3GHz quad core boxes will only become relevant to the discussion when the average user has one. Right now, I'd guess that 1.5Ghz is more like the average, with many users still using 750-800Mhz. Just because you have a bleeding edge motherboard and CPU (presuming from what you wrote that you do) doesn't mean that everybody does or soon will. My sister just bought a new computer because the motherboard on her old box fried. She went from 800Mhz to 2.5Ghz and is very happy with it TYVM. Of course, the first thing we did was reformat the drive to get rid of the pre-installed Windows iCandy (We're talking to the OEM about getting the Microsoft tax refunded.) and clone her existing Ubuntu installation over.
There's one important fact that I've not seen mentioned here: the test box had 2Gig RAM because Windows Vista is well known to need that much for acceptable performance. Ubuntu is very happy with 512Meg, or even less. One of the reasons that Ubuntu was faster is that, unlike Vista, it probably didn't need to use any swap during the benchmarks.
And as far as it being something to do with performance, it's the first performance example a users sees each day he uses his computer.
Really? I see how fast my desktop boots about once every few weeks because unless there's a new kernel, new video drivers or a power failure I have no reason to reboot my Fedora 9 box and leaving it on all night builds up the time at the WCG and Einstein@home.
There are very visible and acknowledged rejection quotas that the employees must meet.
This is something I've never heard of. I'd love to learn more about that; can you give a cite?
Re:Album title: Oval Office Party - Chiefs and Squ
on
The First E-President
·
· Score: 1
That's OK, we all make mistaques. BTW, I've read somewhere that one of the reasons Nixon resigned is that Goldwater told him, "Mr. President, I've been taking a poll: you have seven votes, and mine isn't one of them."
Good grief! They might even try to change the US Flag to a Goatse or Tubgirl motif.:)
No, they'd never go that far. They might, however, change our symbol from the American Eagle to a pony. OMG! PONIES!!1! LOTS AND LOTS OF PINK PONIES111!!!!!11!!!!!lll
Re:Album title: Oval Office Party - Chiefs and Squ
on
The First E-President
·
· Score: 1
Nah if they appealed Bill Clinton's impeachment they'll appeal Barack Obama's impeachment as well for the same reasons.
What makes you think an impeachment can be appealed? Who would hear it? The Supreme Court? They're the judges in the impeachment, they can't also hear an appeal, and there's nobody else left. If the President is successfully impeached, he's out, no ifs, ands or buts. Judging from what you've written, you think that Clinton's impeachment hearings before Congress were an appeal. They weren't, they were the impeachment itself. You clearly don't understand the process. Either your school skimped on teaching civics or you weren't listening.
Bill Clinton claimed that oral sex was not sexual relations by his definition.
No, you're wrong again. He was able to claim that oral sex wasn't sexual relations because they didn't fit the definition that the plaintiff's attorneys were using. They tried to box him in and outsmarted themselves. As far as Nixon is concerned, even his own party would have voted to impeach.
I don't disagree with your point, but I'd like to point out that you have the numbers wrong, with one too high, the other too low. Iowa class battleships have 16" guns, not 18. The bombardment shells they use are 2,200 Lb, of which 500 is high explosive. (The rest is there to keep it together until impact.) Armor piercing shells, which we've probably not used in decades, are 2,700 lb with only 150 of it devoted to payload.
This guy gives President Bush way too much credit.
Well, if they do, it's only fair. After all, the Democrats have held him responsible for any and everything that's gone bad for the last eight years, whether he's had any control over it or not. Giving him credit for this, even if he's not responsible is just evening things up a tad.
Bzzzzzzzzt! Wrong, but thank you for playing!
The OP does not, in fact, invoke Goodwin's Law. That only applies when a poster either calls somebody a Nazi or makes an unfavorable comparison between that person and either the Nazis or Hitler himself. Just mentioning Hitler doesn't count.
Time spent learning should be minimal if you already know how a word processor works.
That may be true now, but it wasn't back in the DOS days. Back then, every word processor had its own way of doing things. The menus were different as were the Control/Alt/Function key assignments. As an example, for some reason, WordPerfect used F3 for help instead of F1 and F7 for exit. Learning a new program meant learning how it did everything. One of the reasons WordStar was so popular was because its command key structure was so easy to learn that large numbers of other editors copied it. Almost everybody either had WordStar or, at least, an editor that emulated its commands so that if you didn't know somebody's main editor, there was probably one there that you did.
Unless the registrars of these domains are in Kentucky, the State of Kentucky has no jurisdiction over them and no way to enforce their decision. To paraphrase Andrew Jackson's famous comment, "The State of Kentucky has made its decision. Now, let's see them enforce it."
I'm not surprised. Note that I said that Linux was more secure than Windows, not that it was secure. And you'd be surprised how much protection you can get from a good multi-layer firewall. Back when I was running Windows, I had a firewall installed that not only blocked intrusion attempts, it blocked all outbound connections unless I'd told it that the program had permission to call out. It even had separate settings for a program to act as a client or a server. Thus, even if I did get infected, I could still stop the worm from phoning home. I also had a program that watched for certain types of dangerous activities, such as adding/removing services from the registry, or adding a program to be run once, at the next boot and asked for confirmation. Yes, it popped up, sometimes more than once, when I installed a program, but it wasn't that intrusive and I knew what it was doing.
But the firewall isn't going to stop you from getting infected by, say, visiting a website with malicious code on it...
Of course not, but so what? That's not the firewall's job. A firewall is there to keep intruders out and unauthorized programs from communicating with the outside world. Preventing infection isn't part of its job description and complaining that it doesn't do what it's not designed to do is a tad unfair.
I'd say we've got at least another 20 years of crap from just these systems
I'm not quite as pessimistic as you are. Consider that most of the people who's machines are on these botnets think that it's normal for a computer to get slower and slower as time goes on, and that there's nothing they can do about it. They don't know that it's possible to prevent their machines from bogging down, or that they can get them "tuned up" so they're running like new again. When it gets too bad, they buy a new one and start all over again. If (and it's a big if) there were a properly secure version of Windows, that's what they'd get. Not because it's secure, but because it would be the Latest and Greatest version and that's what they'd want. That would get rid of the worst offenders, and it wouldn't take more (I'd guess) than a few years.
Thank you. I haven't been involved with XP since about the time SP1 came out and then, I never had to work with the firewall. That's good to know. Now, if only Microsoft could close some of the many other well-known vulnerabilities, it might be worth looking at again.
I'm behind a cheap router, but I've managed to get Bittorrent working with no problems. I've also opened another (unspecified) port for a different service, so I know it's not that hard. Of course, I'm a computer geek, not a point and drool luser.
Well, you would be wrong. There have been lots of security holes found in linux and linux apps.
Yes, of course there are. However, nobody's using them to write malware for Linux and distributing it because they can get more infections and more money by targeting Windows. That's what I was talking about.
Because Unix is actually more secure than Windows.
Thanks! I was trying to avoid a holy war, and you may have just set off the land mine. I'm sure that when somebody sees enough profit in it, they'll find a way to target Linux/BSD, but until they do, it won't be a problem.
Bottom line, the luser is the problem, not the machine, not the operating system (god knows, Linux doesn't have a single virii or worm or anything for it, does it),.... It's the ID10T's.
As I said, there isn't any malware for Linux...yet. There will be, as soon as it becomes, as you point out, profitable. As far as your assertion about the delay in the firewall going up not being a factor, I disagree, but I won't argue the point because it's just my opinion and I don't have any facts to back it up. However, we all know that there are people out there scanning random IP addresses looking for open machines, and if they hit you before your firewall goes up, Game Over. Getting that firewall up first instead of last wont' stop infections completely, but there's no way it can hurt, and there's no good reason not to.
Busting the operators of this botnet isn't going to end the problem. It's going to continue as long as Joe The Plumber is surfing the net on a computer running an OS which is insecure by design. Even if it has a firewall, it's probably third-party software, and as such, doesn't start until after the network interface is up and running, leaving a huge (by computer standards) window of opportunity for the box to get pw0ned. And, of course, the same is true for any anti-virus running.
Now, personally I run Linux, so for right now, I don't have to worry. Of course, if Linux ever gets popular enough to put a real bite in Microsoft's monopoly that will change, but it's not vulnerable in the same way. Not only is it (more) secure by design, the firewall goes up before, not after the network interface, so there's no time that it's exposed to the network without protection.
Like it or not, most of the world's private computers are going to be running one form or another of Windows for the foreseeable future, and unless and until Redmond sets things so that there's a built-in firewall up and running while the box is still isolated, MS boxen are going to get pw0ned, and Joe The Plumber won't know that there's anything wrong except that his computer isn't as fast as it used to be, but he's accustomed to that by now anyway, and won't realize that it's a problem.
Why do you think you need a lawyer for something as trivial as registering a copyright? As you can see by checking the US Copyright office fee schedule, doing it on-line only costs $35, much less than an attorney would charge you just to discuss the issue.
Slashdot Mirror
3GHz quad core boxes will only become relevant to the discussion when the average user has one. Right now, I'd guess that 1.5Ghz is more like the average, with many users still using 750-800Mhz. Just because you have a bleeding edge motherboard and CPU (presuming from what you wrote that you do) doesn't mean that everybody does or soon will. My sister just bought a new computer because the motherboard on her old box fried. She went from 800Mhz to 2.5Ghz and is very happy with it TYVM. Of course, the first thing we did was reformat the drive to get rid of the pre-installed Windows iCandy (We're talking to the OEM about getting the Microsoft tax refunded.) and clone her existing Ubuntu installation over.
There's one important fact that I've not seen mentioned here: the test box had 2Gig RAM because Windows Vista is well known to need that much for acceptable performance. Ubuntu is very happy with 512Meg, or even less. One of the reasons that Ubuntu was faster is that, unlike Vista, it probably didn't need to use any swap during the benchmarks.
Really? I see how fast my desktop boots about once every few weeks because unless there's a new kernel, new video drivers or a power failure I have no reason to reboot my Fedora 9 box and leaving it on all night builds up the time at the WCG and Einstein@home.
If the Democrats are Microsoft friendly, then why are so many slashdotters anti-Microsoft and pro Democrat?
This is something I've never heard of. I'd love to learn more about that; can you give a cite?
That's OK, we all make mistaques. BTW, I've read somewhere that one of the reasons Nixon resigned is that Goldwater told him, "Mr. President, I've been taking a poll: you have seven votes, and mine isn't one of them."
In business, those who can, do.
Those who can't do, go into management.
Those with no management skills go into marketing.
No, they'd never go that far. They might, however, change our symbol from the American Eagle to a pony. OMG! PONIES!!1! LOTS AND LOTS OF PINK PONIES111!!!!!11!!!!!lll
What makes you think an impeachment can be appealed? Who would hear it? The Supreme Court? They're the judges in the impeachment, they can't also hear an appeal, and there's nobody else left. If the President is successfully impeached, he's out, no ifs, ands or buts. Judging from what you've written, you think that Clinton's impeachment hearings before Congress were an appeal. They weren't, they were the impeachment itself. You clearly don't understand the process. Either your school skimped on teaching civics or you weren't listening.
Bill Clinton claimed that oral sex was not sexual relations by his definition.
No, you're wrong again. He was able to claim that oral sex wasn't sexual relations because they didn't fit the definition that the plaintiff's attorneys were using. They tried to box him in and outsmarted themselves. As far as Nixon is concerned, even his own party would have voted to impeach.
I don't disagree with your point, but I'd like to point out that you have the numbers wrong, with one too high, the other too low. Iowa class battleships have 16" guns, not 18. The bombardment shells they use are 2,200 Lb, of which 500 is high explosive. (The rest is there to keep it together until impact.) Armor piercing shells, which we've probably not used in decades, are 2,700 lb with only 150 of it devoted to payload.
Well, if they do, it's only fair. After all, the Democrats have held him responsible for any and everything that's gone bad for the last eight years, whether he's had any control over it or not. Giving him credit for this, even if he's not responsible is just evening things up a tad.
OK, now we can invoke Godwin. Thank you.
Bzzzzzzzzt! Wrong, but thank you for playing!
The OP does not, in fact, invoke Goodwin's Law. That only applies when a poster either calls somebody a Nazi or makes an unfavorable comparison between that person and either the Nazis or Hitler himself. Just mentioning Hitler doesn't count.
That may be true now, but it wasn't back in the DOS days. Back then, every word processor had its own way of doing things. The menus were different as were the Control/Alt/Function key assignments. As an example, for some reason, WordPerfect used F3 for help instead of F1 and F7 for exit. Learning a new program meant learning how it did everything. One of the reasons WordStar was so popular was because its command key structure was so easy to learn that large numbers of other editors copied it. Almost everybody either had WordStar or, at least, an editor that emulated its commands so that if you didn't know somebody's main editor, there was probably one there that you did.
Unless the registrars of these domains are in Kentucky, the State of Kentucky has no jurisdiction over them and no way to enforce their decision. To paraphrase Andrew Jackson's famous comment, "The State of Kentucky has made its decision. Now, let's see them enforce it."
But the firewall isn't going to stop you from getting infected by, say, visiting a website with malicious code on it...
Of course not, but so what? That's not the firewall's job. A firewall is there to keep intruders out and unauthorized programs from communicating with the outside world. Preventing infection isn't part of its job description and complaining that it doesn't do what it's not designed to do is a tad unfair.
I'm not quite as pessimistic as you are. Consider that most of the people who's machines are on these botnets think that it's normal for a computer to get slower and slower as time goes on, and that there's nothing they can do about it. They don't know that it's possible to prevent their machines from bogging down, or that they can get them "tuned up" so they're running like new again. When it gets too bad, they buy a new one and start all over again. If (and it's a big if) there were a properly secure version of Windows, that's what they'd get. Not because it's secure, but because it would be the Latest and Greatest version and that's what they'd want. That would get rid of the worst offenders, and it wouldn't take more (I'd guess) than a few years.
None sing hymns to breath, but oh, to be without it!
Thank you. I haven't been involved with XP since about the time SP1 came out and then, I never had to work with the firewall. That's good to know. Now, if only Microsoft could close some of the many other well-known vulnerabilities, it might be worth looking at again.
I'm behind a cheap router, but I've managed to get Bittorrent working with no problems. I've also opened another (unspecified) port for a different service, so I know it's not that hard. Of course, I'm a computer geek, not a point and drool luser.
Yes, of course there are. However, nobody's using them to write malware for Linux and distributing it because they can get more infections and more money by targeting Windows. That's what I was talking about.
Thanks! I was trying to avoid a holy war, and you may have just set off the land mine. I'm sure that when somebody sees enough profit in it, they'll find a way to target Linux/BSD, but until they do, it won't be a problem.
As I said, there isn't any malware for Linux...yet. There will be, as soon as it becomes, as you point out, profitable. As far as your assertion about the delay in the firewall going up not being a factor, I disagree, but I won't argue the point because it's just my opinion and I don't have any facts to back it up. However, we all know that there are people out there scanning random IP addresses looking for open machines, and if they hit you before your firewall goes up, Game Over. Getting that firewall up first instead of last wont' stop infections completely, but there's no way it can hurt, and there's no good reason not to.
Now, personally I run Linux, so for right now, I don't have to worry. Of course, if Linux ever gets popular enough to put a real bite in Microsoft's monopoly that will change, but it's not vulnerable in the same way. Not only is it (more) secure by design, the firewall goes up before, not after the network interface, so there's no time that it's exposed to the network without protection.
Like it or not, most of the world's private computers are going to be running one form or another of Windows for the foreseeable future, and unless and until Redmond sets things so that there's a built-in firewall up and running while the box is still isolated, MS boxen are going to get pw0ned, and Joe The Plumber won't know that there's anything wrong except that his computer isn't as fast as it used to be, but he's accustomed to that by now anyway, and won't realize that it's a problem.
Why do you think you need a lawyer for something as trivial as registering a copyright? As you can see by checking the US Copyright office fee schedule, doing it on-line only costs $35, much less than an attorney would charge you just to discuss the issue.