That doesn't make sense. You try to claim that Windows is a gaming platform (I assume that's what you meant by PC), but then you say that Linux will never be a gaming platform until nvidia open source their drivers. You do know that all windows video drivers are closed source don't you?
. . . You haven't tried to install UT2004 on linux yet have you? It's pretty much exactly the same as in Windows. I mean by this exactly down to the interface. You put in the CD and run setup and the same dialogue comes up. It is unfortunate that the nvidia drivers need to be run from the command line, but other than that they are automated. The command line is easy to get to anyway.
By the way, you say "plenty of time on your hands", but to install Mandrake Linux with the nvidia drivers, then install UT2004, takes less time than to install Windows XP then the nvidia drivers then install UT2004. Mandrake itself takes about half an hour (rounding up) to install while XP takes 45 mins (rounding down, it's more like 50 mins or more) to install. The nvidia drivers take about the same normally to install, but you don't have to restart the computer. UT2004 takes about the same amount of time to install.
Mandrake is easier to install than Windows XP. The nvidia drivers are slightly harder on linux, even though they take less time.
One of the things I most detest is when people assume that what they guess is right. Ignorance is not an excuse for badmouthing something when you don't have the information.
OO.Org doesn't try to be a clone of MS Office, it tries hard to be an office suite. Sorry if it's not exactly the same to what you're used to, because that's not what they're going for.
Saying OO.Org is a failure at being a MS Office clone is exactly like saying Firefox is a failure at being an Internet Explorer clone, because, after all, it doesn't have the same GUI and doesn't even include ActiveX.
Let's say that there's a dangerous extension and a dangerous Active X protocol, both using the full arsonal of weapons to try and get you to download and run the software. Here's what would happen in a successful infiltration.
Firefox Extension: You click the link. You get a dialogue about how dangerous the extension may be, and why you shouldn't install it. You are forced to wait for a certain amount of time before being able to download and install the extension. You then click "install now" and restart your browser.
Active X: You click the link.
... I think there's a slight bit of difference there, don't you?.
Why? How are firefox extensions as risky as having the web page able to launch remote code or automatically download dangerous programs to the viewer's computer?
I chose IBM because it's the biggest linux money maker, but you're right it's not the best example. IBM do however make billions of dollars per year in linux related hardware, consultancy and software sales. Red Hat only makes a few million.
But anyway I wasn't being critical to the open source philosophies, I was just saying that it doesn't align with communist philosophies. I think anything that gives a good product itself for free or allows companies to give a better product for a lower cost is brilliant.
So you're complaining that the site won't display properly to people who can't use it anyway? It only gives an overview of the product and a location to download it should you want to . . . and that's bad?
This is a piece of software for linux that can only be used on linux. I don't see why not being able to view the software on Windows is a problem.
Which office suite is better is a subjective thing. A magazine I just read (PC Authority) had a comparison of "Microsoft Office clones" and, taking away price, it gave OO.Org the best out of the bunch. That truly surprised me. This is a new magazine from this month.
Depends how you say "exploit" - perhaps that is a bad choise of words for me. Marx's meaning of the word pretty much meant gain money/power/advantage without giving equal money/power/advantage back. The GPL definitely allows that, and you just have to look at IBM to see how much money can be gained out of Open Source. Though it's not at the expense of the developers, it's not directly to their gain either.
Open Source, or at least the GPL, and to an even greater extreme, the BSD license, is extremely capitalistic. Marx wanted to stop the coorperations from exploiting the working class, yet the GPL is telling the coorperations "feel free to exploit out work"! There's nothing more anti-communism than that. However the creative license is perhaps different...
BUT when you look at the philosophies behind communism Marx is trying to prevent the coorperations from exploiting the working class. Doesn't open source/GPL give the extreme of this area, letting the coorperations do whatever they want with their code? You could say that Creative Commons is a communist license, disallowing commercial involvement, but definitely not the GPL!
How did you read that my argument had anything to do with unix?
Your post seems to miss my point in two ways: Firstly I was talking about Windows, not about any other operating system. I wasn't saying "You should use *nix because Internet Explorer has a vulnerable library!"
Secondly, now that you have brought unix up, Linux at least places no restrictions on the libraries that it uses, and has no absolutely mandatory libraries. You can disable or rewrite any library you want as long as you resolve dependancies. Though it might rule a few programs out you can always remove a library. I detest that in Windows you can't. That they are vulnerable or not has nothing to do with my argument - all I am saying is that you can't remove the libraries.
Let me make this clear, you can't fully remove IE *INCLUDING THE VULNERABLE LIBRARIES* from Windows XP or 2k without destroying your system. When I'm talking about Kazaa and Half-Life and Outlook etc, they don't use Iexplore.exe at all, they only use the libraries. Iexplore.exe is just a shell and does almost nothing but link to its libraries and add a few toolbars. The libraries contain the vulnerabilities, not Iexplore.exe.
I'm not sure how that's vender lock in. Vender lock in is making sure they only use your product. It would be just as easy to use another distrobution of linux that doesn't upgrade as quickly and unstabley such as Debian.
Nope, you have to use IE. It's integrated into the OS so tightly that there's nothing you can do about it. For example, if you use Half Life 2's Steam application, that uses IE quite frequently, and if you install Firefox it wont change engines for displaying the data suddenly. That is a bad example (you can't use the IE shell to browse to non-trustworthy sites), but other examples like in Kazaa you have a fully functioning IE shell operating.
But anyway, if you actually read the post that he wrote, I think you'll find that his logic didn't say if you run Firefox and don't use Outlook then Windows is a great OS to have.
not really. I'd bet that if you examine the patents they're giving out you'd find the areas that IBM wants good software for in linux for their coorperate services.
I'm not saying that with disapproval either - I think that anything that promotes open source is good, and if IBM can make a profit out of it then that is even better.
His gripe is that he emailed Linus Torvolds personally in the holiday season about a hole that can't really do much and he didn't get a reply? It's like emailing Bill Gates' personal email address with a vulnerability - put it in a different context and it's rediculous. The guy didn't obey the system and surprise surprise the linux world didn't stop and look his way in admiration.
But again, it's a pretty worthless "exploit". Microsoft will be laughed out of town if they try to bring that one up, especially after recent form. I wouldn't start dismissing linux now if I were you.
Up time can't be used to compare with linux (as far as I know the timer only goes up to 46 days {or is it 460?}). It can, incidentely, be used to compare with windows.
Slashdot Mirror
That doesn't make sense. You try to claim that Windows is a gaming platform (I assume that's what you meant by PC), but then you say that Linux will never be a gaming platform until nvidia open source their drivers. You do know that all windows video drivers are closed source don't you?
. . . You haven't tried to install UT2004 on linux yet have you? It's pretty much exactly the same as in Windows. I mean by this exactly down to the interface. You put in the CD and run setup and the same dialogue comes up. It is unfortunate that the nvidia drivers need to be run from the command line, but other than that they are automated. The command line is easy to get to anyway.
By the way, you say "plenty of time on your hands", but to install Mandrake Linux with the nvidia drivers, then install UT2004, takes less time than to install Windows XP then the nvidia drivers then install UT2004. Mandrake itself takes about half an hour (rounding up) to install while XP takes 45 mins (rounding down, it's more like 50 mins or more) to install. The nvidia drivers take about the same normally to install, but you don't have to restart the computer. UT2004 takes about the same amount of time to install.
Mandrake is easier to install than Windows XP. The nvidia drivers are slightly harder on linux, even though they take less time.
One of the things I most detest is when people assume that what they guess is right. Ignorance is not an excuse for badmouthing something when you don't have the information.
OO.Org doesn't try to be a clone of MS Office, it tries hard to be an office suite. Sorry if it's not exactly the same to what you're used to, because that's not what they're going for.
Saying OO.Org is a failure at being a MS Office clone is exactly like saying Firefox is a failure at being an Internet Explorer clone, because, after all, it doesn't have the same GUI and doesn't even include ActiveX.
it also allows them to utalize features that every other browser except IE (and perhaps lynx) has like transparant PNGs.
Let's say that there's a dangerous extension and a dangerous Active X protocol, both using the full arsonal of weapons to try and get you to download and run the software. Here's what would happen in a successful infiltration.
... I think there's a slight bit of difference there, don't you?.
Firefox Extension: You click the link. You get a dialogue about how dangerous the extension may be, and why you shouldn't install it. You are forced to wait for a certain amount of time before being able to download and install the extension. You then click "install now" and restart your browser.
Active X: You click the link.
My brother found Google the other day. That was really good cause I was wondering where it'd gotten off to.
Why? How are firefox extensions as risky as having the web page able to launch remote code or automatically download dangerous programs to the viewer's computer?
I chose IBM because it's the biggest linux money maker, but you're right it's not the best example. IBM do however make billions of dollars per year in linux related hardware, consultancy and software sales. Red Hat only makes a few million.
But anyway I wasn't being critical to the open source philosophies, I was just saying that it doesn't align with communist philosophies. I think anything that gives a good product itself for free or allows companies to give a better product for a lower cost is brilliant.
So you're complaining that the site won't display properly to people who can't use it anyway? It only gives an overview of the product and a location to download it should you want to . . . and that's bad?
This is a piece of software for linux that can only be used on linux. I don't see why not being able to view the software on Windows is a problem.
Which office suite is better is a subjective thing. A magazine I just read (PC Authority) had a comparison of "Microsoft Office clones" and, taking away price, it gave OO.Org the best out of the bunch. That truly surprised me. This is a new magazine from this month.
luckily I only play UT2004 and its multitude of mods!
It can get very complex - the problem is you need to crack the algorithm used to create the document, before you can emulate it.
Depends how you say "exploit" - perhaps that is a bad choise of words for me. Marx's meaning of the word pretty much meant gain money/power/advantage without giving equal money/power/advantage back. The GPL definitely allows that, and you just have to look at IBM to see how much money can be gained out of Open Source. Though it's not at the expense of the developers, it's not directly to their gain either.
I'm not saying "exploit" in the sense of using them outside the GPL, I'm saying exploit in terms of just making money.
Open Source, or at least the GPL, and to an even greater extreme, the BSD license, is extremely capitalistic. Marx wanted to stop the coorperations from exploiting the working class, yet the GPL is telling the coorperations "feel free to exploit out work"! There's nothing more anti-communism than that. However the creative license is perhaps different...
BUT when you look at the philosophies behind communism Marx is trying to prevent the coorperations from exploiting the working class. Doesn't open source/GPL give the extreme of this area, letting the coorperations do whatever they want with their code? You could say that Creative Commons is a communist license, disallowing commercial involvement, but definitely not the GPL!
How did you read that my argument had anything to do with unix?
Your post seems to miss my point in two ways: Firstly I was talking about Windows, not about any other operating system. I wasn't saying "You should use *nix because Internet Explorer has a vulnerable library!"
Secondly, now that you have brought unix up, Linux at least places no restrictions on the libraries that it uses, and has no absolutely mandatory libraries. You can disable or rewrite any library you want as long as you resolve dependancies. Though it might rule a few programs out you can always remove a library. I detest that in Windows you can't. That they are vulnerable or not has nothing to do with my argument - all I am saying is that you can't remove the libraries.
Let me make this clear, you can't fully remove IE *INCLUDING THE VULNERABLE LIBRARIES* from Windows XP or 2k without destroying your system. When I'm talking about Kazaa and Half-Life and Outlook etc, they don't use Iexplore.exe at all, they only use the libraries. Iexplore.exe is just a shell and does almost nothing but link to its libraries and add a few toolbars. The libraries contain the vulnerabilities, not Iexplore.exe.
how long was Firefox in BETA, even though they had what to 99% of people would be a perfectly usable and featureful browser.
I'm not sure how that's vender lock in. Vender lock in is making sure they only use your product. It would be just as easy to use another distrobution of linux that doesn't upgrade as quickly and unstabley such as Debian.
Nope, you have to use IE. It's integrated into the OS so tightly that there's nothing you can do about it. For example, if you use Half Life 2's Steam application, that uses IE quite frequently, and if you install Firefox it wont change engines for displaying the data suddenly. That is a bad example (you can't use the IE shell to browse to non-trustworthy sites), but other examples like in Kazaa you have a fully functioning IE shell operating.
But anyway, if you actually read the post that he wrote, I think you'll find that his logic didn't say if you run Firefox and don't use Outlook then Windows is a great OS to have.
not really. I'd bet that if you examine the patents they're giving out you'd find the areas that IBM wants good software for in linux for their coorperate services.
I'm not saying that with disapproval either - I think that anything that promotes open source is good, and if IBM can make a profit out of it then that is even better.
I assumed you meant that they are very good because they use OpenBSD.
sheesh. Read what the guy is saying.
His gripe is that he emailed Linus Torvolds personally in the holiday season about a hole that can't really do much and he didn't get a reply? It's like emailing Bill Gates' personal email address with a vulnerability - put it in a different context and it's rediculous. The guy didn't obey the system and surprise surprise the linux world didn't stop and look his way in admiration.
But again, it's a pretty worthless "exploit". Microsoft will be laughed out of town if they try to bring that one up, especially after recent form. I wouldn't start dismissing linux now if I were you.
Up time can't be used to compare with linux (as far as I know the timer only goes up to 46 days {or is it 460?}). It can, incidentely, be used to compare with windows.