You recommend that a gamer who, wishing to have a stable OS and run all their games, chose to use software which is buggy to run a subclass of games availed them under Windows. You futher make the claim that Linux is stable, implying that Windows is not, which is only true where we comparing the OSes 5 years ago.
You futher recommend that someone making a truthful statement, that being the statement that if someone wishs for a stable OS that plays Windows games they will stay with a modern Windows, is doing so as a troll.
If we took your comment at face value, what you are saying is "there is no reason to choose Windows," which is in fact flamebait.
Damn those noobs and their contemptable experience! Damn them!
Re:Declare your bias, why don't you?
on
OpenBSD 3.7 Reviewed
·
· Score: 2, Funny
Fact 1: BSD license isn't free enough to allow merging in GPLed code.
Fact 2: GPL isn't free enough to allow merging in BSD licensed code.
Fact 3: The purpose of a BSD license is to flip out and kill processes.
BSD licenses can `kill -9` anyone they want! BSD licenses cut off threads ALL the time and don't even think twice about it. These licenses are so crazy and awesome that they flip out ALL the time. I heard that there was this BSD license who was eating at a diner. And when some dude dropped a packet the BSD license killed the whole town's connection. My friend Mark said that he saw a BSD licenses totally uppercut some kid just because the kid installed GRUB on their router.
And that's what I call REAL Ultimate Power!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ya, and if I can convince anyone to open a HTML file or look at a JPeG, the silly fool deserves what they get, right? It's a fucking DOC file. If you can get malicious code run from opening a non-executable file it is a big fucking problem.
Yet 9/10ths of people who will buy it, and they will, won't have known. In fact, "hey, those nice guys, they even help out those open source people. What nice guys. I get a warm fuzzy feeling sending my money to them. I bet they send money to those OSS guys too. Live's great, let's go buy a puppy."
Hell, we've even got history to back this up. Just look at the NES/SNES/Genesis era. Nintendo fought tooth-and-nail to keep NES sales without moving to a new hardware, but at a point you just can't sell the hardware anymore. The Genesis was eating them alive, and is really the only reason they started moving to the SNES.
Assuming MS does get a leader position and then allow it's hardware to stagnate, all it takes is some up-and-comer to come up with nifty hardware and suddenly you get to watch the industry gravitate away from the leader.
Oh, brilliant idea. Have a distro system that has been silently hacked and trojaned in the past complete and uninhibited root access on your box WITH unaudited shell scripts.
Not saying that we should license people to be parents
Why not?
No, seriously. We need a license to have shelter from the elements, a normal human need. We need money for buy food, a normal human need. Why should having children, one of the most destructive and selfish acts a human can engage in, be this woefully unregulated?
Who's talking about kernels? We're talking about OSes.
But even then, RedHat and SuSE haven't shipped with vanilla kernels in quite some time. If we merely want to talk the kernel.
But forgetting the pointless semantics wank, I think you would be very hard pressed to fork the Windows codebase and drastically change the base system without at least some OK from Microsoft (or some spyware. But that's the security argument again;) ). It's much more insulated than the Linux world in this regard, where everyone and all can fork it at will. While there are a number of benefits to that, there's also the fact that this can and does lead to a lot of incompatiblity in the OS many distros ship out with one another.
Just look how long it's taken nVidia to release one package for all distros, and it doesn't fit in with any of their packaging systems. Just look at Oracle; do they support "Linux," or do they support RedHat's (and I believe now SuSE's as well) product line?
While there's binary compatablity, the potential to enter a new UNIX-esqe world where distros are wildly divergant from one another exists. It's already true for the most part in packaging systems, libraries and their FSH. There's no one product you can point to and say "that's Linux" without either excluding a large number of distros or making it utterly worthless and saying it's just a kernel.
I think you are downplaying the level of variation found between most Linux distros IRT the differing Windows versions.
Linux has wildly divergant base packages/libraries/daemons/FSHs/packing systems from distro to distro and in many cases version to version. Comparatively, IMHO Windows is much less... "Fluid?" Than you could say compared to the whole of the Linux world. And a large part can be attributed to the fact that there's no one distributer of "Linux."
To just pass this off as "well, MS rebrands some software sometimes, so they're just as bad" is being dishonest with ourselves IMHO, and it is one point that I think we must honestly say "OK, they have a point there."
Why do you think "Linux" means "RedHat" to most people? Because they don't want to support millions of divergant forks, when just supporting that will be more than a handful.
My point is that saying Windows is forked to high hell and that linux somehow isn't is just silly.
Windows exists in three flavors, XP home/pro and Win2003 server. The XPs have existed since 2001(?) and 2003 is intended to be a server OS, not a desktop OS.
If we want to play this game, than "Linux" has released SuSE 9.1, 10, 10.1, RedHat 9.2, Fedora Core 1, 2, 3, Mandrake 9.0, 9.1, 9.2, 10, 10.1, Ubuntu Warty, etc. That certainly sounds like being "forked into multiple flavors" more than what Windows has seen.
I'm not going to comment on the security or scalablity comments, but let's call a spade a spade here.
Ah, but no one is watching someone who sold a mixtape of stuff off KaZaA for some insane amount, replacing the artist name on each track with "Joe Pirate" and had people saying "oh, that's OK."
That's what pushes this to "boo, evil theft." They've infringed the copyright and are now selling it.
Mind you, I don't even use P2P music sharing programs, so I don't particularly care if the people who do are being hypocrites about this, but still...
No, if you don't sign a EULA, you're still bound by MSX's "copyright" on the program: IE, you'd have no rights to even possess a copy, let alone redistribute something from it.
Ah yes, the people apparently clueless enough to believe that this is a violation of the EULA will however be clued enough to read a EULA to a product most don't use and know that it, in theory, violates it?
Cherry-OS is a PPC emulator. If someone runs Mac OS X in "violation" of some EULA, that's the user's problem. Many have used it to, for example, test out PPC Linux distros.
Furthermore, no one with half a brain would say that software someone bought and then used on something other than the exact hardware someone else wanted them to is "stealing." That's just daft double-speak.
While that wasn't a serious post (or at least I hope not), I'll try and offer a true argument in this vein:
Hula. YOu know it. You love it. It's installed on your PC right now. Did you audit the code? No. Did you install it as someone other than root? No.
You have it sitting there, since it's not packaged yet, as a daemon, which is running as root, in/usr.
Totally safe!
(Before we go further, this is true of any software package. Hula's just been popular lately and thus helps to underline the point more clearly. I do not believe Hula is evil spyware, nor that anyone involve with it is now, nor has been, a member of the communist party.)
Except if it where spyware it could have wrote over who-knows-what and now is sending each shell command and bit of network activity to whomever. And it's root. So we've now a root server running on port 80 which has not been audited. Thank God sendmail taught us all our lesson, right?
Linux is no safer than any other OS at the moment. Hell, if we look at the fact that strlcat/cpy have been turned down for inclusion multiple times to the GNU libc because it would be "slower" when preventing a buffer vuln, if anything it's getting worse, and will continue down that slope.
Well, I can see the problem right now. You've got 40 Bad Religion songs, when everyone knows there have only wrote one song. If you get rid of the 39 other copies, it should fix itself up right quick.
They never said they didn't want people to use their sources. The source is available via FTP right now. You can pull it and wallpaper your house with it for all they care.
They just don't want you using the RedHat name. Which, all things considered, isn't exactly unreasonable.
Slashdot Mirror
My reaction to this was "Huh?" so I went and looked it up. Apparently, WikiPedia is a...
Your comment is illogical.
You recommend that a gamer who, wishing to have a stable OS and run all their games, chose to use software which is buggy to run a subclass of games availed them under Windows. You futher make the claim that Linux is stable, implying that Windows is not, which is only true where we comparing the OSes 5 years ago.
You futher recommend that someone making a truthful statement, that being the statement that if someone wishs for a stable OS that plays Windows games they will stay with a modern Windows, is doing so as a troll.
If we took your comment at face value, what you are saying is "there is no reason to choose Windows," which is in fact flamebait.
Damn those noobs and their contemptable experience! Damn them!
Fact 1: BSD license isn't free enough to allow merging in GPLed code.
Fact 2: GPL isn't free enough to allow merging in BSD licensed code.
Fact 3: The purpose of a BSD license is to flip out and kill processes.
BSD licenses can `kill -9` anyone they want! BSD licenses cut off threads ALL the time and don't even think twice about it. These licenses are so crazy and awesome that they flip out ALL the time. I heard that there was this BSD license who was eating at a diner. And when some dude dropped a packet the BSD license killed the whole town's connection. My friend Mark said that he saw a BSD licenses totally uppercut some kid just because the kid installed GRUB on their router.
And that's what I call REAL Ultimate Power!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Why would you need to be root to execute code?
Ya, and if I can convince anyone to open a HTML file or look at a JPeG, the silly fool deserves what they get, right? It's a fucking DOC file. If you can get malicious code run from opening a non-executable file it is a big fucking problem.
You mean in a post-9/11 world, the post-9/11 meme will overtake "in Soviet Russia" meme?
... Dear lord, what have we done....
Quick, everyone overuse it now so it goes away like the Korea one. Start calling it "old meme." This is not a drill, people.
https://bugzilla.ubuntu.com/
:)
They can't fix 'em if you don't tell 'em.
Yet 9/10ths of people who will buy it, and they will, won't have known. In fact, "hey, those nice guys, they even help out those open source people. What nice guys. I get a warm fuzzy feeling sending my money to them. I bet they send money to those OSS guys too. Live's great, let's go buy a puppy."
Isn't business wonderful?
Hell, we've even got history to back this up. Just look at the NES/SNES/Genesis era. Nintendo fought tooth-and-nail to keep NES sales without moving to a new hardware, but at a point you just can't sell the hardware anymore. The Genesis was eating them alive, and is really the only reason they started moving to the SNES.
Assuming MS does get a leader position and then allow it's hardware to stagnate, all it takes is some up-and-comer to come up with nifty hardware and suddenly you get to watch the industry gravitate away from the leader.
Oh, brilliant idea. Have a distro system that has been silently hacked and trojaned in the past complete and uninhibited root access on your box WITH unaudited shell scripts.
Woo! Apt!
Oh, you where talking ab... Oh...
Huh...
Why not?
No, seriously. We need a license to have shelter from the elements, a normal human need. We need money for buy food, a normal human need. Why should having children, one of the most destructive and selfish acts a human can engage in, be this woefully unregulated?
yes
Who's talking about kernels? We're talking about OSes.
;) ). It's much more insulated than the Linux world in this regard, where everyone and all can fork it at will. While there are a number of benefits to that, there's also the fact that this can and does lead to a lot of incompatiblity in the OS many distros ship out with one another.
But even then, RedHat and SuSE haven't shipped with vanilla kernels in quite some time. If we merely want to talk the kernel.
But forgetting the pointless semantics wank, I think you would be very hard pressed to fork the Windows codebase and drastically change the base system without at least some OK from Microsoft (or some spyware. But that's the security argument again
Just look how long it's taken nVidia to release one package for all distros, and it doesn't fit in with any of their packaging systems. Just look at Oracle; do they support "Linux," or do they support RedHat's (and I believe now SuSE's as well) product line?
While there's binary compatablity, the potential to enter a new UNIX-esqe world where distros are wildly divergant from one another exists. It's already true for the most part in packaging systems, libraries and their FSH. There's no one product you can point to and say "that's Linux" without either excluding a large number of distros or making it utterly worthless and saying it's just a kernel.
I think you are downplaying the level of variation found between most Linux distros IRT the differing Windows versions.
Linux has wildly divergant base packages/libraries/daemons/FSHs/packing systems from distro to distro and in many cases version to version. Comparatively, IMHO Windows is much less... "Fluid?" Than you could say compared to the whole of the Linux world. And a large part can be attributed to the fact that there's no one distributer of "Linux."
To just pass this off as "well, MS rebrands some software sometimes, so they're just as bad" is being dishonest with ourselves IMHO, and it is one point that I think we must honestly say "OK, they have a point there."
And you're saying they don't for Linux?
Why do you think "Linux" means "RedHat" to most people? Because they don't want to support millions of divergant forks, when just supporting that will be more than a handful.
My point is that saying Windows is forked to high hell and that linux somehow isn't is just silly.
Windows exists in three flavors, XP home/pro and Win2003 server. The XPs have existed since 2001(?) and 2003 is intended to be a server OS, not a desktop OS.
If we want to play this game, than "Linux" has released SuSE 9.1, 10, 10.1, RedHat 9.2, Fedora Core 1, 2, 3, Mandrake 9.0, 9.1, 9.2, 10, 10.1, Ubuntu Warty, etc. That certainly sounds like being "forked into multiple flavors" more than what Windows has seen.
I'm not going to comment on the security or scalablity comments, but let's call a spade a spade here.
Ah, but no one is watching someone who sold a mixtape of stuff off KaZaA for some insane amount, replacing the artist name on each track with "Joe Pirate" and had people saying "oh, that's OK."
That's what pushes this to "boo, evil theft." They've infringed the copyright and are now selling it.
Mind you, I don't even use P2P music sharing programs, so I don't particularly care if the people who do are being hypocrites about this, but still...
No, if you don't sign a EULA, you're still bound by MSX's "copyright" on the program: IE, you'd have no rights to even possess a copy, let alone redistribute something from it.
Ah yes, the people apparently clueless enough to believe that this is a violation of the EULA will however be clued enough to read a EULA to a product most don't use and know that it, in theory, violates it?
Oh, what a fool I've been.
Cherry-OS is a PPC emulator. If someone runs Mac OS X in "violation" of some EULA, that's the user's problem. Many have used it to, for example, test out PPC Linux distros.
Furthermore, no one with half a brain would say that software someone bought and then used on something other than the exact hardware someone else wanted them to is "stealing." That's just daft double-speak.
While that wasn't a serious post (or at least I hope not), I'll try and offer a true argument in this vein:
/usr.
Hula. YOu know it. You love it. It's installed on your PC right now. Did you audit the code? No. Did you install it as someone other than root? No.
You have it sitting there, since it's not packaged yet, as a daemon, which is running as root, in
Totally safe!
(Before we go further, this is true of any software package. Hula's just been popular lately and thus helps to underline the point more clearly. I do not believe Hula is evil spyware, nor that anyone involve with it is now, nor has been, a member of the communist party.)
Except if it where spyware it could have wrote over who-knows-what and now is sending each shell command and bit of network activity to whomever. And it's root. So we've now a root server running on port 80 which has not been audited. Thank God sendmail taught us all our lesson, right?
Linux is no safer than any other OS at the moment. Hell, if we look at the fact that strlcat/cpy have been turned down for inclusion multiple times to the GNU libc because it would be "slower" when preventing a buffer vuln, if anything it's getting worse, and will continue down that slope.
It's as if we've forgotten all we know, and we're ignoring those who try to remind us.
Well, I can see the problem right now. You've got 40 Bad Religion songs, when everyone knows there have only wrote one song. If you get rid of the 39 other copies, it should fix itself up right quick.
HTH
They never said they didn't want people to use their sources. The source is available via FTP right now. You can pull it and wallpaper your house with it for all they care.
They just don't want you using the RedHat name. Which, all things considered, isn't exactly unreasonable.
Because a server is rarely, if ever, a default install?
Quite right. This bloat is out of hand. We have ncurses, why are we adding more useless bloat?