1. There are plenty of people writing things VERY close to the exact same think that in many cases the compiler could reduce to the same thing if it knew how to recognize it.
2. I fail to see why the compiler can pull in someone else's asm and work perfectly but it can't be made to figure it out on its own. It already has to do exactly that.
I understand why they did it, but in regard to the post I was responding to, this isn't something to go around bragging about when your basically saying "we finally hand crafted something that works as well as what you do automatically"
When it comes to code, 99 times out of 90, starting over is a stupid idea. You don't throw out the idea of a toilet in space, you refine the toilet to work in space based on existing tech and new requirements. A space toilet works a lot differently, but its not a re-invention.
Linux audio is a perfect example of needless reinvention. OSX and Windows both seem to have no problem with one sound system even with apps that require very low latency and supporting audio in general yet Linux has how many different sound daemons? And none of them do more than one task worth a damn if they even do the one profile they were 'designed' for.
There is a difference between improving and re-inventing.
I also didn't say that things never get re-invented, just that Linux fans tend to do it without asking why. Everyone thinks they're the new Linus thats going to invent the new way of doing everything that kicks everyone elses way to the curb. There are plenty of people that do make awesome improvements, but those people are drown out by the shear number of people that change things without asking why things should be changed.
Smartphones are a great example. Before the iPhone you had 3 or so 'smart phone' OSes. WinMobile was a crappy copy of the desktop UI to a phone. Blackberry had a start, but just thought the world should stick with their 90s tech for ever and that no improvements were needed because... well, I don't know why, and neither do they. The ONLY thing it had going for it was push email really on the software side, and that is an absolutely shitty implementation in every way. They keyboard on the device was great for most people however, that helped a lot. If anyone else had ANY sort of push email, RIM wouldn't ever have mattered. Symbian was popular, but not because it was great to use, but because the big guy on the street liked to use it. It wasn't horrible compared to other offerings, but thats about it. It was popular enough that it too stagnated due to lack of real competition. They all sucked like a donkey show. They all kind of stole each others crappy ideas but did things differently.
Then Apple comes along, puts some REAL effort into figuring out how to make a smart phone not suck for MOST people. I'm excluding FOSS fanboys from most people as they are a tiny portion of the population and think the entire world should share their viewpoint and priorities, if you can't accept this theres no point in reading on. Made the UI kick ass. Gave you push email without the craptastic Blackberry software. Put A REAL WEB BROWSER on the phone, not some half assed pile of shit like Mobile IE, or Pocket IE or whatever the hell it was that I can't remember now. I worked hard to block that part of my memory out. Not that it was perfect, iOS has grown from its own learning experiences, such as no apps - use HTML! to having an app store. Multitasking that doesn't kill your battery (most of the time anyway, GPS apps are still great for killing it thanks to shitty things like Google latitude). Each update is almost universally a incremental but welcome improvement to the majority of the users. Sure, you can bring up the antennae thing, but you only can do so if you ignore the fact that when it got a shitty signal it was still better than about 95% of the phones on the market. You can bring up Maps, but most people have never gotten wrong directions like you hear so often, what they get for the most part is little POI info. Of course, they also now get turn by turn which they didnt' have before and even the new Google Maps for iOS is pretty shitty compared to the original for iOS, while it gives you a turn by turn UI, its a pretty shitty one that makes me just want the original Google Maps for iOS back. Especially since it doesnt' have an actual iPad version, only iPhone. But I'm off topic and fanboying for Apply myself now, I digress.
Android tried to do the same, but really didn't do it as well. Its still tries to hard to fit everyone's wants and requirements and as such it falls short. Not saying its not popular, but outside of geeky fanboys, few people give a shit about android other than it has Google's name attached to it. It has taken the place of Symbian and has allowed a lot of people to market phones with little OS development. It also allows them to... change shit for no reason other than to be different so they aren't like every other phone sold by everyone else. Its a race to the bottom because of this. We'll have to see if Google ever gets their shit together, but being the owner of 2 Nexus 7's, I doubt they will. Its just a way to push all their servi
While I would be pissed if this happened to me as well, lets look at a quote from the full article:
"You can't un-see this. He's five years old. Maybe when he's 18 or 20 maybe he won't know anything about it but he's not going to forget about it tomorrow,"
I'll bet a months pay that unless someone reminds him, he won't remember it in a week. He might not forget it tomorrow, but in a week he'll be long past it. By the time next christmas comes around he won't remember a thing that happened this christmas unless you bring it up to him and point it out, if you ask him what he got for christmas last year he'd probably have to put serious effort into thinking about it. His mind has far more important things to worry about... like being a fucking 5 year old and playing video games themselves or playing with his friends/toys.
On that same note however, when he's 18 or 20, he probably WILL remember it and picture it in his quest to satisfy himself when he can't get a date or some else to do it. Of course, at that point he'll be looking at any sexually arousing thing on the planet and wanting to bone its brains out so its really stupid to care.
This guy is just trying to blow it out of proportion to extort some money from GameStop. Fucking leech.
Yes, everything is appropriate for children to see even if they'll see it later. While the nudity thing isn't a big deal, sex is a complex issue that needs to come as late as possible in life, it almost universally happens BEFORE kids understand what they are actually doing thanks in large part to hormones kicking into high gear.
Eventually everything dies so we should intentionally expose kids to executions right from the start, lets make sure they have no value or fear of death at all. I nominate you for the example execution.
Your nick shows you're clearly mature and well adjusted so you clearly have an insightful, well thought out comment here, my bad for not getting it.
The Fundies support it, even if not openly, when they hide or relocate a priest that diddles boys.
Thats one of the most retarded thoughts I've seen in ages.
You think that hiding something you aren't proud of is the same as consenting? Wow, just wow. 'Fundies' don't 'support it' you idiot, otherwise they would be all about letting people know they do it. You typically hide things you don't want others knowing you do because you don't think its acceptable to be doing it. Your logic is about as ass backwards as it gets.
Considering they were giving an Nintendo product, not a Sony product, theres a good chance they considered the likelyhood of the kid seeing intense violence anyway. Nintendo has traditionally had a pretty strong stance towards keeping things kid friendly.
I fully admit I haven't played a Nintendo game since I sold my Wii, but even then it was still pretty clear they target kid friendly.
You don't really have any indication to assume the parents are letting the kid watch Saw based on the information given so why don't you climb off your high horse and stop making retarded assumptions, mmm'kay?
ASR is cute, but only stops the most trivial of exploit efforts. And this isn't exploiting anything other than the user so ASR is 100% useless.
Granular permissions in the style of Android are practically useless and heres why, a statement from my wife just last night as she played with her Nexus 7:
Does anyone even say no to these permissions since every app wants a bunch of them and you can't use it without click yes?
When every app including crap from Google asks for all sorts of shit, like access to your freaking call log, normal people quickly just click Ok instead of bothering with actually determining the permissions are needed. They've done the same thing as Microsoft. Made the 'security feature' so utterly obnoxious as to be practically useless.
How about letting the app run WITHOUT those permissions? Why do I have to decided if I want an app or not based on the fact that it wants access to my call log at install time rather than saying 'no, you cant see me call log' and still getting the app? Why can I not use the app but tell it to go fuck itself when it wants access to my contacts?
The answer is simple. Google doesn't actually want it to be too secure as that would prevent them from getting all the information they want to target you.
Its really not a great sandbox other than it functions the way it was intended. From a user perspective, its pretty shitty.
Android is just as much Linux as Debian, Ubuntu and Redhat. Its just another distribution. Its just the only one that happens to be popular, and as such... guess what... just like Windows its becoming a malware target. and just like Windows you don't have to 'hack' the OS, just the user.
Uhm... the license states they need to give credit... that was the creators ideals. They give credit as defined by the license. The creators have included with the code their ideals and they followed them as written. You claiming anything else just makes you a liar.
They didn't take anything away. They made a copy. The original students still have access to their original work.
How about the ease in taking down a single tower rather than cutting several lines to kill a large populations connectivity.
Wireless is a stupid solution to any problem that involves a stationary target. Its often times short term easy and short term less expensive, but eventually when you have no more spectrum, you're fucked. Welcome to America's current spectrum issue, morons who thought 'lets just make it wireless!' when it doesn't need to be.
Windows Media Center on Win7 with XBox360's as extenders and a HDHomeRun Prime on the server for cable is pretty much the best thing there is on the planet for this stuff.
... You do realize if they just used the intel compiler they wouldn't need their own customized assembly versions of standard (i.e. simple) library functions, right?
I fail to see the impressive part. Impressive would have been fixing GCC to optimize simple functions on its own.
memcmp (and the other functions like it) is something that gets repeated in slight variations in code A LOT, and is trivial to implement. This is almost a textbook optimizer target if I've ever seen one.
Linux is no threat to anyone, its just an excuse people like to use.
Programers, even MS ones can move elsewhere. Linux won't 'take over the world' ever if the $7/hour programmers can't write code for it. Most companies are unwilling to spend large sums of money for programmers who have their head up RMSes ass and think they're worth ridiclous sums of money, so its not a threat. Programming isn't all that difficult if you have the proper info. Not everyone can deal with the requirements of C, but then thats why you see companies like Google coming up with new languages to solve that problem so they can waste less time with programmers who are meticulous about memory management and more time getting shit done.
MS Shareholders, meh, thats debatable. MS writes apps for other OSes already and makes a fortune off of them, hell Office is the best Office for OSX, Apple doesn't even bother making a truely competing product. Pages/Numbers are like MS Works, not Office. If the world really did jump ship to Linux, they'd move Office over as well. They aren't going to go out of business of some political ideal, thats what Linux people do. MS will follow the money, everything they do is about the money. Right now its more profitable to spend some of that money keeping people on Windows, but if that changes they won't roll over and die.
If Linux became main stream, it would just get malware as well. You don't need to exploit a machine to get malware on, you need to exploit a user. Its been easier to exploit users than it has been to exploit windows since AT LEAST XP SP2, probably a little before that. Windows Vista dropping admin as default pretty much ended the easy way to get an entire machine. But why do you need an entire machine? You don't. You just need to be able to run apps, and the less intrusive you are the longer you'll go without being detected. Windows gets targeted due to market share. Android sees some of the same issues due to its popularity, but lets not recognize that and pretend its perfect, shall we? Windows users don't notice malware until they've got 900 different variants installed that do something like change their home page. You are no different just because you run Linux. You wouldn't notice intelligent malware any faster than a Windows user would, you just think you are immune. You probably aren't stupid enough to download the wrong thing most of the time, but I'd be a months pay that you've only not been caught in a malware scam by dumb luck and obscurity. Eventually, something will come through that is so close to legit looking that it will/has got you and the only thing that stopped it was that it wasn't targeting your OS. Thats only because you're OS isn't popular enough to waste their time on, not because its saving you.
For the rest of us, though, it's a blessing.
While some people prefer to live in a world of obscurity (thats not exclusive to Linux fanboys btw, you aren't any more original than goths), its rather silly to call it a blessing. Instead of removing malware you spend your time dicking with things that were solved 20 years ago but everyone thinks they need to reinvent and do differently without ever asking why it should be done differently in the first place. Its no more a blessing then any other mental illness, you just don't recognize it.
Windows does not support remote rendering of applications like the X Protocol does.
Wrong. Hasn't been that way for some time. Don't know when Citrix started offering remote rendering but the built in TS in Vista does it to a minor extent and Win7 does it to a large extent.
The Win32 API doesn't need to be modified to support it, just the subsystem under it. Switching between the two is a simply matter of forcing a redraw, which all apps have to support anyway. Top it off with the fact that RDP supports bitmap caching and you don't even need to do full redraws.
Come on now, X windows was built for remote connections.
Yet, storing the backing store is optional and has to be supported properly on both ends... and still doesn't work half the time. And it has no sort of built in caching of rendered data to limit redraws.
1970s eh? You realize it didn't come about until the mid 80s, right? And that the way computers work today as far as graphical capabilities is nothing like displaying in the 70s OR 80s right?
In fact, to go further.. MS had to buy a lot of technology from Citrix to accomplish anything at all with TS.
Or rather MS and Citrix partnered together to make WinFrame work... and then later MS got tired of it costing 9 billion dollars and threw it in to silence fanboys like yourself. Citrix didn't create it on their own, Microsoft helped them with access to the innards of Windows, and that is exactly why it functions much like the X protocol, with the exception of being from a more recent decade. But yes, MS did buy a license to include s trimmed down version of it in their OS.
If you want to tell people how bad X is, at least do 10 minutes of research before doing so.
I used to write apps against libX in the 90s and 00s, what are your credentials?
- Windows allows you to either clone the monitors (e.g. presentation mode) or have one really big desktop that spans all the monitors; but applications can only min/max on one monitor; you can stretch an application to cross both monitors, but the max function provided by Windows won't do that.
The maximize button maximizes to current screen, doesn't stop you from actually making the window span all by resizing it yourself.
- Windows leaves much of the multi-monitor support to the drivers. if you have several display adapters they better work well together at the driver level or you won't get multi-monitor. At work we tried adding a second monitor to a Windows system (2008 Server I think) but the driver for the second card would only work with other drivers that had WDM support; which the main card did not.
So you're argument is that you have a shitty card without drivers and you're complaining that it doesn't work? Seriously? Could you even use that card in Linux? I mean if it doesn't have a Windows driver what is the chance you're using anything other than VESA in Linux?
- As of WinXP SP3 Windows does provide a nice built-in utility for manipulating mutli-monitor support when it is available, but it's very limited. Usually you'll get more functionality out of the driver tools (e.g. nVidia's ControlPanel) that will let you do a bit more. In no cases do any of those tools provide the flexibility of what Linux provides.
Its always proper to compare a 4.5 year old release of Windows to a modern Linux distro isn't it...
This is true even of Windows 7; and given the lack of differences for Win8 I would assume so there to - those from what I have seen, Windows 8 will put the Metro interface on one monitor and the Desktop interface on a second monitor by default; so you're dual-head display is now essentially a single head display for with two different environments on each monitor. Might be the only way to use Windows 8 without getting rid of Metro.
Then you need to learn how to use the control panel. Span the desktop properly and Metro will span with it. There pretty much isn't any truthful comparison in your entire post.
In a Google datacenter... so you were a rack monkey and you think thats representative of their staff?
While I also know they don't generally use non-Google products throughout the company, trying to pretend you know what they use based on when you had a job that will soon be replaced by a robot and did practically nothing other than manual labor is kind of silly.
And that 'dont see the point in spending money on Microsoft Office' is part of your problem. While it isn't a $10 software product, the cost is nothing to a company. The most expensive version of Office and Multiple server CALs for adding a user into an MS environment is less than a single weeks salary at minimum wage. If it takes anything more than that to learn something else, its retarded to switch, especially considering you can reuse the license on a new person and still don't have to train.
If your reason for not using MS Office is cost, you're an idiot and can't see the forest for the trees.
Slashdot Mirror
1. There are plenty of people writing things VERY close to the exact same think that in many cases the compiler could reduce to the same thing if it knew how to recognize it.
2. I fail to see why the compiler can pull in someone else's asm and work perfectly but it can't be made to figure it out on its own. It already has to do exactly that.
I understand why they did it, but in regard to the post I was responding to, this isn't something to go around bragging about when your basically saying "we finally hand crafted something that works as well as what you do automatically"
And only a Linux fanboy would argue that distort incompatibility is a feature.
Stop using free apps and the problem goes away.
When it comes to code, 99 times out of 90, starting over is a stupid idea. You don't throw out the idea of a toilet in space, you refine the toilet to work in space based on existing tech and new requirements. A space toilet works a lot differently, but its not a re-invention.
Linux audio is a perfect example of needless reinvention. OSX and Windows both seem to have no problem with one sound system even with apps that require very low latency and supporting audio in general yet Linux has how many different sound daemons? And none of them do more than one task worth a damn if they even do the one profile they were 'designed' for.
There is a difference between improving and re-inventing.
I also didn't say that things never get re-invented, just that Linux fans tend to do it without asking why. Everyone thinks they're the new Linus thats going to invent the new way of doing everything that kicks everyone elses way to the curb. There are plenty of people that do make awesome improvements, but those people are drown out by the shear number of people that change things without asking why things should be changed.
Smartphones are a great example. Before the iPhone you had 3 or so 'smart phone' OSes. WinMobile was a crappy copy of the desktop UI to a phone. Blackberry had a start, but just thought the world should stick with their 90s tech for ever and that no improvements were needed because ... well, I don't know why, and neither do they. The ONLY thing it had going for it was push email really on the software side, and that is an absolutely shitty implementation in every way. They keyboard on the device was great for most people however, that helped a lot. If anyone else had ANY sort of push email, RIM wouldn't ever have mattered. Symbian was popular, but not because it was great to use, but because the big guy on the street liked to use it. It wasn't horrible compared to other offerings, but thats about it. It was popular enough that it too stagnated due to lack of real competition. They all sucked like a donkey show. They all kind of stole each others crappy ideas but did things differently.
Then Apple comes along, puts some REAL effort into figuring out how to make a smart phone not suck for MOST people. I'm excluding FOSS fanboys from most people as they are a tiny portion of the population and think the entire world should share their viewpoint and priorities, if you can't accept this theres no point in reading on. Made the UI kick ass. Gave you push email without the craptastic Blackberry software. Put A REAL WEB BROWSER on the phone, not some half assed pile of shit like Mobile IE, or Pocket IE or whatever the hell it was that I can't remember now. I worked hard to block that part of my memory out. Not that it was perfect, iOS has grown from its own learning experiences, such as no apps - use HTML! to having an app store. Multitasking that doesn't kill your battery (most of the time anyway, GPS apps are still great for killing it thanks to shitty things like Google latitude). Each update is almost universally a incremental but welcome improvement to the majority of the users. Sure, you can bring up the antennae thing, but you only can do so if you ignore the fact that when it got a shitty signal it was still better than about 95% of the phones on the market. You can bring up Maps, but most people have never gotten wrong directions like you hear so often, what they get for the most part is little POI info. Of course, they also now get turn by turn which they didnt' have before and even the new Google Maps for iOS is pretty shitty compared to the original for iOS, while it gives you a turn by turn UI, its a pretty shitty one that makes me just want the original Google Maps for iOS back. Especially since it doesnt' have an actual iPad version, only iPhone. But I'm off topic and fanboying for Apply myself now, I digress.
Android tried to do the same, but really didn't do it as well. Its still tries to hard to fit everyone's wants and requirements and as such it falls short. Not saying its not popular, but outside of geeky fanboys, few people give a shit about android other than it has Google's name attached to it. It has taken the place of Symbian and has allowed a lot of people to market phones with little OS development. It also allows them to ... change shit for no reason other than to be different so they aren't like every other phone sold by everyone else. Its a race to the bottom because of this. We'll have to see if Google ever gets their shit together, but being the owner of 2 Nexus 7's, I doubt they will. Its just a way to push all their servi
While I would be pissed if this happened to me as well, lets look at a quote from the full article:
"You can't un-see this. He's five years old. Maybe when he's 18 or 20 maybe he won't know anything about it but he's not going to forget about it tomorrow,"
I'll bet a months pay that unless someone reminds him, he won't remember it in a week. He might not forget it tomorrow, but in a week he'll be long past it. By the time next christmas comes around he won't remember a thing that happened this christmas unless you bring it up to him and point it out, if you ask him what he got for christmas last year he'd probably have to put serious effort into thinking about it. His mind has far more important things to worry about ... like being a fucking 5 year old and playing video games themselves or playing with his friends/toys.
On that same note however, when he's 18 or 20, he probably WILL remember it and picture it in his quest to satisfy himself when he can't get a date or some else to do it. Of course, at that point he'll be looking at any sexually arousing thing on the planet and wanting to bone its brains out so its really stupid to care.
This guy is just trying to blow it out of proportion to extort some money from GameStop. Fucking leech.
Yes, everything is appropriate for children to see even if they'll see it later. While the nudity thing isn't a big deal, sex is a complex issue that needs to come as late as possible in life, it almost universally happens BEFORE kids understand what they are actually doing thanks in large part to hormones kicking into high gear.
Eventually everything dies so we should intentionally expose kids to executions right from the start, lets make sure they have no value or fear of death at all. I nominate you for the example execution.
Your nick shows you're clearly mature and well adjusted so you clearly have an insightful, well thought out comment here, my bad for not getting it.
The Fundies support it, even if not openly, when they hide or relocate a priest that diddles boys.
Thats one of the most retarded thoughts I've seen in ages.
You think that hiding something you aren't proud of is the same as consenting? Wow, just wow. 'Fundies' don't 'support it' you idiot, otherwise they would be all about letting people know they do it. You typically hide things you don't want others knowing you do because you don't think its acceptable to be doing it. Your logic is about as ass backwards as it gets.
Considering they were giving an Nintendo product, not a Sony product, theres a good chance they considered the likelyhood of the kid seeing intense violence anyway. Nintendo has traditionally had a pretty strong stance towards keeping things kid friendly.
I fully admit I haven't played a Nintendo game since I sold my Wii, but even then it was still pretty clear they target kid friendly.
You don't really have any indication to assume the parents are letting the kid watch Saw based on the information given so why don't you climb off your high horse and stop making retarded assumptions, mmm'kay?
ASR is cute, but only stops the most trivial of exploit efforts. And this isn't exploiting anything other than the user so ASR is 100% useless.
Granular permissions in the style of Android are practically useless and heres why, a statement from my wife just last night as she played with her Nexus 7:
Does anyone even say no to these permissions since every app wants a bunch of them and you can't use it without click yes?
When every app including crap from Google asks for all sorts of shit, like access to your freaking call log, normal people quickly just click Ok instead of bothering with actually determining the permissions are needed. They've done the same thing as Microsoft. Made the 'security feature' so utterly obnoxious as to be practically useless.
How about letting the app run WITHOUT those permissions? Why do I have to decided if I want an app or not based on the fact that it wants access to my call log at install time rather than saying 'no, you cant see me call log' and still getting the app? Why can I not use the app but tell it to go fuck itself when it wants access to my contacts?
The answer is simple. Google doesn't actually want it to be too secure as that would prevent them from getting all the information they want to target you.
Its really not a great sandbox other than it functions the way it was intended. From a user perspective, its pretty shitty.
They didn't call it a virus, the summary in fact states likely spread by users. Guess what, its malware.
Did you have a point and what the fuck is it/how the fuck are you modded +5?
Android is just as much Linux as Debian, Ubuntu and Redhat. Its just another distribution. Its just the only one that happens to be popular, and as such ... guess what ... just like Windows its becoming a malware target. and just like Windows you don't have to 'hack' the OS, just the user.
You mean like how Marvell turned down CMU's offer to license the patents? I think that constitutes willful infringement, don't you?
Uhm ... the license states they need to give credit ... that was the creators ideals. They give credit as defined by the license. The creators have included with the code their ideals and they followed them as written. You claiming anything else just makes you a liar.
They didn't take anything away. They made a copy. The original students still have access to their original work.
Other than wasting spectrum?
How about the ease in taking down a single tower rather than cutting several lines to kill a large populations connectivity.
Wireless is a stupid solution to any problem that involves a stationary target. Its often times short term easy and short term less expensive, but eventually when you have no more spectrum, you're fucked. Welcome to America's current spectrum issue, morons who thought 'lets just make it wireless!' when it doesn't need to be.
Windows Media Center on Win7 with XBox360's as extenders and a HDHomeRun Prime on the server for cable is pretty much the best thing there is on the planet for this stuff.
... You do realize if they just used the intel compiler they wouldn't need their own customized assembly versions of standard (i.e. simple) library functions, right?
I fail to see the impressive part. Impressive would have been fixing GCC to optimize simple functions on its own.
memcmp (and the other functions like it) is something that gets repeated in slight variations in code A LOT, and is trivial to implement. This is almost a textbook optimizer target if I've ever seen one.
Linux is no threat to anyone, its just an excuse people like to use.
Programers, even MS ones can move elsewhere. Linux won't 'take over the world' ever if the $7/hour programmers can't write code for it. Most companies are unwilling to spend large sums of money for programmers who have their head up RMSes ass and think they're worth ridiclous sums of money, so its not a threat. Programming isn't all that difficult if you have the proper info. Not everyone can deal with the requirements of C, but then thats why you see companies like Google coming up with new languages to solve that problem so they can waste less time with programmers who are meticulous about memory management and more time getting shit done.
MS Shareholders, meh, thats debatable. MS writes apps for other OSes already and makes a fortune off of them, hell Office is the best Office for OSX, Apple doesn't even bother making a truely competing product. Pages/Numbers are like MS Works, not Office. If the world really did jump ship to Linux, they'd move Office over as well. They aren't going to go out of business of some political ideal, thats what Linux people do. MS will follow the money, everything they do is about the money. Right now its more profitable to spend some of that money keeping people on Windows, but if that changes they won't roll over and die.
If Linux became main stream, it would just get malware as well. You don't need to exploit a machine to get malware on, you need to exploit a user. Its been easier to exploit users than it has been to exploit windows since AT LEAST XP SP2, probably a little before that. Windows Vista dropping admin as default pretty much ended the easy way to get an entire machine. But why do you need an entire machine? You don't. You just need to be able to run apps, and the less intrusive you are the longer you'll go without being detected. Windows gets targeted due to market share. Android sees some of the same issues due to its popularity, but lets not recognize that and pretend its perfect, shall we? Windows users don't notice malware until they've got 900 different variants installed that do something like change their home page. You are no different just because you run Linux. You wouldn't notice intelligent malware any faster than a Windows user would, you just think you are immune. You probably aren't stupid enough to download the wrong thing most of the time, but I'd be a months pay that you've only not been caught in a malware scam by dumb luck and obscurity. Eventually, something will come through that is so close to legit looking that it will/has got you and the only thing that stopped it was that it wasn't targeting your OS. Thats only because you're OS isn't popular enough to waste their time on, not because its saving you.
For the rest of us, though, it's a blessing.
While some people prefer to live in a world of obscurity (thats not exclusive to Linux fanboys btw, you aren't any more original than goths), its rather silly to call it a blessing. Instead of removing malware you spend your time dicking with things that were solved 20 years ago but everyone thinks they need to reinvent and do differently without ever asking why it should be done differently in the first place. Its no more a blessing then any other mental illness, you just don't recognize it.
Windows does not support remote rendering of applications like the X Protocol does.
Wrong. Hasn't been that way for some time. Don't know when Citrix started offering remote rendering but the built in TS in Vista does it to a minor extent and Win7 does it to a large extent.
The Win32 API doesn't need to be modified to support it, just the subsystem under it. Switching between the two is a simply matter of forcing a redraw, which all apps have to support anyway. Top it off with the fact that RDP supports bitmap caching and you don't even need to do full redraws.
Sadly, OSX uses VNC, its pretty shitty in that respect.
Come on now, X windows was built for remote connections.
Yet, storing the backing store is optional and has to be supported properly on both ends ... and still doesn't work half the time. And it has no sort of built in caching of rendered data to limit redraws.
1970s eh? You realize it didn't come about until the mid 80s, right? And that the way computers work today as far as graphical capabilities is nothing like displaying in the 70s OR 80s right?
In fact, to go further.. MS had to buy a lot of technology from Citrix to accomplish anything at all with TS.
Or rather MS and Citrix partnered together to make WinFrame work ... and then later MS got tired of it costing 9 billion dollars and threw it in to silence fanboys like yourself. Citrix didn't create it on their own, Microsoft helped them with access to the innards of Windows, and that is exactly why it functions much like the X protocol, with the exception of being from a more recent decade. But yes, MS did buy a license to include s trimmed down version of it in their OS.
If you want to tell people how bad X is, at least do 10 minutes of research before doing so.
I used to write apps against libX in the 90s and 00s, what are your credentials?
- Windows allows you to either clone the monitors (e.g. presentation mode) or have one really big desktop that spans all the monitors; but applications can only min/max on one monitor; you can stretch an application to cross both monitors, but the max function provided by Windows won't do that.
The maximize button maximizes to current screen, doesn't stop you from actually making the window span all by resizing it yourself.
- Windows leaves much of the multi-monitor support to the drivers. if you have several display adapters they better work well together at the driver level or you won't get multi-monitor. At work we tried adding a second monitor to a Windows system (2008 Server I think) but the driver for the second card would only work with other drivers that had WDM support; which the main card did not.
So you're argument is that you have a shitty card without drivers and you're complaining that it doesn't work? Seriously? Could you even use that card in Linux? I mean if it doesn't have a Windows driver what is the chance you're using anything other than VESA in Linux?
- As of WinXP SP3 Windows does provide a nice built-in utility for manipulating mutli-monitor support when it is available, but it's very limited. Usually you'll get more functionality out of the driver tools (e.g. nVidia's ControlPanel) that will let you do a bit more. In no cases do any of those tools provide the flexibility of what Linux provides.
Its always proper to compare a 4.5 year old release of Windows to a modern Linux distro isn't it ...
This is true even of Windows 7; and given the lack of differences for Win8 I would assume so there to - those from what I have seen, Windows 8 will put the Metro interface on one monitor and the Desktop interface on a second monitor by default; so you're dual-head display is now essentially a single head display for with two different environments on each monitor. Might be the only way to use Windows 8 without getting rid of Metro.
Then you need to learn how to use the control panel. Span the desktop properly and Metro will span with it. There pretty much isn't any truthful comparison in your entire post.
And it isn't even anywhere close to RDP.
In a Google datacenter ... so you were a rack monkey and you think thats representative of their staff?
While I also know they don't generally use non-Google products throughout the company, trying to pretend you know what they use based on when you had a job that will soon be replaced by a robot and did practically nothing other than manual labor is kind of silly.
And that 'dont see the point in spending money on Microsoft Office' is part of your problem. While it isn't a $10 software product, the cost is nothing to a company. The most expensive version of Office and Multiple server CALs for adding a user into an MS environment is less than a single weeks salary at minimum wage. If it takes anything more than that to learn something else, its retarded to switch, especially considering you can reuse the license on a new person and still don't have to train.
If your reason for not using MS Office is cost, you're an idiot and can't see the forest for the trees.