(of course this post is a little off topic by now)
I have a computer science degree and the number one thing they teach you is TEST to make sure that your program works and the second thing is then make sure IT KEEPS WORKING
OSS, sure its you can hack it all you want. Windows is hackable to (to a much greater extent might I add) The thing that makes OSS so great is that of two things:
1) It has to be hacked in order to malfunction
2) Software is free!
(back onto topic now)
If the DoD is going to put everything on level playing field than so be it. I administer 7 servers where I work (half windows, half *nix) and don't care if they have to play by the same rules. However I would prefer that they are held to the same standards. Just because M$ puts out another patch, update, or upgrade people download it and take it as gospel. Hence the reason I posted the link. Whereas, in the OSS world, I keep reading, I never have a worry that the patch, update, or upgrade will lose my network capabilities or any other functionality.
That's what I want. Equal rules, then equal standards or quality.
Windows is based on computer science, to accept Windows is to accept the scientific principles it is based on, many of which will contradict Linux
Thank God!!!
As much as I like Windows' auto-restart feature (with option Blue warning screen), I tend to prefer an OS that is capable of having uptimes greater than 48 hrs.
Also, check out this link: http://www.securityfocus.com/news/5147
Windows is based on computer science - What science would that be?
That's true, the voters are truely to blame. But how many voters understand the issues, or even what the legislator does in office. Most of them are so corrupt and stupid that I swear anarchy (or atleast a benevalent dictator) is the only way out of having the charismatic stupid lead the ultimately stupid.
Yah, but you need to remember that Apple has it a little easier than Microsoft too. With FreeBSD and a Mac interface and a very controlled (proprietary) hardware base they can more easily make their operating system both system and security orientated.
But, again Microsoft has it tougher. Remember, for over half of their existance they bought and stole the code for their products. So writing their own *quality* (whether performance or security) code is a little tougher.
Good Moral: Cheaters never prosper (oops, that's right they do)
Although I have to agree with most of the posts. We need to remember that the true evil one here are the members of the legislative branch around the country. Why? Their the ones that allow intellectual property to be patented.
Ebay was in the wrong and should pay. They knew the patent existed and willfully violated it.
That is the law, unfortunately. And until legislators get their heads out of their butts and turn their brain on, this is the world that programmers and businessman must abide by. Like it or not.
Slashdot Mirror
(of course this post is a little off topic by now)
I have a computer science degree and the number one thing they teach you is TEST to make sure that your program works and the second thing is then make sure IT KEEPS WORKING
OSS, sure its you can hack it all you want. Windows is hackable to (to a much greater extent might I add) The thing that makes OSS so great is that of two things:
1) It has to be hacked in order to malfunction
2) Software is free!
(back onto topic now)
If the DoD is going to put everything on level playing field than so be it. I administer 7 servers where I work (half windows, half *nix) and don't care if they have to play by the same rules. However I would prefer that they are held to the same standards. Just because M$ puts out another patch, update, or upgrade people download it and take it as gospel. Hence the reason I posted the link. Whereas, in the OSS world, I keep reading, I never have a worry that the patch, update, or upgrade will lose my network capabilities or any other functionality.
That's what I want. Equal rules, then equal standards or quality.
Windows is based on computer science, to accept Windows is to accept the scientific principles it is based on, many of which will contradict Linux
Thank God!!!
As much as I like Windows' auto-restart feature (with option Blue warning screen), I tend to prefer an OS that is capable of having uptimes greater than 48 hrs.
Also, check out this link: http://www.securityfocus.com/news/5147
Windows is based on computer science - What science would that be?
That's true, the voters are truely to blame. But how many voters understand the issues, or even what the legislator does in office. Most of them are so corrupt and stupid that I swear anarchy (or atleast a benevalent dictator) is the only way out of having the charismatic stupid lead the ultimately stupid.
Yah, but you need to remember that Apple has it a little easier than Microsoft too. With FreeBSD and a Mac interface and a very controlled (proprietary) hardware base they can more easily make their operating system both system and security orientated.
But, again Microsoft has it tougher. Remember, for over half of their existance they bought and stole the code for their products. So writing their own *quality* (whether performance or security) code is a little tougher.
Good Moral: Cheaters never prosper (oops, that's right they do)
Although I have to agree with most of the posts. We need to remember that the true evil one here are the members of the legislative branch around the country. Why? Their the ones that allow intellectual property to be patented. Ebay was in the wrong and should pay. They knew the patent existed and willfully violated it. That is the law, unfortunately. And until legislators get their heads out of their butts and turn their brain on, this is the world that programmers and businessman must abide by. Like it or not.