Good thing Chevy decided to copy Ford's 4 wheel design, otherwise we would all be riding around in ridiculous 3 wheel Dr. Seuss-looking contraptions. Wouldn't we want Intel to copy AMD's approach to 64-bit computing to minimize the risk of running into compatability issues? Jeez, product copying happens on a day-to-day basis in the product world. I'm surprised at the outcry to Intel's "copying", especially from a crowd that touts interoperability to the degree it does.
My wife is an avid gamer, and has handed my butt to me on the proverbial platter several times in UT and UT2003 and now she's mastered (God help us all) the Raptor in the UT2004 demo. I've always been the proud monkey at LAN parties when she starts screaming "How'd you like that one, MotherF***er?" at all my guy friends. The family that plays together, stays together.
another armchair critic said: "While that may be the typical joe sixpack understanding of the matter, it's completely wrong. The fact is, unix was a multiuser, networked OS decades ago, and many of the baby steps that microsoft is now beginning to take represent steps towards the type of sophistication blah blah"
Actually I have experience across several platforms, not to mention HPUX, AIX, AS400, etc etc. I've worked with *nix for over a decade now, and I'm still not impressed. What really gets me are the little jihad followers who believe anything the Zealots of the community say without question. Here's What I see has happened:
1. OS pundist proclaim the mightiness of Linux
2. OS pundits continute to be a small voice in a large room.
3. Things start catching on.
4. companies (red had, SuSE, etc) start making it easier and easier to use.
5. Recession hits. Bottom line becomes everything.
6. Linux is free, and therefore at the right place in time.
7. Installations abound, spearheaded by more and more talk of how "superior" it is to other platforms.
8. Because Linux is based on archane, complicated technology, companies add pretty GIUs to make things more user-friendly and easier to set up. The result is that the general masses don't understand the fundamentals of an OS that has remained the sole territory of highly skilled administrators and programmers for decades.
9. Linux becomes the easiest target on the Internet because of a plethora of installations by unskilled and unqualified people who, like yourself, believe that just because everyone in the Open Source community repeat dogma about the "security" and "stability" of Linux over and over, it must be true.
Nothing you said in your rant is anything new. In fact, I've been reading and hearing the same rhetoric for years now. I've seen Linux boxes get owned within hours of being plugged into the Internet. I've seen a Windows 2000 server resist and fend of hack after hack after hack. My dear neophyte, it has nothing to do with the OS at all. It has to do with the person behind the keyboard.
This has been the fatal flaw for any widely deployed OS, including Microsoft. What kills me is that it's okay when it's linux, but it's an inherent flaw when its Microsoft. Linux is not that hard to use anymore, so that's not an excuse. And securing Microsoft or Linux takes a skilled professional, not your secretary's son, but that's who usually ends up doing the work. I personally ran a network of 65 Windows servers for years without a single breakin. Not one. After I was laid off so the CFO's kid could take my place (he was tech support) the network went from 99.9% uptime to 94% uptime with an average of 2 breakins a month. Go figure. But hey, they supposedly saved money in the long run, eh?
Now that Linux is running with the big boys I hear a lot of throat clearing. What happened to being more secure? Worms were discounted because the study was based on one hacker, one server, not a script kiddie writing an automated bot designed to attack everyone's home machine. This was about servers, not workstations. Looks like Linux is in the same boat Microsoft was in with 2000/XP, namely everyone and their mother is setting up Linux servers. Linux was never more or less secure than Microsoft. It's "security" was based on it's obscurity. Now that installations abound, however, the Linux community is having their work scrutinized and put to the test. Sorry boys, the easier you make it to use, the more people will try to hack it. Goes with the territory. Just ask Microsoft =]
That's certainly a possibility. I received mine for christmas of 02, as did most of my friends. I know of 3 who had gotten theirs long before that though as I clearly remember making fun of them for still having the rathar large pads. I know they run hot on occasions, but even so, I've left mine on all weekend at the root menu of a DVD movie while the wife and I were out of town and even though it was quite hot when we returned it never crashed.
Not to mention the Via chipset is slow as crap. I really don't know what kind of job AMD's chipset does these days, but for all my machines, Make Mine Intel.
Strange... I have one, and so do most of my friends. I've never seen one crash. Maybe your friend is trying to strip the DRM and do things to it that it wasn't designed to have done to it?
Mmmm... maybe if you want a cheap Linux workstation you should go build a cheap Linux workstation? This is clearly for games, a market Windows still excels over Linux in. Tinkering is great, but with the openness of the architecture, where's the fun in tinkering?
I guess if the shoe fits, wear it. I didn't intend for this to come off like a troll, just commenting on my observations regarding the community. I guess if I don't support Linux as a zealot than I deserve the rank of troll in your eyes, is that it? Or maybe the zealots can't stand to have reality presented to them in a factual way. If that is what Slashdot has come to, I'm out. Delete my account please, CN. Your followers have abandoned reason for madness...
I just downloaded the latest WHQL drivers for my Nvidia card running under WinXP, and after 4 clicks and a reboot I was up and running with solid performance and badass framerates on NWN. No issues whatsoever. If Linux wants to have any success on the desktop whatsoever the people advocating its' use need to offer the hardware vendors something more substantial than "Linux is better than Windows" or "windows sucks". The vendors are out to make money like everyone else, and they will back viable systems with driver support. It's called professionalism, people, and this is the area where the fanatic, die-hard Linux zealots will hurt the adoption of Linux the most. I can recall hearing tales of HP support techs being told they were going to die because HP hadn't written Linux drivers for their printers. When the suits hear this sort of thing, I'm sure it doesn't make them want to rush out and spend all sorts of money developing drivers for unappreciative people demanding they give something away for free.
I live in Phoneix and I can tell you there are no signs of intelligent life here. Not suprising, considering the population's willingness to suffer through 120 degree summers just so they can enjoy 2 months of habitable weather in the 'winter'. As for me, I'm moving back up north =]
-someone holding Linux up to the quality light to see how many holes show through. I mean, not to be a Microsoft extremist or anything, but features like that are what corporate and home users pay microsoft big bucks for. Linux may be just as good under the hood, but on the desktop it's still simply horrible. Call this off-topic if you must but that kind of feature has been business as usual for Microsoft for a long time now.
Have always worked for me. If the hardware supports it, you can have a 20 gig image blasted to a client in 20 minutes, assuming you have a 100mbit network. Windows 2000 ships with remote installation server, which took care of installing Win2K on about 200 machines at my old place of work overnight. We then used group policy to publish applications like Office 2000, so that they were installed only when the user opened a word document. After repackaging a ton of in-house applications into.msi format and publishing them as well, scripting out a ton of administrative changes like adding printers and deploying software update services which patched all the workstations automatically every night at 3am, we pretty much eliminated the need for a support tech to ever visit the workstations as well as getting everyone off of local admin status. The 99.9% uptime was nice until they fired me for not doing anything, because there really wasn't anything left to do. Note to self: Break more things next time.
Actually, Yahoo runs FreeBSD, as does NASA and several other large companies. As far as I can tell, FreeBSD doesn't require the same rabid following that Linux does.
Something else to consider is that, unlike most Linux distributions, FreeBSD isn't riddled with security vulnerabilities. FreeBSD does have it's share of holes, but they are few and far between, and usually patched very quickly.
Slashdot Mirror
Good thing Chevy decided to copy Ford's 4 wheel design, otherwise we would all be riding around in ridiculous 3 wheel Dr. Seuss-looking contraptions. Wouldn't we want Intel to copy AMD's approach to 64-bit computing to minimize the risk of running into compatability issues? Jeez, product copying happens on a day-to-day basis in the product world. I'm surprised at the outcry to Intel's "copying", especially from a crowd that touts interoperability to the degree it does.
My wife is an avid gamer, and has handed my butt to me on the proverbial platter several times in UT and UT2003 and now she's mastered (God help us all) the Raptor in the UT2004 demo. I've always been the proud monkey at LAN parties when she starts screaming "How'd you like that one, MotherF***er?" at all my guy friends. The family that plays together, stays together.
another armchair critic said: "While that may be the typical joe sixpack understanding of the matter, it's completely wrong. The fact is, unix was a multiuser, networked OS decades ago, and many of the baby steps that microsoft is now beginning to take represent steps towards the type of sophistication blah blah"
Actually I have experience across several platforms, not to mention HPUX, AIX, AS400, etc etc. I've worked with *nix for over a decade now, and I'm still not impressed. What really gets me are the little jihad followers who believe anything the Zealots of the community say without question. Here's What I see has happened:
1. OS pundist proclaim the mightiness of Linux
2. OS pundits continute to be a small voice in a large room.
3. Things start catching on.
4. companies (red had, SuSE, etc) start making it easier and easier to use.
5. Recession hits. Bottom line becomes everything.
6. Linux is free, and therefore at the right place in time.
7. Installations abound, spearheaded by more and more talk of how "superior" it is to other platforms.
8. Because Linux is based on archane, complicated technology, companies add pretty GIUs to make things more user-friendly and easier to set up. The result is that the general masses don't understand the fundamentals of an OS that has remained the sole territory of highly skilled administrators and programmers for decades.
9. Linux becomes the easiest target on the Internet because of a plethora of installations by unskilled and unqualified people who, like yourself, believe that just because everyone in the Open Source community repeat dogma about the "security" and "stability" of Linux over and over, it must be true.
Nothing you said in your rant is anything new. In fact, I've been reading and hearing the same rhetoric for years now. I've seen Linux boxes get owned within hours of being plugged into the Internet. I've seen a Windows 2000 server resist and fend of hack after hack after hack. My dear neophyte, it has nothing to do with the OS at all. It has to do with the person behind the keyboard.
This has been the fatal flaw for any widely deployed OS, including Microsoft. What kills me is that it's okay when it's linux, but it's an inherent flaw when its Microsoft. Linux is not that hard to use anymore, so that's not an excuse. And securing Microsoft or Linux takes a skilled professional, not your secretary's son, but that's who usually ends up doing the work. I personally ran a network of 65 Windows servers for years without a single breakin. Not one. After I was laid off so the CFO's kid could take my place (he was tech support) the network went from 99.9% uptime to 94% uptime with an average of 2 breakins a month. Go figure. But hey, they supposedly saved money in the long run, eh?
Actually, American companied invented the VCR, but after seeing no market for them we sold all the patents to Japan.
Now that Linux is running with the big boys I hear a lot of throat clearing. What happened to being more secure? Worms were discounted because the study was based on one hacker, one server, not a script kiddie writing an automated bot designed to attack everyone's home machine. This was about servers, not workstations. Looks like Linux is in the same boat Microsoft was in with 2000/XP, namely everyone and their mother is setting up Linux servers. Linux was never more or less secure than Microsoft. It's "security" was based on it's obscurity. Now that installations abound, however, the Linux community is having their work scrutinized and put to the test. Sorry boys, the easier you make it to use, the more people will try to hack it. Goes with the territory. Just ask Microsoft =]
I already copyrighted any official "FBI seal of anti-piracy". Let the litigation games begin!
"We've got SPAM and more SPAM and penis enlargement SPAM and refinancing SPAM and credit help SPAM SPAM SPAM and even more SPAM..."
A pair of earplugs for two bucks
That's certainly a possibility. I received mine for christmas of 02, as did most of my friends. I know of 3 who had gotten theirs long before that though as I clearly remember making fun of them for still having the rathar large pads. I know they run hot on occasions, but even so, I've left mine on all weekend at the root menu of a DVD movie while the wife and I were out of town and even though it was quite hot when we returned it never crashed.
Not to mention the Via chipset is slow as crap. I really don't know what kind of job AMD's chipset does these days, but for all my machines, Make Mine Intel.
Strange... I have one, and so do most of my friends. I've never seen one crash. Maybe your friend is trying to strip the DRM and do things to it that it wasn't designed to have done to it?
Mmmm... maybe if you want a cheap Linux workstation you should go build a cheap Linux workstation? This is clearly for games, a market Windows still excels over Linux in. Tinkering is great, but with the openness of the architecture, where's the fun in tinkering?
I guess if the shoe fits, wear it. I didn't intend for this to come off like a troll, just commenting on my observations regarding the community. I guess if I don't support Linux as a zealot than I deserve the rank of troll in your eyes, is that it? Or maybe the zealots can't stand to have reality presented to them in a factual way. If that is what Slashdot has come to, I'm out. Delete my account please, CN. Your followers have abandoned reason for madness...
I just downloaded the latest WHQL drivers for my Nvidia card running under WinXP, and after 4 clicks and a reboot I was up and running with solid performance and badass framerates on NWN. No issues whatsoever. If Linux wants to have any success on the desktop whatsoever the people advocating its' use need to offer the hardware vendors something more substantial than "Linux is better than Windows" or "windows sucks". The vendors are out to make money like everyone else, and they will back viable systems with driver support. It's called professionalism, people, and this is the area where the fanatic, die-hard Linux zealots will hurt the adoption of Linux the most. I can recall hearing tales of HP support techs being told they were going to die because HP hadn't written Linux drivers for their printers. When the suits hear this sort of thing, I'm sure it doesn't make them want to rush out and spend all sorts of money developing drivers for unappreciative people demanding they give something away for free.
I live in Phoneix and I can tell you there are no signs of intelligent life here. Not suprising, considering the population's willingness to suffer through 120 degree summers just so they can enjoy 2 months of habitable weather in the 'winter'. As for me, I'm moving back up north =]
-someone holding Linux up to the quality light to see how many holes show through. I mean, not to be a Microsoft extremist or anything, but features like that are what corporate and home users pay microsoft big bucks for. Linux may be just as good under the hood, but on the desktop it's still simply horrible. Call this off-topic if you must but that kind of feature has been business as usual for Microsoft for a long time now.
Have always worked for me. If the hardware supports it, you can have a 20 gig image blasted to a client in 20 minutes, assuming you have a 100mbit network. Windows 2000 ships with remote installation server, which took care of installing Win2K on about 200 machines at my old place of work overnight. We then used group policy to publish applications like Office 2000, so that they were installed only when the user opened a word document. After repackaging a ton of in-house applications into .msi format and publishing them as well, scripting out a ton of administrative changes like adding printers and deploying software update services which patched all the workstations automatically every night at 3am, we pretty much eliminated the need for a support tech to ever visit the workstations as well as getting everyone off of local admin status. The 99.9% uptime was nice until they fired me for not doing anything, because there really wasn't anything left to do. Note to self: Break more things next time.
I'm sticking with Windows on the desktop =]
They freeze the bastards in carbonite
"Shit yeah"
For me to release those pictures I took of Cary Sherman and Darl McBride getting it on in the copier room at the last Xmas party.
The Ultimate Slashdotting.
Actually, Yahoo runs FreeBSD, as does NASA and several other large companies. As far as I can tell, FreeBSD doesn't require the same rabid following that Linux does.
Something else to consider is that, unlike most Linux distributions, FreeBSD isn't riddled with security vulnerabilities. FreeBSD does have it's share of holes, but they are few and far between, and usually patched very quickly.