I know the unix file hierarchy well, but I've always thought it was arranged haphazardly. Why are there six different places for system executables? (/bin,/sbin,/usr/bin,/usr/sbin,/usr/local/bin,/usr/local/sbin)? That's not even counting the alternative directories that some programs like to be installed under like/opt, or X11 programs.
Perhaps the most interesting thought regarding this is that if it were Windows, people would be ragging on it left and right. Microsoft and its "haphazard" filesystem with "six different places for system executables."
But it's Linux, so it's okay because there's a so-called filesystem standard.
Oh, that's right; you didn't read the article. And everyone making their lame LCD jokes didn't either. A quick glance at the article will reveal to you Slashbots that it's not LCD.
Okay, so it was a dupe and the editor points it out. But did he even read the article? The headline is completely wrong. Slashdot has been quite bad this year.
I'll either be ignored, modded down, or the self-righteous Slashbot defenders will jump on me, declaring it a-okay for Slashdot to post incorrect headlines and misleading summaries because I can go somewhere else. Most of those people are actually subscribers attempting to justify their payment of money to these people.
Finally, you say something I agree with. Both people are idiots.
However, I still enjoy pointing out the hypocrisy of michael's cybersquatting, even if censorware.net is doing just fine. It's the principle of it. Michael has no need nor reason to maintain his stranglehold on the website. His only motivation is to bash Seth. It's ridiculous and childish.
I don't give two shits and a fuck about their spat, really. I just hate cybersquatters. They deprive things from other people that they don't need.
In that case, no cybersquatting took place, either.
Go to a little place called http://www.censorware.org. Unlike the unproven stalking claims, michael is freely cybersquatting Censorware.org to this day. Anyone can go there and see he's turned it into a bizarre page about his arch nemesis. He is clearly cybersquatting--you can go there yourself and see it with your own eyes. Tell me what purpose it serves for him to continuously renew the domain like that.
"Cybersquatting" accusations are bandied about much too freely in this day and age, like "rape."
No, they're not.
See, we can both play the "personal websites are bullshit" game.
I'm glad you admit michael has turned Censorware.org into his personal website of bullshit.
Either that or you have to admit both sites are true.
Why do I have to admit that? Michael is clearly cybersquatting. I don't care about his stupid little spat with Seth what's-his-name. On one hand, we've got michael's baseless claims for "stalking." On the other hand, we have clear claims that he takes over websites and is cybersquatting. The advantage the latter has is that you can see for yourself.
Or admit you are Seth, and therefore know the true story (from your side). Which is it?:-)
Admit it; you think I have some sort of biased agenda and have thought so all along. Sorry to burst your bubble. It's simply that obvious that michael is cybersquatting.
Unless, of course, you know of a more reliable source for this information, such as a major news outlet.
Nope. I don't need one. All I have to do is type "www.censorware.org" into my browser's address bar, hit the Enter key, and the page will load, and I can immediately see that michael is cybersquatting the website for personal reasons and spite. It's that simple.
Actually, it is your idiocy that amuses me. Clearly, the point of my reply--Slashbot double standards when it comes to bloat--flew over your head and slid down the wall, leaving a sticky trail behind it.
It doesn't matter what the process sizes are. My point was how easily people tolerate Emacs bloat yet accuse every single Microsoft product of the same.
You obviously have not participated in any of the infamous "modbombed" threads that have been critical of Slashdot or an editor (michael...).
I imagine if this got as many replies as "The Post" did, we'd have "The Post II" on our hands.
For those curious--why do I have the sig I do? Because I disagree with michael's cybersquatting of www.censorware.org. I read both sides' accounts of what happened, and the fact still remains that michael took down the website for no reason and is sitting on it for no reason. So when he makes his obvious quips and digs in article summaries and modbombs people's threads down, it affects my opinion of him even more. A lot of people at Slashdot really don't like him...and that's not because they're friends of Seth what's-his-name. I dislike his double standards as an editor and his obvious baiting, and I dislike that he is a cybersquatter.
You have bizarre rantings, mispellings, and a bias hidden behind the name Anonymous Coward.
Me? I have the facts of SecurityFocus on my side, rendering all of your rubbish irrelevant. Just because you have bad drivers or don't know how to configure your Windows machine correctly isn't anybody else's problem.
It's not slashdot. That's the headline on this story. Tell the mirror they're lying, not slashdot.
Slashdot posted the link. Look at the headline for the posted link.
Next.
michael, stalked by seth.
Who hasn't read that already? The question still remains why michael is cybersquatting on www.censorware.org. Cybersquatting has been criticized by Slashdot before, yet michael himself does it. You can disagree if you want (though I feel it's clear michael acted in a very odd fashion, taking the site down and so forth), but you can't change the fact that he's cybersquatting for no reason other than spite, which is incredibly childish considering the cause of the site was supposed to be pure. He renewed the domain. Why? He'll never tell.
I love when people post something misinformed. It's easier to deal with them.
Did you even read it? Harry didn't review the movie. It was sent in by someone who saw the first screener of the movie.
AICN had the first Matrix Reloaded review. And then added more and more throughout the week. Slashdot is claiming this is the first one when AICN has had at least seven up for a week now.
What is this, the week of micheal? I'm tired of seeing his non-stop articles day after day and his little side editorials he likes to slip in.
I guess I just don't agree with the man on a moral level...see my sig. But it seems he likes to start shit and then play victim. I've noticed that since the first Longhorn article, which spawned wild discussions, they're trying to keep up the page hits with continuous Microsoft coverage because it baits the Slashbots who love to jump on any opportunity to post Microsoft conspiracies and type dollar signs in the company's name. It's trite. As someone posted elsewhere, Windows reports less annual bugs than Linux, but reading Slashdot's front page, you would get a completely opposite impression. That's why you have all these Slashbots who act as if it is proven fact that Linux is more secure and has few bugs, simply because their worldview is taken from the front pages of Slashdot. It creates an anti-Microsoft bias in everyone which isn't based in fact, but instead is based on Slashdot headlines!
I feel there is a clear agenda at work to post Microsoft flamebait and get page hits.
Actually, there are those using Windows Server 2003 as a desktop. DirectX, theming, and so forth are all supported, and because the operating system over all is faster (particularly when booting), there are people who have written guides for converting Windows Server 2003 for desktop use.
Longhorn won't be based on Windows XP's code; it will be branched from Windows Server 2003's. So it's not as crazy as it sounds. I'd be willing to try it.
I'm curious how this article became Slashdot news. The last article mentioned the 2005 release date, and it has been common knowledge for a long time now that 2005 was the year Microsoft was slating for as the release date. More informative news would have been this preview of Longhorn's 3D compositing graphics technology that was shown to Paul Thurrot of WinInformant at WinHEC.
It leads me to believe Slashdot just wanted another Longhorn article on the front page due to the wild comments the last one garnered. Gotta get those page hits.
What does Microsoft's marketing department have to do with anything?
If managers don't see the effects of using such software--i.e., holes and security flaws (though Linux has many more that don't get the headlines)--then the blame still lays on the company, not Microsoft. And if sysadmins were running unpatched, net-connected servers--guess whose fault that is?
Nobody is forcing a gun to anybody's heads to use Microsoft software.
Slashdot Mirror
What part of "system executables" did you miss?
Next.
I know the unix file hierarchy well, but I've always thought it was arranged haphazardly. Why are there six different places for system executables? (/bin, /sbin, /usr/bin,/usr/sbin, /usr/local/bin, /usr/local/sbin)? That's not even counting the alternative directories that some programs like to be installed under like /opt, or X11 programs.
Perhaps the most interesting thought regarding this is that if it were Windows, people would be ragging on it left and right. Microsoft and its "haphazard" filesystem with "six different places for system executables."
But it's Linux, so it's okay because there's a so-called filesystem standard.
What is so funny about "/Winnt/System32?" What an obvious and unclever joke. Slashbots fall over themselves trying to mod up stuff like this.
Haha. "/Winnt/System32." That's funny.
When the streets are convoluted and illogical, sometimes it makes sense to remap them.
It's an obvious concept to rationalize, so I can only assume you're just trolling.
Paper thin LCDs?
Oh, that's right; you didn't read the article. And everyone making their lame LCD jokes didn't either. A quick glance at the article will reveal to you Slashbots that it's not LCD.
Okay, so it was a dupe and the editor points it out. But did he even read the article? The headline is completely wrong. Slashdot has been quite bad this year.
I'll either be ignored, modded down, or the self-righteous Slashbot defenders will jump on me, declaring it a-okay for Slashdot to post incorrect headlines and misleading summaries because I can go somewhere else. Most of those people are actually subscribers attempting to justify their payment of money to these people.
Next.
Finally, you say something I agree with. Both people are idiots.
However, I still enjoy pointing out the hypocrisy of michael's cybersquatting, even if censorware.net is doing just fine. It's the principle of it. Michael has no need nor reason to maintain his stranglehold on the website. His only motivation is to bash Seth. It's ridiculous and childish.
I don't give two shits and a fuck about their spat, really. I just hate cybersquatters. They deprive things from other people that they don't need.
In that case, no cybersquatting took place, either.
:-)
Go to a little place called http://www.censorware.org. Unlike the unproven stalking claims, michael is freely cybersquatting Censorware.org to this day. Anyone can go there and see he's turned it into a bizarre page about his arch nemesis. He is clearly cybersquatting--you can go there yourself and see it with your own eyes. Tell me what purpose it serves for him to continuously renew the domain like that.
"Cybersquatting" accusations are bandied about much too freely in this day and age, like "rape."
No, they're not.
See, we can both play the "personal websites are bullshit" game.
I'm glad you admit michael has turned Censorware.org into his personal website of bullshit.
Either that or you have to admit both sites are true.
Why do I have to admit that? Michael is clearly cybersquatting. I don't care about his stupid little spat with Seth what's-his-name. On one hand, we've got michael's baseless claims for "stalking." On the other hand, we have clear claims that he takes over websites and is cybersquatting. The advantage the latter has is that you can see for yourself.
Or admit you are Seth, and therefore know the true story (from your side). Which is it?
Admit it; you think I have some sort of biased agenda and have thought so all along. Sorry to burst your bubble. It's simply that obvious that michael is cybersquatting.
Unless, of course, you know of a more reliable source for this information, such as a major news outlet.
Nope. I don't need one. All I have to do is type "www.censorware.org" into my browser's address bar, hit the Enter key, and the page will load, and I can immediately see that michael is cybersquatting the website for personal reasons and spite. It's that simple.
Next.
Good thing no stalking took place.
"Stalking" accusations are bandied about much too freely in this day and age, like "rape."
Nobody should ever hijack a well-intentioned website and hold it for no reason other than spite.
Another thing I disagree with is that there was "stalking" at all.
Gee. Yet another Windows article intended as flamebait for anti-Microsoft Slashbots. Not only that, but notice how editorializing the headline is.
Is there a clear FUD campaign that has suddenly been initiated against Longhorn?
Actually, it is your idiocy that amuses me. Clearly, the point of my reply--Slashbot double standards when it comes to bloat--flew over your head and slid down the wall, leaving a sticky trail behind it.
It doesn't matter what the process sizes are. My point was how easily people tolerate Emacs bloat yet accuse every single Microsoft product of the same.
Next.
You obviously have not participated in any of the infamous "modbombed" threads that have been critical of Slashdot or an editor (michael...).
I imagine if this got as many replies as "The Post" did, we'd have "The Post II" on our hands.
For those curious--why do I have the sig I do? Because I disagree with michael's cybersquatting of www.censorware.org. I read both sides' accounts of what happened, and the fact still remains that michael took down the website for no reason and is sitting on it for no reason. So when he makes his obvious quips and digs in article summaries and modbombs people's threads down, it affects my opinion of him even more. A lot of people at Slashdot really don't like him...and that's not because they're friends of Seth what's-his-name. I dislike his double standards as an editor and his obvious baiting, and I dislike that he is a cybersquatter.
You have bizarre rantings, mispellings, and a bias hidden behind the name Anonymous Coward.
Me? I have the facts of SecurityFocus on my side, rendering all of your rubbish irrelevant. Just because you have bad drivers or don't know how to configure your Windows machine correctly isn't anybody else's problem.
Next.
It's not slashdot. That's the headline on this story. Tell the mirror they're lying, not slashdot.
Slashdot posted the link. Look at the headline for the posted link.
Next.
michael, stalked by seth.
Who hasn't read that already? The question still remains why michael is cybersquatting on www.censorware.org. Cybersquatting has been criticized by Slashdot before, yet michael himself does it. You can disagree if you want (though I feel it's clear michael acted in a very odd fashion, taking the site down and so forth), but you can't change the fact that he's cybersquatting for no reason other than spite, which is incredibly childish considering the cause of the site was supposed to be pure. He renewed the domain. Why? He'll never tell.
I love when people post something misinformed. It's easier to deal with them.
Did you even read it? Harry didn't review the movie. It was sent in by someone who saw the first screener of the movie.
AICN had the first Matrix Reloaded review. And then added more and more throughout the week. Slashdot is claiming this is the first one when AICN has had at least seven up for a week now.
Next.
What is this, the week of micheal? I'm tired of seeing his non-stop articles day after day and his little side editorials he likes to slip in.
I guess I just don't agree with the man on a moral level...see my sig. But it seems he likes to start shit and then play victim. I've noticed that since the first Longhorn article, which spawned wild discussions, they're trying to keep up the page hits with continuous Microsoft coverage because it baits the Slashbots who love to jump on any opportunity to post Microsoft conspiracies and type dollar signs in the company's name. It's trite. As someone posted elsewhere, Windows reports less annual bugs than Linux, but reading Slashdot's front page, you would get a completely opposite impression. That's why you have all these Slashbots who act as if it is proven fact that Linux is more secure and has few bugs, simply because their worldview is taken from the front pages of Slashdot. It creates an anti-Microsoft bias in everyone which isn't based in fact, but instead is based on Slashdot headlines!
I feel there is a clear agenda at work to post Microsoft flamebait and get page hits.
Awesome; we're recycling bad jokes from the last iLoo article.
iCrap software suite! How clever!
AICN had the first review of Matrix Reloaded online quite a while ago. I don't know who Slashdot is trying to fool.
AICN has been running reviews all week, in fact. Sigh.
Actually, there are those using Windows Server 2003 as a desktop. DirectX, theming, and so forth are all supported, and because the operating system over all is faster (particularly when booting), there are people who have written guides for converting Windows Server 2003 for desktop use.
Longhorn won't be based on Windows XP's code; it will be branched from Windows Server 2003's. So it's not as crazy as it sounds. I'd be willing to try it.
I'm curious how this article became Slashdot news. The last article mentioned the 2005 release date, and it has been common knowledge for a long time now that 2005 was the year Microsoft was slating for as the release date. More informative news would have been this preview of Longhorn's 3D compositing graphics technology that was shown to Paul Thurrot of WinInformant at WinHEC.
It leads me to believe Slashdot just wanted another Longhorn article on the front page due to the wild comments the last one garnered. Gotta get those page hits.
What does Microsoft's marketing department have to do with anything?
If managers don't see the effects of using such software--i.e., holes and security flaws (though Linux has many more that don't get the headlines)--then the blame still lays on the company, not Microsoft. And if sysadmins were running unpatched, net-connected servers--guess whose fault that is?
Nobody is forcing a gun to anybody's heads to use Microsoft software.
Next.
What does that have to do anything? It just means Microsoft has stupid sysadmins like everyone else. Oops.
Do you know what a "design document" is?
Next.
Isn't your job as a sysadmin to "evaluate, install, test, and support" the networks you run?
Face it. Running unpatched servers connected to the net are the sysadmins' faults. Not Microsoft's. Nobody's forcing them to use Microsoft software.