If you run the 'Run As' service. But you know as well as I that the default install does not force users to create a profile with delimited permissions, nor does it warn against running as admin as near every Linux install does. By design.
I agree with you but it's one in a....what? , a hundred thousand? a million? typical Windows user who runs their box with anything but 'admin' permissions by Microsoft design.
What are you talking about? mi2g proclaiming the "World's Safest OS" by discarding malware is dishonest and dangerous, not pointing out that flaw. It's a dishonest justifiction for removing tens, or hundreds, of millions of MS data points to pull 15k Linux ones to fore. "World's", "Safest" and "OS" are terms with a very specific connotation when conjoined in the English language, mi2g is using NewSpeak. And frankly, their results are contradicted in the popular press every week.
That doesn't mean there isn't anything in the study of value, and the Mac World article points out mi2g attributes the higher level of Linux penetration of a specific type to poor retraining in transitioning organizations. However, mi2g's real reason for advertising the "World's Safest OS" can be found right here by following the 'continues' link. (direct linking disabled apparently)
"The "Concerned" in UCS is a red-flag in any case.
So I get this straight, you'd only trust a "Union of Apathetic Scientists" who in spite of it still manage to bring force important issues into the public eye? Wouldn't that make them self-contradictory?
The alternative is scientists who happen to stumble apon the alledged distortions of the Bush administration, but I know that isn't what you mean since you obviously read the articles and know that's exactly what happened. The distortions were brought to the UCS by other scientists working in the fields affected.
60. The number od scientists who signed is 60. The level of 'research' required to unearth this (sentence #1 of the linked article) suggests just how much people here buy into the scientific method.
It was also inevitable. The concepts of OSS and the GPL are easy to support when the product has little value, but the Linux, X and Apache code bases (see SCO) are starting to amass significant monetary worth. As core elements become industry standards you can bet your ass the next battle will be license jigging, groups trying assert control. Demanding strict GPL compatibility seems the only way to guard against it. Those elsewhere who claim the development community should bend for the sake of quicker Linux acceptance are short sighted.
I don't really understand this. If code is released under GPL its reuse is subject to the constraints of the GPL. How does this work if the same code is dual licensed in a different project? Couldn't a developer simply grab the 'GPL version' of the code if they don't like the second license, in effect rendering the non-GPL clauses ineffectual?
Beats Samsung. As their drive manufacturing wound down they released to the market a 20 gig model most charitably described as a rotating code grenade. Within a year 60% failed in critical systems shipped to us by a third-party system integrator. The supplier walked away from it and Samsung's best offers were to replace the defective drive with a rebuilt unit of the same model (even though there were alternate models in the line), or a cash refund on the order of $30 CDN if I recall.
No one here thought that just compensation for rebuilding RAID 5 arrays 50 miles at 2 AM taken out when the Samsung boot drive went corrupt. Between that and getting caught shipping 'select' LCD monitors to reviewers, we still won't touch Samsung.
It doesn't take more than the first few paragraphs of the linked article to see SCO's claim that their code, expanded on throughout the 2.4.x series, comprises significant portions of 2.6.x and is the reason for its improved performance.
The Mac customer does not even want to know what a driver is or does.
Not a valid comparison. Mac achieves this by 'monopoly' control of the hardware. This isn't an option for Windows and even less so for OS's such as Linux or NetBSD, designed to support as many architectures as possible.
I agree it's about the customer but not with your implicit assumption about them. Macs are the superior solution for a delimited subset of users, those too busy, unwilling, or incapable of tinkering with their machines, willing to live with the attendant limitations and pay the premium for ease of use. It supports them extremely well but by no means is the best solution for all purposes, as Apple's market share makes obvious.
The market adjusts, as it has in every other industry. Programmers are just the latest to feel the pinch of a new production process, as did labourers when automated manufacturing systems (and let's not forget the associated computerized controls which made it possible) arrived. Large machinery did the same to farm labour. Twenty years ago in my field it wasn't uncommon for four technicians to maintain a single operation. With the advances in technology we four now support more than five times that, over a much larger geographical area, without damage to our personal lives.
The questions programmers are asking have been answered over and over, industry by industry. The answer is, there will be few programmers using more efficient development means to create better product. It happens to all but the 'commodities' among us (artists, celebrities, etc.).
The solution seems simple: a group of third-party software auditors working for OSS who are familiar with the leaked code but can't submit or consult on patches. This also demonstrates intent on the part of OSS developers to avoid contamination. In fact, it's probably high time anyway, MS code leak or not.
"So the point is, we need something equivalent to "Add/Remove Programs" that just *works* on all linux distros."
The only way that can happen is to choose between source and binary install processes as a standard, almost certainly meaning giving up user compiles and port systems with configuration settings for architecture and dependency. Many, many people aren't willing to be forced into binary-only installs, so you'll never see "Add/Remove Programs" across all distros.
Why does 'l33t' only shows up in this forum when used as a pejorative, yet people continue to trot out this Linux stereotype? Help! The fat, bearded unwashed are after me!
True, but this only applies to existing businesses. New businesses don't have the legacy overhead and can choose to start with Linux or Windows equally. Many will find the lack of expensive forced upgrades and closed document formats appealing. The established businesses which remain on Windows must compete with those which chose Linux. They might well be better off capitalizing the conversion, as they did instituting Windows, and banking on reduced long-term operating to offset the cost.
The opposite is more true. Microsoft's business case relies on the high dollar return per package sold. Which of their high yield customers feel they deserve to be treated less well than the Thais? Everyone will want price reductions now.
If policy allows, do yourself a favour and replace 95 on that server with e-smith linux. It was recently spun back to the community by Mitel and I've yet to see a more intuitive, simple Samba server.
I wish one of the file managers would take it a step further and add simply editable context menus based on file type, as did the GTK1 Emelfm FM years ago. One of the most efficient features I ever used.
"I know this is/. and all, but can we keep the anti-MS FUD in check?"
It happens to me all the time, on the 50+ XP and 2k boxes I admin plus the 2 I use at home. Did you reset your double-click speed in the mouse setup? A criticism is only FUD when it's untrue.
Slashdot Mirror
If you run the 'Run As' service. But you know as well as I that the default install does not force users to create a profile with delimited permissions, nor does it warn against running as admin as near every Linux install does. By design.
I can't recall the last time I saw a desktop distro running sendmail by default, and telnet? Give me a break.
I agree with you but it's one in a ....what? , a hundred thousand? a million? typical Windows user who runs their box with anything but 'admin' permissions by Microsoft design.
That doesn't mean there isn't anything in the study of value, and the Mac World article points out mi2g attributes the higher level of Linux penetration of a specific type to poor retraining in transitioning organizations. However, mi2g's real reason for advertising the "World's Safest OS" can be found right here by following the 'continues' link. (direct linking disabled apparently)
So I get this straight, you'd only trust a "Union of Apathetic Scientists" who in spite of it still manage to bring force important issues into the public eye? Wouldn't that make them self-contradictory?
The alternative is scientists who happen to stumble apon the alledged distortions of the Bush administration, but I know that isn't what you mean since you obviously read the articles and know that's exactly what happened. The distortions were brought to the UCS by other scientists working in the fields affected.
So what did you mean?
60. The number od scientists who signed is 60. The level of 'research' required to unearth this (sentence #1 of the linked article) suggests just how much people here buy into the scientific method.
It was also inevitable. The concepts of OSS and the GPL are easy to support when the product has little value, but the Linux, X and Apache code bases (see SCO) are starting to amass significant monetary worth. As core elements become industry standards you can bet your ass the next battle will be license jigging, groups trying assert control. Demanding strict GPL compatibility seems the only way to guard against it. Those elsewhere who claim the development community should bend for the sake of quicker Linux acceptance are short sighted.
I don't really understand this. If code is released under GPL its reuse is subject to the constraints of the GPL. How does this work if the same code is dual licensed in a different project? Couldn't a developer simply grab the 'GPL version' of the code if they don't like the second license, in effect rendering the non-GPL clauses ineffectual?
No one here thought that just compensation for rebuilding RAID 5 arrays 50 miles at 2 AM taken out when the Samsung boot drive went corrupt. Between that and getting caught shipping 'select' LCD monitors to reviewers, we still won't touch Samsung.
It doesn't take more than the first few paragraphs of the linked article to see SCO's claim that their code, expanded on throughout the 2.4.x series, comprises significant portions of 2.6.x and is the reason for its improved performance.
Not a valid comparison. Mac achieves this by 'monopoly' control of the hardware. This isn't an option for Windows and even less so for OS's such as Linux or NetBSD, designed to support as many architectures as possible.
I agree it's about the customer but not with your implicit assumption about them. Macs are the superior solution for a delimited subset of users, those too busy, unwilling, or incapable of tinkering with their machines, willing to live with the attendant limitations and pay the premium for ease of use. It supports them extremely well but by no means is the best solution for all purposes, as Apple's market share makes obvious.
The questions programmers are asking have been answered over and over, industry by industry. The answer is, there will be few programmers using more efficient development means to create better product. It happens to all but the 'commodities' among us (artists, celebrities, etc.).
And how many died, often completely exterminated, in the process each time. Analogies can be stretched to far. ;)
The solution seems simple: a group of third-party software auditors working for OSS who are familiar with the leaked code but can't submit or consult on patches. This also demonstrates intent on the part of OSS developers to avoid contamination. In fact, it's probably high time anyway, MS code leak or not.
Why? SCO claims the presence of SCO code in a GPL product makes all of it proprietary. Much more bizarre.
I'm curious. Any references?
The only way that can happen is to choose between source and binary install processes as a standard, almost certainly meaning giving up user compiles and port systems with configuration settings for architecture and dependency. Many, many people aren't willing to be forced into binary-only installs, so you'll never see "Add/Remove Programs" across all distros.
Why does 'l33t' only shows up in this forum when used as a pejorative, yet people continue to trot out this Linux stereotype?
Help! The fat, bearded unwashed are after me!
True, but this only applies to existing businesses. New businesses don't have the legacy overhead and can choose to start with Linux or Windows equally. Many will find the lack of expensive forced upgrades and closed document formats appealing. The established businesses which remain on Windows must compete with those which chose Linux. They might well be better off capitalizing the conversion, as they did instituting Windows, and banking on reduced long-term operating to offset the cost.
No, the idea is to find the genius without the degree. The one with will want more money. ;)
The opposite is more true. Microsoft's business case relies on the high dollar return per package sold. Which of their high yield customers feel they deserve to be treated less well than the Thais? Everyone will want price reductions now.
If policy allows, do yourself a favour and replace 95 on that server with e-smith linux. It was recently spun back to the community by Mitel and I've yet to see a more intuitive, simple Samba server.
I wish one of the file managers would take it a step further and add simply editable context menus based on file type, as did the GTK1 Emelfm FM years ago. One of the most efficient features I ever used.
I haven't made a symbolic link for a Moz plugin in years. Sounds like a bug in the distro package, it's certainly not indicative of all Moz installs.
It happens to me all the time, on the 50+ XP and 2k boxes I admin plus the 2 I use at home. Did you reset your double-click speed in the mouse setup? A criticism is only FUD when it's untrue.