And this made what difference? No I'm not a teacher, but I was a student when they started bringing computers into the classroom. They did nothing. No one knew how to use them, the teachers didn't know how to teach with them and in the end, because they were such an expense for the school, NO ONE was allowed to touch them. Everyone thought they would be the best thing in the world and the school would start churning out Einstein's, but the novelty wore off pretty soon.
Computers in the schools of developed nations are not some magical silver bullet that makes lazy students A+ students or better students at all, and they won't be some magical force in developing nations either.
Bullshit. It is not a reasonable assumption for the average person to assume something they download will have complete access to do anything it wants. Ask the average person if double clicking on something called "funny_picture" can and should be able to give someone access to all the e-mail addresses they have stored.
Is that so? Ask the average person how a computer works. I doubt you'll get any sort of coherent answer. To the average user, a computer is a magical white box that they don't understand. They will pretty much believe whatever you tell them about computers. Until people learn that computers are not a toy and to use it properly you do have to learn something about it, users are the largest problem.
Ever run SELinux?
Ever seen the average user set up SELinux or any other type of ACL? We're talking about people that don't maintain computers professionally remember. It is more reasonable to expect users to format their system every month or so then it is to have them set up good, or even useful ACL's. These are the types of people that just say 'Yes' to everything. On top of all that ACL's require setting up by someone with a good understanding of what the computer will do, what each application does and exactly what should and should not be allowed. Not only does the average user not fall into that catagory, but most system admins, techs and developers don't either.
If an application you want to have access to that data can access it, an application running under the same or higher credentials that you don't want to have access to that data can access it. OS X and Linux/UNIX might be a little better designed then Windows, but they do not magically know what should and should not be happening.
Most of virus and spyware infections are the users fault. Computers are meant to do what the user tells them to do, most users tell computers to do stupid things so they do them.
The question was stupid anyway. He's not a mind reader, he doesn't know what people would choose when given the option. Other then the obvious answers, "what their used to," and "what the default is," I have no idea what the person asking the question expected.
Trojan requests and loads a DLL from the author's command-and-control server. This then downloads a pirated copy of Kaspersky AntiVirus for WinGate into a concealed directory on the infected system.
Oh well that's perfectly trustworthy isn't it. I guess we can just leave this one alone, it won't do anything it shouldn't. Is everyone who is saying this is a good thing really that stupid?
And none of that matters since people don't buy OS's that won't run applications they use. If eye candy mattered at all people wouldn't have bought XP, they would have got Mac's.
No, society allows people to disassociate themselves from any consequence of their actions, making nothing anyones fault and allowing people to expect that everyone around them will clean up after them.
No, its not possible. It's true (and I know) that OpenLDAP, Kerberos, Bind and a Network File system will give you a some of the functionality of the AD, if all you want is SSO and someway to centralize Automount settings and Printers. However doing DFS is not simple, pushing updates and revoking them is not as straight forward or robust, as the other poster pointed out and there is nothing like Group Policy.
This project seems to just provide another way to push applications to systems, presumably with the same limitation as any other, excepting maybe for Zen, where all your systems must be from the same vendor. It's from Google though so it must be gold.
What happens if/when Oracle deicded to fork the kernel to better support their Db? What happens if/when those forks start to limit my options? Voila-- I am at the mercy of Oracle for support, compatability, and expandability
How is this situation is different from the position you are in now running a Oracle DB? Only Oracle can support you now.
Is that so? That's not even the problem I was looking for, which also went from Linux 2.6 to at least as far back as 2.0. There are lots of spots of a OSS program that are not glamorous to fix so no one ever looks at them if they appear to be working.
Slashdot Mirror
And this made what difference? No I'm not a teacher, but I was a student when they started bringing computers into the classroom. They did nothing. No one knew how to use them, the teachers didn't know how to teach with them and in the end, because they were such an expense for the school, NO ONE was allowed to touch them. Everyone thought they would be the best thing in the world and the school would start churning out Einstein's, but the novelty wore off pretty soon.
Computers in the schools of developed nations are not some magical silver bullet that makes lazy students A+ students or better students at all, and they won't be some magical force in developing nations either.
Thats hot.
I haven't heard about the Bird Flu for a while, the panic has past. I think the word you were looking for is Late.
Ever seen the average user set up SELinux or any other type of ACL? We're talking about people that don't maintain computers professionally remember. It is more reasonable to expect users to format their system every month or so then it is to have them set up good, or even useful ACL's. These are the types of people that just say 'Yes' to everything. On top of all that ACL's require setting up by someone with a good understanding of what the computer will do, what each application does and exactly what should and should not be allowed. Not only does the average user not fall into that catagory, but most system admins, techs and developers don't either.
If an application you want to have access to that data can access it, an application running under the same or higher credentials that you don't want to have access to that data can access it. OS X and Linux/UNIX might be a little better designed then Windows, but they do not magically know what should and should not be happening.
Most of virus and spyware infections are the users fault. Computers are meant to do what the user tells them to do, most users tell computers to do stupid things so they do them.
Some of us are busy people, we have to get right to the bashing.
You're part of the 5% that are relatively meaningless to MS.
If you do the job right, no ones sure you've done anything at all.
They were shit long before Dell bought them.
What if the contradicting study is the wrong one?
If Apple gave away OS X for PC hardware, what would be the incentive to by a Mac?
Because VMS's abilities and stability make Unix look like MS-DOS.
The question was stupid anyway. He's not a mind reader, he doesn't know what people would choose when given the option. Other then the obvious answers, "what their used to," and "what the default is," I have no idea what the person asking the question expected.
The British burned down the White House, not Canadians.
Because Mono doesn't support all of the .Net stuff? Because he likes Visual Studio? Because all the cool kids are? Because he wants to?
A series of buzzwords.
And none of that matters since people don't buy OS's that won't run applications they use. If eye candy mattered at all people wouldn't have bought XP, they would have got Mac's.
No, society allows people to disassociate themselves from any consequence of their actions, making nothing anyones fault and allowing people to expect that everyone around them will clean up after them.
No, its not possible. It's true (and I know) that OpenLDAP, Kerberos, Bind and a Network File system will give you a some of the functionality of the AD, if all you want is SSO and someway to centralize Automount settings and Printers. However doing DFS is not simple, pushing updates and revoking them is not as straight forward or robust, as the other poster pointed out and there is nothing like Group Policy.
This project seems to just provide another way to push applications to systems, presumably with the same limitation as any other, excepting maybe for Zen, where all your systems must be from the same vendor. It's from Google though so it must be gold.
This sounds almost exactly like the Active Directory's ability to publish and/or assign software to Domain members.
Is that so? That's not even the problem I was looking for, which also went from Linux 2.6 to at least as far back as 2.0. There are lots of spots of a OSS program that are not glamorous to fix so no one ever looks at them if they appear to be working.
Adobe hasn't sued anyone over putting PDF writing in Office. MS said they thought Adobe might sue.