It sounds like this trojan comes with a local privilege escalation vulnerability
Yes, it does doesn't it. In their quest for a sensational front-page headline, the authors of the blurb forgot to mention that you need to enter your root password in order for it to work.
Obviously someone out there was dumb enough to actually do just that, resulting in the discovery of this malware.
"Wow, what a terrible idea. It's like WinXP logic for font installing- Explorer is consistent _except_ for the font folder which calls the font register-er when you drop files into it. Finder is consistent _except_ for the applications folder which installs system services and processes scripts every time you drop a dmg into it. Hm. "
If you're going to criticize something it helps if you have the slightest clue what you're talking about. Try actually using a Mac sometime, you might be pleasantly surprised.
There's nothing special about the/Applications directory, no special installation magic goes on when you drag an application from one disk to another. The application itself is basically a special kind of folder which contains all of the resources and even extra libraries required for it to function, this avoids the need to use an installer at all in most cases because most of the resources reqired for the application are in the application.
By contrast, Windows applications have a tendency to sprawl over the hard drive, copying things into shared system-wide resource directories because that is how a library is registered in the windows world. The windows start menu is used to cut through what would otherwise be a very cluttered place, the "\Program Files" directory.
On the Mac the equivalent, "/Applications" contains the actual application in it's entirety. Again; in contrast linking applications into the Start Menu is one of the many functions of an installer in Windows. Without installers you wouldn't have any idea where the application went and would have to navigate the troubled waters of "\Program Files" alone.
The other magic usually handled by installers in Windows happens when you first load an application, at which point it exchanges information with the OS, the OS from that point on knows where on the disk the application is so that even if you move it around the filesystem hierarchy it will still be able to find it, it also exchanges information about what mimetypes the app would like to be associated with so that it can show up in the "open with..." list for certain file types and declare itself able to handle any types of files it might create.
If you need to register system services, then you need an application installer or a monkey willing to do it by hand (a user, for example). In that case mac applications install like Windows ones, by using an installer package.
People should stop trying to pretend that the Mac is a replacement for UNIX or Linux machines; it is not.
Say it with me, "Linux is not Unix". Just because something doesn't act enough like Linux for your exacting standards doesn't make it not a Unix system. Linux is a pretty damn strange beast too when compared to "real" Unixes.
It really burns my toast to see someone complaining that OS X isn't unix enough... half the whiners out there have never even used another Unix system long enough to have any clue whether it's "real" enough. What other Unixes have you used?
I've worked extensively as an administrator with many flavours of Unix and Linux, including Solaris 8, 9, 10, BSD 4.x, Linux 1.2-2.6, and not so extensively as a user with various versions of AIX, IRIX and Digital Unix, not to mention cutting my teeth on Xenix back when it was owned by Microsoft, and I can safely say that the Mac's Unix environment seems reasonably sane in that company.
Unixes (and Linuxes) are ALL strange, the thread that binds them together is the fact that they can all run the same code with little modification, the user environment in Unix systems seems like an exercise in "being different for the sake of it" with no particular rhyme or reason.
So in my opinion, anyone who complains that Mac OS X isn't unixy enough is just a cry-baby who's never had to deal with real-Unixes... I'd take a Mac over any of the real-Unixes in a heartbeat, with the possible exception of Solaris - depending on the job.
At least OS X comes with development tools that they don't charge a fortune for, that's a hell of a lot more open in my opinion than a lot of Unix vendors have been in the past.
"They are only an issue because users are stupid. I can run windows xp or vista without any antivirus software or antispyware or even a firewall. I'm not stupid, I don't click the ecards that make you download.exes then run them. The problem with windows is that it has the most users, and most of them know nothing about computers and end up running the viruses by themselfs. Macs have quite a few unpacthed vulnerabilities aswell. They all have their flaws."
From a non-technical (or "stupid" as you put it) users perspective, the Macintosh provides a lower-maintenance alternative to Windows, and it certainly helps that rather than just being a smaller target (as people are so fond of mentioning), for whatever reason it's practically a non-target for malware authors -there has never been any broadly effective malware of any kind for OS X.
Malware is one whole category of software that users of other operating systems are glad to be without, makes you wonder who the stupid ones are for putting themselves in harm's way at all. Personally, I'd rather be a draft-dodger than a martyr for someone else's ideals.
I'm sorry, I assumed that you'd been so frothy at the mouth writing your rabid response in defense of Linux distributors that you'd forgotten to make your point. It puzzled me that you'd been so zealous in your leap to defend "linux distributors", hence my comment that they were your "gods".
I was trying in my own "whiney bitch" way to get you to tell me why you felt so strongly that I had no right to say what I'd said. It never occurred to me that your reply was just an asinine critique of my writing style and opinions rather than a response to it. Now that you've made that abundantly clear I've lost interest.
I don't think I've ever seen so many straw-men per line before.
I was talking about Linux distributors, not individuals writing filesystems. I'm confused where that idea even came from. Additionally, there are existing working (quite well) drivers for XP that allow access to ext2fs filesystems from Windows.
It was never my intention to suggest that developers making a filesystem for Linux should feel compelled to write one for Windows. Which pretty much invalidates all your other arguments.
What Linux distributors could do now without much effort is encourage the use of Ext3 as a default filesystem, install the ext2 driver in Windows and install some open source applications which can happily share some settings between both platforms. Thunderbird, Firefox, OpenOffice for example.
The fact of the matter is that when I have gone to the effort of setting up a system as I have explained above those users have generally stuck with Linux, and been quite pleased. People get upset when they realise they can access their Windows files from Linux, but the reverse isn't true.
We can have great finger-pointing blamestorming sessions about whose fault that is, and whose responsibility it is to fix, or we can rise above that and just do what's right for the users.
That is all I'm asking of Linux distributors, and I can't see a sensible reason for embracing Windows users on the one hand with CDs that auto-start installation and include Windows software, and then not go that little bit further by making that software able to share data with its Linux counterpart.
That just leaves Windows-to-Linux users with a bitter-taste and a feeling that Linux distributors use bait-and-switch tactics by only synchronising their Windows settings and data once, and only holding their hand until the desktop boots and then leaving them on their own.
A few creature comforts like proper two-way sync between Firefox bookmarks, making their Windows "My Documents" folder available, making OpenOffice's default save/open directory the same as MS Office or OpenOffice in Windows, and things of that nature go a long way toward warming that Linux pool that they're dipping their toes in.
My experience has been that (perhaps a little paradoxically) users are far more likely to stick with Linux if they're able to switch between Windows and Linux on a whim and still have a way to access everything that doesn't require them to be a geek of mammoth proportions.
Do you suffer from Alzheimer's or have some kind of brain damage which precludes you from reading what I just wrote. The fact you failed to address those assertions in the original message doesn't excuse you from making a point.
Why is it childish to expect Linux distributors to be a little more friendly to people making the transition from Windows to Linux.
Microsoft is obviously going to behave in that fashion as they have a financial motivation to lock people into their operating system.
What is the excuse of Linux developers like Ubuntu who give away their product for free. Why would they want to lock your settings into your Linux partition instead of making them available. I can't think of a legitimate reason so I put it down to childishness.
I called, and continue to call on you to show me some evidence to the contrary. I wasn't planning to enter into a debate about my childishness, but since you seem intent on "proving it" fine. Here's a quotable quote for you.
"I have the intellect of a three year old." -Steeviant, 2007
"Also, the battery is covered by the warranty, and if you choose to extend the warranty to two years with the $69 AppleCare Protection Plan for iPhone, the battery is covered under that as well."
It's been my experience that Apple absolutely do not warranty batteries under any circumstances, ever. Not surprisingly every Apple battery I've ever owned has shat itself royally within 18 months, so that 12 months comment isn't that far off the mark.
I've had multiple power supplies and batteries die on Apple computers I've owned and their attitude always seems to be that batteries and power supplies are only covered under a 90 day warranty which cannot be extended.
Fortunately I live in a civilized nation with consumer protection laws which state that things must last for a reasonable period of time, but I would have been fucked by the proverbial big black dog otherwise.
Co-incidentally Apple closed up shop in this country the same year that the aforementioned laws were passed. Apparently Apple are afraid that they make things that aren't suitable for their advertised purpose or don't last a reasonable amount of time for the amount they cost. Go figure.
Here's a tip... tune your mouse acceleration settings so that the mouse goes completely to the left and right (or top and bottom if your monitor is in portrait orientation) in one sweep of the mouse, then you'll find you can reach any point on your screen in just one sweep of the mouse. This works not only for menus, but for taskbars and Docks as well.
If you're seriously having to use more than one movement of the mouse to get from say, the top-left of your monitor to the bottom-right of your monitor and don't know how to fix it then you should have your geek card revoked.
Hitting a unified menubar or taskbar is exactly the same process, "slam" the mouse to the bottom of the screen and you're there no "voyaging" involved. There's a lot of well established ergonomic research to suggest that screen edges are good places for commonly used objects because they are effectively infinitely large in a certain direction, and that research has been heeded by ALL major OS vendors in one way or another.
Interestingly, research suggests that the time to acquire objects like menu bars is purely a function of their size and their distance from where your hands (or pointer on a computer) spend most of their time. Once you are "up to speed" with an interface, those are the only factors that matter in acquiring a target, the training of the user is irrelevant.
That suggests that both attached and detached menu bars are a good idea, attached menu bars by virtue of being close at hand to the content that you're manipulating, and detached menu bars by virtue of being effectively enormous in size. I'm certain, as would be anyone with common-sense that all users can acquire a menu bar at the top of the screen more quickly than one in the middle of the screen.
However, as you state above unless the user is quitting the application they probably have to return to the application window, this is still a much larger target than a menu bar, but leaves you much further from the content than the attached menu bar would.
I don't think there actually is a consensus on which type of menu bar is best, but there is a lot of agreement that no-one should have trouble navigating to a detached menu bar, because it's infinitely large, so either you're exaggerating, stupid, or have such unbelievably awful hand-eye coordination that you can't even hit a side of the screen.
Speaking as a Linux, OS X and Windows user with a 24" 1920x1200 monitor.
I'm so sorry I ever said anything disparaging against our mighty Gods the Linux distributors.
And as for you, big, smart grown-up adult man you, you've obviously found the Linux distributions which by default install ext3 in your Windows installation, so come on man - Cough up those names...
It's because all Linux distributors are pig-headed and stupid and believe that once you see Linux for the very first time you'll never ever ever be interested in Windows again.
At least that's what most people I've showed Linux to are left with as an impression.
Another valid question; Why are the "migration tools" all one way, instead of synchronizing between Linux and Windows?
Same reason, the distributors are so full of themselves that they believe their OS is the only one you'll ever use and that you'd never in a million years want to continue using both Windows and Linux. That's crazy, you'll just visit to pick your stuff up like moving out of an apartment.
Plus there's the "principal" that an open source vendor shouldn't write things for Windows, they should be trying to encourage everyone to use open source stuff instead by locking Windows out of their sandpit for no apparent reason.
He has been right most of the time, and he has a rare instinctive skill in determining what works and what doesn't.
That's called raw talent and is the obvious reason for Linus to be afraid to work with him (Linus simply never could have taken on kernel programming without years of training and a book of BSD source in front of him), that and the fact that Linus and the rest of the kernel developers having a gang-mentality where they beat on people who try to join up.
Violent thug gangs here in NZ have the same process where you must be a "prospect" which entails being a scapegoat and being shat on for a few years from a great height, and maybe getting a patch at the end, after an "initiation".
In Con's case apparently, according to Linus. In order to pass the initiation he was supposed to sit in silent reverence while a "patched" gang member steals his ideas.
Sorry Con, but no "bro" status for you in the Linux gang if you can't keep your mouth shut.
All of us who came to OS X as NeXT and Unix users are at least as embarrassed by having to be associated with cocksucking Artistes and Foppish fashion junkies like you.
Why don't you start a web site for "real mac users" so you can all meet up somewhere that's not here, so you can all lift up each other's turtleneck tops to ream each others anuses while fantasizing about Steve Jobs and getting Apple tatoos?
"I think Apple sell some iPhones, but they are dreaming if they think that they could be the next SonyEricsson let alone the next Nokia, Moto or Samsung."
According to this cnet news article, everyone's favorite CEO had this to say on the subject; "This is exactly what we're going to try to do in 2008, is grab 1 percent market share."
It doesn't exactly sound like they're aiming to be a major player in the phone industry any time soon. Still, I can't see them shifting ten million units by the end of 2008.
"You're not suggesting Apple isn't the single innovative force in the software industry.. are you? We all know "Spaces" could never have been conceived without Jobs' flawless guidance."
What a misleading comment, no other OS has ever referred to virtual desktops as "spaces" before, "workspaces" perhaps, but that is absolutely not the same thing at all and the creators should be sued for copying Apple.
Nice troll, but that's just one way of installing a package in Ubuntu (a modern Debian based distribution), You can easily point and click your way to installing packages using synaptic or the simplified package installer that appeared in Ubuntu 6.06, the simplified package manager is basically a point and click list of programs to install, while synaptic is like a more powerful version of the Add/Remove Programs control panel.
Alternatively you could find the.deb package and double-click it, which will start an installer a lot like what you see in Windows but without the next->next->next->next->next->next->next->finish claptrap.
Or, if you're feeling extra geeky you can go by what some guy on slashdot told you to type into the terminal.
Deskbar does indeed do live search, though I believe I had to install a package called something like python-beagle before I could see the beagle search-as-you-type plugin in the list of deskbar plugins in Ubuntu.
The first "live query" desktop search that made it beyond proof-of-concept was in BeOS, made possible by a ground-up rewrite of the file system which blessed BeOS with (in the words of BeOS's lead file system engineer) "database-like" features, though I can't remember exactly which version of BeOS BFS first appeared in.
Google Desktop Search, MSN Desktop Search, Beagle, Tracker (no, not the BeOS file manager), Apple's Spotlight, the Start menu search box in Vista and to a large extent Microsoft's never-ready WinFS next generation file system all borrow extensively from BeOS's original implementation.
Not entirely coincidentally, the principal developer of BFS Dominic Giampaolo now works for Apple as a file system engineer.
Slashdot Mirror
It sounds like this trojan comes with a local privilege escalation vulnerability
Yes, it does doesn't it. In their quest for a sensational front-page headline, the authors of the blurb forgot to mention that you need to enter your root password in order for it to work.
Obviously someone out there was dumb enough to actually do just that, resulting in the discovery of this malware.
Windows doesn't do file associations by MIME types, it does them by extensions.
Quite right, and that's an important and noteworthy point of distinction between Windows and OSes that are internet ready.
" Wow, what a terrible idea. It's like WinXP logic for font installing- Explorer is consistent _except_ for the font folder which calls the font register-er when you drop files into it. Finder is consistent _except_ for the applications folder which installs system services and processes scripts every time you drop a dmg into it. Hm. "
/Applications directory, no special installation magic goes on when you drag an application from one disk to another. The application itself is basically a special kind of folder which contains all of the resources and even extra libraries required for it to function, this avoids the need to use an installer at all in most cases because most of the resources reqired for the application are in the application.
If you're going to criticize something it helps if you have the slightest clue what you're talking about. Try actually using a Mac sometime, you might be pleasantly surprised.
There's nothing special about the
By contrast, Windows applications have a tendency to sprawl over the hard drive, copying things into shared system-wide resource directories because that is how a library is registered in the windows world. The windows start menu is used to cut through what would otherwise be a very cluttered place, the "\Program Files" directory.
On the Mac the equivalent, "/Applications" contains the actual application in it's entirety. Again; in contrast linking applications into the Start Menu is one of the many functions of an installer in Windows. Without installers you wouldn't have any idea where the application went and would have to navigate the troubled waters of "\Program Files" alone.
The other magic usually handled by installers in Windows happens when you first load an application, at which point it exchanges information with the OS, the OS from that point on knows where on the disk the application is so that even if you move it around the filesystem hierarchy it will still be able to find it, it also exchanges information about what mimetypes the app would like to be associated with so that it can show up in the "open with..." list for certain file types and declare itself able to handle any types of files it might create.
If you need to register system services, then you need an application installer or a monkey willing to do it by hand (a user, for example). In that case mac applications install like Windows ones, by using an installer package.
People should stop trying to pretend that the Mac is a replacement for UNIX or Linux machines; it is not.
Say it with me, "Linux is not Unix". Just because something doesn't act enough like Linux for your exacting standards doesn't make it not a Unix system. Linux is a pretty damn strange beast too when compared to "real" Unixes.
It really burns my toast to see someone complaining that OS X isn't unix enough... half the whiners out there have never even used another Unix system long enough to have any clue whether it's "real" enough. What other Unixes have you used?
I've worked extensively as an administrator with many flavours of Unix and Linux, including Solaris 8, 9, 10, BSD 4.x, Linux 1.2-2.6, and not so extensively as a user with various versions of AIX, IRIX and Digital Unix, not to mention cutting my teeth on Xenix back when it was owned by Microsoft, and I can safely say that the Mac's Unix environment seems reasonably sane in that company.
Unixes (and Linuxes) are ALL strange, the thread that binds them together is the fact that they can all run the same code with little modification, the user environment in Unix systems seems like an exercise in "being different for the sake of it" with no particular rhyme or reason.
So in my opinion, anyone who complains that Mac OS X isn't unixy enough is just a cry-baby who's never had to deal with real-Unixes... I'd take a Mac over any of the real-Unixes in a heartbeat, with the possible exception of Solaris - depending on the job.
At least OS X comes with development tools that they don't charge a fortune for, that's a hell of a lot more open in my opinion than a lot of Unix vendors have been in the past.
Gamers are game geeks, they'd use turd powered abacuses instead of computers if it meant that they could get higher frame rates in Quake XIV.
So true, chroot was never designed for security, neither was the internet.
Lets stop using them both.
Can they even claim copyright on something that is only ten percent the same as the original?
Hear hear!
"They are only an issue because users are stupid. I can run windows xp or vista without any antivirus software or antispyware or even a firewall. I'm not stupid, I don't click the ecards that make you download .exes then run them. The problem with windows is that it has the most users, and most of them know nothing about computers and end up running the viruses by themselfs. Macs have quite a few unpacthed vulnerabilities aswell. They all have their flaws."
From a non-technical (or "stupid" as you put it) users perspective, the Macintosh provides a lower-maintenance alternative to Windows, and it certainly helps that rather than just being a smaller target (as people are so fond of mentioning), for whatever reason it's practically a non-target for malware authors -there has never been any broadly effective malware of any kind for OS X.
Malware is one whole category of software that users of other operating systems are glad to be without, makes you wonder who the stupid ones are for putting themselves in harm's way at all. Personally, I'd rather be a draft-dodger than a martyr for someone else's ideals.
I'm sorry, I assumed that you'd been so frothy at the mouth writing your rabid response in defense of Linux distributors that you'd forgotten to make your point. It puzzled me that you'd been so zealous in your leap to defend "linux distributors", hence my comment that they were your "gods".
I was trying in my own "whiney bitch" way to get you to tell me why you felt so strongly that I had no right to say what I'd said. It never occurred to me that your reply was just an asinine critique of my writing style and opinions rather than a response to it. Now that you've made that abundantly clear I've lost interest.
I don't think I've ever seen so many straw-men per line before.
I was talking about Linux distributors, not individuals writing filesystems. I'm confused where that idea even came from. Additionally, there are existing working (quite well) drivers for XP that allow access to ext2fs filesystems from Windows.
It was never my intention to suggest that developers making a filesystem for Linux should feel compelled to write one for Windows. Which pretty much invalidates all your other arguments.
What Linux distributors could do now without much effort is encourage the use of Ext3 as a default filesystem, install the ext2 driver in Windows and install some open source applications which can happily share some settings between both platforms. Thunderbird, Firefox, OpenOffice for example.
The fact of the matter is that when I have gone to the effort of setting up a system as I have explained above those users have generally stuck with Linux, and been quite pleased. People get upset when they realise they can access their Windows files from Linux, but the reverse isn't true.
We can have great finger-pointing blamestorming sessions about whose fault that is, and whose responsibility it is to fix, or we can rise above that and just do what's right for the users.
That is all I'm asking of Linux distributors, and I can't see a sensible reason for embracing Windows users on the one hand with CDs that auto-start installation and include Windows software, and then not go that little bit further by making that software able to share data with its Linux counterpart.
That just leaves Windows-to-Linux users with a bitter-taste and a feeling that Linux distributors use bait-and-switch tactics by only synchronising their Windows settings and data once, and only holding their hand until the desktop boots and then leaving them on their own.
A few creature comforts like proper two-way sync between Firefox bookmarks, making their Windows "My Documents" folder available, making OpenOffice's default save/open directory the same as MS Office or OpenOffice in Windows, and things of that nature go a long way toward warming that Linux pool that they're dipping their toes in.
My experience has been that (perhaps a little paradoxically) users are far more likely to stick with Linux if they're able to switch between Windows and Linux on a whim and still have a way to access everything that doesn't require them to be a geek of mammoth proportions.
Do you suffer from Alzheimer's or have some kind of brain damage which precludes you from reading what I just wrote. The fact you failed to address those assertions in the original message doesn't excuse you from making a point.
Why is it childish to expect Linux distributors to be a little more friendly to people making the transition from Windows to Linux.
Microsoft is obviously going to behave in that fashion as they have a financial motivation to lock people into their operating system.
What is the excuse of Linux developers like Ubuntu who give away their product for free. Why would they want to lock your settings into your Linux partition instead of making them available. I can't think of a legitimate reason so I put it down to childishness.
I called, and continue to call on you to show me some evidence to the contrary. I wasn't planning to enter into a debate about my childishness, but since you seem intent on "proving it" fine. Here's a quotable quote for you.
"I have the intellect of a three year old." -Steeviant, 2007
How does that change my original point at all?
I think you're pretty close with the statement that Apple is just Dell with some better ad men.
Apple is basically Dell that has blessed by a bathroomware designer.
Unfortunately, it's O(pen)S(tep) X that I'm after.
"Also, the battery is covered by the warranty, and if you choose to extend the warranty to two years with the $69 AppleCare Protection Plan for iPhone, the battery is covered under that as well."
It's been my experience that Apple absolutely do not warranty batteries under any circumstances, ever. Not surprisingly every Apple battery I've ever owned has shat itself royally within 18 months, so that 12 months comment isn't that far off the mark.
I've had multiple power supplies and batteries die on Apple computers I've owned and their attitude always seems to be that batteries and power supplies are only covered under a 90 day warranty which cannot be extended.
Fortunately I live in a civilized nation with consumer protection laws which state that things must last for a reasonable period of time, but I would have been fucked by the proverbial big black dog otherwise.
Co-incidentally Apple closed up shop in this country the same year that the aforementioned laws were passed. Apparently Apple are afraid that they make things that aren't suitable for their advertised purpose or don't last a reasonable amount of time for the amount they cost. Go figure.
Here's a tip... tune your mouse acceleration settings so that the mouse goes completely to the left and right (or top and bottom if your monitor is in portrait orientation) in one sweep of the mouse, then you'll find you can reach any point on your screen in just one sweep of the mouse. This works not only for menus, but for taskbars and Docks as well.
If you're seriously having to use more than one movement of the mouse to get from say, the top-left of your monitor to the bottom-right of your monitor and don't know how to fix it then you should have your geek card revoked.
Hitting a unified menubar or taskbar is exactly the same process, "slam" the mouse to the bottom of the screen and you're there no "voyaging" involved. There's a lot of well established ergonomic research to suggest that screen edges are good places for commonly used objects because they are effectively infinitely large in a certain direction, and that research has been heeded by ALL major OS vendors in one way or another.
Interestingly, research suggests that the time to acquire objects like menu bars is purely a function of their size and their distance from where your hands (or pointer on a computer) spend most of their time. Once you are "up to speed" with an interface, those are the only factors that matter in acquiring a target, the training of the user is irrelevant.
That suggests that both attached and detached menu bars are a good idea, attached menu bars by virtue of being close at hand to the content that you're manipulating, and detached menu bars by virtue of being effectively enormous in size. I'm certain, as would be anyone with common-sense that all users can acquire a menu bar at the top of the screen more quickly than one in the middle of the screen.
However, as you state above unless the user is quitting the application they probably have to return to the application window, this is still a much larger target than a menu bar, but leaves you much further from the content than the attached menu bar would.
I don't think there actually is a consensus on which type of menu bar is best, but there is a lot of agreement that no-one should have trouble navigating to a detached menu bar, because it's infinitely large, so either you're exaggerating, stupid, or have such unbelievably awful hand-eye coordination that you can't even hit a side of the screen.
Speaking as a Linux, OS X and Windows user with a 24" 1920x1200 monitor.
I'm so sorry I ever said anything disparaging against our mighty Gods the Linux distributors.
And as for you, big, smart grown-up adult man you, you've obviously found the Linux distributions which by default install ext3 in your Windows installation, so come on man - Cough up those names...
It's because all Linux distributors are pig-headed and stupid and believe that once you see Linux for the very first time you'll never ever ever be interested in Windows again.
At least that's what most people I've showed Linux to are left with as an impression.
Another valid question; Why are the "migration tools" all one way, instead of synchronizing between Linux and Windows?
Same reason, the distributors are so full of themselves that they believe their OS is the only one you'll ever use and that you'd never in a million years want to continue using both Windows and Linux. That's crazy, you'll just visit to pick your stuff up like moving out of an apartment.
Plus there's the "principal" that an open source vendor shouldn't write things for Windows, they should be trying to encourage everyone to use open source stuff instead by locking Windows out of their sandpit for no apparent reason.
Childishness is the root cause.
He has been right most of the time, and he has a rare instinctive skill in determining what works and what doesn't.
That's called raw talent and is the obvious reason for Linus to be afraid to work with him (Linus simply never could have taken on kernel programming without years of training and a book of BSD source in front of him), that and the fact that Linus and the rest of the kernel developers having a gang-mentality where they beat on people who try to join up.
Violent thug gangs here in NZ have the same process where you must be a "prospect" which entails being a scapegoat and being shat on for a few years from a great height, and maybe getting a patch at the end, after an "initiation".
In Con's case apparently, according to Linus. In order to pass the initiation he was supposed to sit in silent reverence while a "patched" gang member steals his ideas.
Sorry Con, but no "bro" status for you in the Linux gang if you can't keep your mouth shut.
I do not think that word means what you think it means.
All of us who came to OS X as NeXT and Unix users are at least as embarrassed by having to be associated with cocksucking Artistes and Foppish fashion junkies like you.
Why don't you start a web site for "real mac users" so you can all meet up somewhere that's not here, so you can all lift up each other's turtleneck tops to ream each others anuses while fantasizing about Steve Jobs and getting Apple tatoos?
You could call it elitistmacfaggot.com
" I think Apple sell some iPhones, but they are dreaming if they think that they could be the next SonyEricsson let alone the next Nokia, Moto or Samsung. "
According to this cnet news article, everyone's favorite CEO had this to say on the subject; "This is exactly what we're going to try to do in 2008, is grab 1 percent market share."
It doesn't exactly sound like they're aiming to be a major player in the phone industry any time soon. Still, I can't see them shifting ten million units by the end of 2008.
"You're not suggesting Apple isn't the single innovative force in the software industry.. are you? We all know "Spaces" could never have been conceived without Jobs' flawless guidance."
What a misleading comment, no other OS has ever referred to virtual desktops as "spaces" before, "workspaces" perhaps, but that is absolutely not the same thing at all and the creators should be sued for copying Apple.
Nice troll, but that's just one way of installing a package in Ubuntu (a modern Debian based distribution), You can easily point and click your way to installing packages using synaptic or the simplified package installer that appeared in Ubuntu 6.06, the simplified package manager is basically a point and click list of programs to install, while synaptic is like a more powerful version of the Add/Remove Programs control panel.
.deb package and double-click it, which will start an installer a lot like what you see in Windows but without the next->next->next->next->next->next->next->finish claptrap.
Alternatively you could find the
Or, if you're feeling extra geeky you can go by what some guy on slashdot told you to type into the terminal.
Deskbar does indeed do live search, though I believe I had to install a package called something like python-beagle before I could see the beagle search-as-you-type plugin in the list of deskbar plugins in Ubuntu.
The first "live query" desktop search that made it beyond proof-of-concept was in BeOS, made possible by a ground-up rewrite of the file system which blessed BeOS with (in the words of BeOS's lead file system engineer) "database-like" features, though I can't remember exactly which version of BeOS BFS first appeared in.
Google Desktop Search, MSN Desktop Search, Beagle, Tracker (no, not the BeOS file manager), Apple's Spotlight, the Start menu search box in Vista and to a large extent Microsoft's never-ready WinFS next generation file system all borrow extensively from BeOS's original implementation.
Not entirely coincidentally, the principal developer of BFS Dominic Giampaolo now works for Apple as a file system engineer.