and modded down. I do hope this settles in your mind the question you asked about "why?"
He can't hear you. He lives in the Vista Compatible Isolation ward in Redmond. They only let those folks see the quirky gear that works well. Stuff that doesn't work well, or at all, isn't allowed within ten miles. That way they can be forthright about how great this thing works and how happy you should be when really what you want to do is install Vista on a different type of machine. The concept of "representative sample" has escaped them, and that's why W7 isn't going to be any better than Vista. Nor W8 either. With luck though, there won't be a W9.
The very fact that you can't let this go even though you're posting as an AC lends some credibility to my current belief that you need professional help.
Please. Consult a professional before you hurt yourself or someone else.
If Linux had the greatest market share, it would have the most viruses. Windows is just a big target. Think about it -- if you wrote a virus, would you rather design it to attack 90% of the OSes in the wild, or 2%?
The smugness of the "windows has viruses because it sucks" position is a really poorly thought-out one.
Semantic analysis of the grandparent and your post yields no significant similarities. They differ in form, content, structure and purpose. They are opposites. It's not even remotely possible that you were trying to say this.
Sorry about that. One of the problems with slashdot is that it can be tricky touching upon common memes, and you've stumbled on one. The problem with your assertion is that it's been made for fifteen years, thoroughly examined, and disproved in every case.
GNU/Linux is not Windows. It won't ever be. Because Linux is available in over 1,000 distributions and hundreds of versions, and always will be, the generic reference to "Linux" includes far more scope than "Vista" or "W7" ever could. Linux is available in versions for your PS3, for Sun hardware, and IBM mainframes. By itself that makes it a harder target because one exploit can't target all of linux. It's used in almost all supercomputers and a great many network routers. The embedded applications like EMC SANs and security cameras and TV recorders and dash mounted Nav devices and many other things far exceeds Microsoft's desktop operating system installed base. Microsoft could not dream of being able to hire as large or well qualified a team of programmers motivated to secure the software out of their own self interest (i.e. improvements come from people who want to use it, not people who are only paid to write it).
Basically here's how it works: in order for Windows to have a "brand" it can market, it has to have a coherent set of services and applications which are identified with it. This fixed set becomes a target, and since it is software written by humans, vulnerabilities will be found which are consistent across that platform. Since it must enforce compatibility across generations, the code is generally recycled across revisions. Linux has no such limitations.
Now by responding to your obvious question I have to slur Linux a little bit in order to not look so much like a fanboi. Of course any individual installation of Linux can be rooted, at least if someone is using it to surf the Internet. That's not the point. No one exploit is going to be broad enough even to get most of them, and you can't say that about any version of Windows.
So by the new criteria an old OS with a new desktop theme is a new OS. Especially if it runs much slower and requires 4x the processor power and RAM. We can't have the new technology give us cool new stuff that's screaming fast. That would go against 20 years of industry practice.
Wait six months or so before passing judgement on this thing.
Slashdot Mirror
The opportunities for humor start here and go on forever. I guess we might as well start:
"My God! Its full of fails!" "Like buying antibiotics from the hooker." "TrunkMonkey equipped with chair." "Would you like Warez with that?" "Antivirus vendors: Oooh. That's what 'gold partner' means!" "Hi, I'm a Mac ... and I'm a PC (achoo)." Good Lord this stuff writes itself. Hold on while I microwave some popcorn.
This is a place where I'm torn. I'm pretty cynical about the ability of anybody who's capable of being elected president to enact real change. I'm not a fan of the economic vision of the Left, though I'm fond of their social vision. I've considered myself a Republican since Carter - I joined the army to survive the effects of his economic policies. I've never been a fan of the Right's desire to intrude on the individual's domain though. Although I generally prefer a divided and ineffective government, in times of crisis a unity of purpose can be helpful.
I see some good signs in Obama. Maybe I'm starting to open up to the idea that he might have some good stuff. I certainly don't envy him the job he's got before him. We shall see whether he requites himself well in the issue in TFA as well as others. I do think that if he will do well, he will not seek to follow in the footsteps of anybody else. The environment today is different that it was in FDR's day, and while some of FDR's policies helped us through a difficult time Obama hasn't got that much time. FDR was elected to four terms in office and Obama won't be.
Whether he's good or bad, we've got some hard times before us.
While I share your respect for the Founders' vision, the system of copyright we have now is founded in British common law, and in fact harks back to 1662. Copyrights originally carried for 27 years, and currently go for over 100 years. Thomas Jefferson considered 14 years and he was reluctant about even that and was swayed (or more likely, conceded to get a more important concession) by James Madison. Patents originated further back in ancient Greece, around 500BC and originally carried for 1 year but now extend to up to 20 years. Both have been extended to include things not then invented that are far beyond the original scope.
Should every modern presentation of the dramatic arts credit the contribution of Aeschylus? Should each modern electronic inventor credit Julius Edgar Lilienfeld? Maybe. But should some portion of the profits go to them? Probably not. Each was standing on the shoulders of prior giants after all, as are we all, and neither (being dead) would benefit from the cash.
Innovation happens in a climate that encourages or requires it. Perhaps the defining characteristic of Men is that we take the inventions of others and improve them. Each inventor and creator owes a debt to the culture and climate that fostered him or her. That debt is fulfilled when their creation becomes the property of all in the commons from whence a new generation of creator draws from the well and adds their contribution, to profit from for a limited time but ultimately to become part of the common pool again.
The current climate encourages neither business nor innovation. This is a lawyer's paradise where they can make claims of infringements for forgotten claims decades - no, even a whole century - from a prior claim of invention and need prevail only one time in a dozen to reap ridiculous wealth. In the mean time their suits and The duration is being stretched beyond imagining, supported and extended by the wealth of those who support and exploit the inventions of others without inventing, creating, or building anything (NPE). The Crazy Years are truly upon us. I believe there was once a popular author whose histrionic vision included such a period that ended in "the year they hanged the lawyers".
Copyrights and patents have become monsters that must be slain.
It's going to have to get much, much worse...
Well this at least seems like a sure thing. No worries on this score. Lots of things are going to get a lot worse faster than most of us would believe possible.
At least we can agree there is a real problem.
Again, patents were created as a bridge between creators and the market to promote progress. They have mutated into trolls that prevent progress. Patents are now a monster that must be slain.
Did you know that the entirety of the President's speeches & news conferences are available on whitehouse.gov and have been for a very long time?
Yes, I did know that. I also knew that there have been accusations of revisionism, some warranted and some not. Let's get past that.
Riiight, because clearly the media were blocking Obama's message.
The election is over. Coverage will drop. That's not necessarily a bad thing, as immersion in divisive issues has ramped the rhetoric to unpleasant levels. The work of the republic goes on even if, and probably especially when, nobody is watching.
For too long the public policy of the US has been weighed and measured in three second clips cherry picked by the media to push their own agenda. Presidents have given addresses, but unless you block out the time to listen to the whole message at the time it was given then the republication and further dissemination were prohibited by copyright. What was left were tiny snippets chosen, perhaps to educate and inform but more often chosen to catch attention and spark a fire for pundits to fan into a heated argument between commercials. This doesn't serve the intent of the policy makers at all, and does nothing to improve public policy.
There is an opportunity here for the President Elect to circumvent the established media and get his message out in a way that preserves the whole message and conveys more substance than can be carried by a sound bite. This is a risk - policies as a whole can be unloved - but at least people will discuss them as whole policies and not be as swayed by a single implementation detail.
Getting more public information into the hands of the people is also a good thing. The government of the US collects, stores and transmits huge volumes of information. They pay for research, they study trends, they map and photograph, illustrate and write code and generate a lot of other content. Putting more of this online in open formats is a great way to allow the people to share in the progress and become more informed if they choose. It's also an opportunity for the people to take advantage of the information to cross-correlate, rethink and discover what gems might be in the tailings of this information mine, since publications of the US government generally aren't covered by copyright. This could promote a great deal of progress.
Government agencies at all levels are more and more making their services - information, permitting, licensing, and so on - accessible over the Internet. This makes interacting with government much easier and less prone to error. It makes government more accessible to the handicapped and the poor. The Internet doesn't "close", so people can interact with the government at times of day that are available to them. Accelerating this trend would be a good thing, but we need to be aware of a potential issue: if the Internet is a face of government, then access to that interaction must be preserved and protected. If the Internet becomes the road to City Hall then local broadband monopolies cannot continue to be the gatekeepers, choosing which region is deserving of bandwidth and which is not.
Copyright was created as a bridge between creators and the market to promote progress. It has mutated into a troll that prevents progress. Copyright is now a monster that must be slain.
You can't unring the bell. If the data is leaked, paying a blackmailer doesn't "unleak" it.
If we leave good persistent evidence behind us, then the study of why could net some exoanthropologist his Ph.D.
I prefer disarmament.
That's why people don't like Vista. It had a bad sticker. That explains everything.
link. Peru gets xp.
If its mostly read then yeah the SSD would kick butt but throw in frequent writing and I'd get worried.
You use SLC SSD for database stores. It's quicker and less vulnerable to degradation. And 80,000 IOPS for an individual drive is hard to beat for this application except as someone else wrote with huge pools of RAMdisk, but that has issues too.
No argument here.
(waves hand) These are not the contracts you're looking for. Move along.
Obviously the flamebait part wasn't that part, it was the rest of the post:
If Linux had the greatest market share, it would have the most viruses.
Which is widely held not to be true, and for which the refutation is above.
But please - believe whatever you want. You just won't go spreading that particular lie around here without being both contradicted and modded down. I do hope this settles in your mind the question you asked about "why?"
Why can't I get Vista to crash and run slow like you can?
Maybe you didn't test it on this or this or this?
Go ahead and tell me it's because these computers aren't "modern". I love that one.
He can't hear you. He lives in the Vista Compatible Isolation ward in Redmond. They only let those folks see the quirky gear that works well. Stuff that doesn't work well, or at all, isn't allowed within ten miles. That way they can be forthright about how great this thing works and how happy you should be when really what you want to do is install Vista on a different type of machine. The concept of "representative sample" has escaped them, and that's why W7 isn't going to be any better than Vista. Nor W8 either. With luck though, there won't be a W9.
What amazingly detailed analysis. Remarkable reportage there. I like how they cite hard numbers, and how their methodology is laid out.
The very fact that you can't let this go even though you're posting as an AC lends some credibility to my current belief that you need professional help.
Please. Consult a professional before you hurt yourself or someone else.
oh?
For how long?
This is your original post:
If Linux had the greatest market share, it would have the most viruses. Windows is just a big target. Think about it -- if you wrote a virus, would you rather design it to attack 90% of the OSes in the wild, or 2%?
The smugness of the "windows has viruses because it sucks" position is a really poorly thought-out one.
Semantic analysis of the grandparent and your post yields no significant similarities. They differ in form, content, structure and purpose. They are opposites. It's not even remotely possible that you were trying to say this.
Try again?
Sorry about that. One of the problems with slashdot is that it can be tricky touching upon common memes, and you've stumbled on one. The problem with your assertion is that it's been made for fifteen years, thoroughly examined, and disproved in every case.
GNU/Linux is not Windows. It won't ever be. Because Linux is available in over 1,000 distributions and hundreds of versions, and always will be, the generic reference to "Linux" includes far more scope than "Vista" or "W7" ever could. Linux is available in versions for your PS3, for Sun hardware, and IBM mainframes. By itself that makes it a harder target because one exploit can't target all of linux. It's used in almost all supercomputers and a great many network routers. The embedded applications like EMC SANs and security cameras and TV recorders and dash mounted Nav devices and many other things far exceeds Microsoft's desktop operating system installed base. Microsoft could not dream of being able to hire as large or well qualified a team of programmers motivated to secure the software out of their own self interest (i.e. improvements come from people who want to use it, not people who are only paid to write it).
I can do no better than commend to you ESR's great work, The Cathedral & The Bazaar.
Basically here's how it works: in order for Windows to have a "brand" it can market, it has to have a coherent set of services and applications which are identified with it. This fixed set becomes a target, and since it is software written by humans, vulnerabilities will be found which are consistent across that platform. Since it must enforce compatibility across generations, the code is generally recycled across revisions. Linux has no such limitations.
Now by responding to your obvious question I have to slur Linux a little bit in order to not look so much like a fanboi. Of course any individual installation of Linux can be rooted, at least if someone is using it to surf the Internet. That's not the point. No one exploit is going to be broad enough even to get most of them, and you can't say that about any version of Windows.
So by the new criteria an old OS with a new desktop theme is a new OS. Especially if it runs much slower and requires 4x the processor power and RAM. We can't have the new technology give us cool new stuff that's screaming fast. That would go against 20 years of industry practice.
Wait six months or so before passing judgement on this thing.
You're not from around here, are you?