Apple is known NOT to listen to their customers. They listen to Steve Jobs (and for their benefit, I might add).
Honestly, Microsoft has been around the block on these types of things before, and while Google and Apple are big threats, I don't consider Microsoft a 'stupid' company by any means -- I feel they will have a period of crap (oh wait, Vista...), reorganize and come back stronger.
And in the end it's better for us all if they do. Although if MS ever put out an OS that is better than Linux on security, and better than OSX on ease of use and prettiness -- Slashdotters would still decry it. So I guess on this site, it's lose lose for them. But their bank accounts are still rather full.
Yes, but why, when I can get it on Windows and she knows how to use that?
I don't see the need for Linux all the time. If I'm running a web farm, maybe... even at my workstation for the fun of it -- but not for my parents. I don't really care as long as it works for them and it's easy.
This is exactly what I would want to give to my mother, because all she does is go on YouTube to find oldies music videos, and surf the internet and play casual card games.
Yes, the Asus runs Linux, but it doesn't run her casual games. I still require Windows. It's not that bad anyway -- I'll set it up properly and lock her out of admin, and she can't screw it up that badly. And it's cute.
Give me WinFS -- that's the best technology idea that Windows has had in a long time, and it got shelved for Vista... no excuse now why it shouldn't come out with Windows 7.
Amazingly, the $20 million could be used to offset the imaginary pirating of music that happens, and setting up a method where we can purchase high quality MP3s instead.
Amazon has the right idea. I won't ever use iTunes due to DRM and lock-in, but I love Amazon's music service. And to those Ogg lovers... sorry, but just because we are nerds, doesn't mean everybody is:)
We have it set up right now, so that at a large corporation (we have about 4000 employees), everybody that's low level can make AD policy changes at a whim. And to boot, they use a 'generic' account so it's difficult to track who is doing what, making what changes.
Your job sounds like it's going a bit far and fast with the access cuts, but honestly be glad they do it that way instead of the other way around, where if you leave the company -- the passwords don't even change because it is "inconvienient".
I'll be laughing if we ever get a proper audit. Because I have been telling them this for two years.
We are talking about this from a malware perspective, not a *hacking* perspective.
If a *nix server was to get hacked, I'd agree with you that the data on it is likely more valuable and damaging if leaked or lost.
Malware as most is designed, to use a person's computer in a way that they don't intend, in order to direct attacks or capture sensitive information. Servers in and of themselves are hardened beasts -- even for Windows -- and take much more effort to hack. It's not like a Linux admin is going to be surfing on his server, downloading executables and running them so that he's now "infected". This is even true on a Windows server -- admins don't do that. And if they do, they are idiots and the hack has little to do with the security of the OS, but rather the idiocy of the SA. As far as getting malware transmitted from a client machine into a server (where the valuable information is) again -- is where we have security separations between clients and servers. This is the same principle on Windows as it is on Linux.
Largely speaking, Windows still has the largest surface attack area for 'malware'. The average Windows user is not generally as savvy as a Linux user. The Linux users you are talking about with "Grandma" getting on the internet and using Firefox, or typing docs in OpenOffice -- they usually have a wonderfully smart grandson who installed that stuff for them. Otherwise, they would have bought the off the shelf Dell they could get cheap, and been running Windows.
My argument is a logical one, and I'm talking in terms of malware. If you want to open it up to hacking attempts then I'm sure my argument is stupid. As far as the "ego" thing, it's usually displayed by hackers, not malware authors. They are the ones who write "Central Stupidity Agency" when they hack and write their handle name on it.
Again, I think the stupidity of mine is a matter of semantics here.
Why would a malware writer write software that will only affect technically elite users? The goal in his eyes, is to damage as many people as possible through the least path of resistance.
Well said, and to add -- these things can happen with one-race/class games. It's why I look forward to DarkFall Online (I am a fanboy, I'll admit it), because it's a skills based system where all the players have access to all the skills. No being locked into a "rogue" or a "priest" -- you can be both.. but as you take on more skills, it gets more complex for you as well.
WoW has in game balance down pat -- and it's their highest strength.
Okay, let's not equate POS with "ability to surf the web" type of machine.
Use a little sense on that one... the comparison being made is that AOC takes far more resources compared to WOW, and that is considering both games at the first launch dates. WOW was still a less hungry beast.
As for your low FPS -- well, if you play Maeiv (where I used to play), nobody's ever on so that FPS should pick up some since you have nothing to animate:)
I don't play an MMO for the graphics -- it's about the gameplay. And while AOC is not bad, its questing engine is a direct ripoff of WOW, and its social networking ability (groupings, raids, etc) are not nearly as intuitive as WOW.
The PvP is better, but not by a lot. It's just not a game that's revolutionary, only evolutionary, and given the amount of time people have invested into WOW, I doubt you will see a lot of people going to AOC over WOW. The people that will flock are those that "used to play" WOW, and got bored with it. They need their next addiction. WOW is good enough for me, because I can play it casually and still have enjoyment out of it (thus far). And the cartoony graphics and simple gameplay, mean that I can probably get my fiance (soon to be wife) to play it as well and enjoy it:)
And it's a decent game, very buggy (although it was beta) and ran very choppy on my reasonably good machine (4GB ram, 8800GTS 320MB, Core2 Duo).
For others it ran well.
The PvP is pretty good -- think of it as a type of "Guild Wars" game. The classes are EXTREMELY imbalanced, where the ones that can 'stun' can stun you for a half hour. You can get DoTs that last a long time, and all you do is cast it, and run away -- eventually the other guy dies.
World of Warcraft will not be unseated or even touched by this game. It's going to be a rush to try it out, and you'll see everybody go back to WoW. WoW is simple to play (not a lot to figure out, it gets more advanced as you level), it takes a very little power machine, the classes are VERY balanced, and every instance and dungeon is well thought out. It's not to say that the game is that great either -- but the social aspect of WoW is a lot nicer than AoC will ever offer, and it's why they have 9 million subscribers. Because it's easy to group, easy to socialize, and easy to play.
AoC is a good game for those looking for a 'hardcore' experience, or Guild Wars on steroids. I don't know about WAR, but I'm patiently waiting for beta access (fingers crossed!) to see how it plays out.
Oh, I play every day and do the quests.. I just figure in time that I'm *not* playing, I glided to get XP/Gold/Items.
That combination is a winner for me... I learned the game reasonably well, I did instances all the way from 60 to 70, and now I can settle and start investing in more hardcore style raiding.
And then maybe be bored like the rest of you guys:)
They aren't digging into their capital, they are digging into their savings to get this deal made. And as I checked, Microsoft increased their profitability over the last year where Yahoo took a negative turn.
So yea, I wouldn't worry terribly if I were an MS Shareholder (I'm not -- work for a financial institution so I can't trade easily so I just don't bother).
If Yahoo's stock price continues to decline, MS has intelligently kept their offer "on the table".
If stockholders come to MS for a bailout of their capital, they don't even need a hostile takeover -- it will be a willing one. And the profits Yahoo posts from Google won't reflect in their stock price for a while.
We'll see how long it takes Yahoo investors to either let the company rebound, or to bail themselves out. Yang is in an interesting position, that's all I can say.
Because the Glider owner is going to Open Source the project.
This is Barbara Steisand syndrome, and it's only going to get worse for Blizzard.
On a positive note, I just hit level 70 (with Glider, I won't deny it), and now I can finally start enjoying the raiding and getting gear and whatnot, since before 70 it's no point to get good gear since it's replaceable so easily.
Slashdot Mirror
POP3 and Squirrelmail.
:)
Enjoy
Apple is innovating?
They take technology that exists in lots of other places, and put it in a prettier package. OSX is nice, but it's BSD with pretty graphics.
The iPhone is nice, but it's a cleaned up version of the Nokia E70 (see: http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=iphone)
Apple is known NOT to listen to their customers. They listen to Steve Jobs (and for their benefit, I might add).
Honestly, Microsoft has been around the block on these types of things before, and while Google and Apple are big threats, I don't consider Microsoft a 'stupid' company by any means -- I feel they will have a period of crap (oh wait, Vista...), reorganize and come back stronger.
And in the end it's better for us all if they do. Although if MS ever put out an OS that is better than Linux on security, and better than OSX on ease of use and prettiness -- Slashdotters would still decry it. So I guess on this site, it's lose lose for them. But their bank accounts are still rather full.
Yes, but why, when I can get it on Windows and she knows how to use that?
I don't see the need for Linux all the time. If I'm running a web farm, maybe... even at my workstation for the fun of it -- but not for my parents. I don't really care as long as it works for them and it's easy.
This is exactly what I would want to give to my mother, because all she does is go on YouTube to find oldies music videos, and surf the internet and play casual card games.
Yes, the Asus runs Linux, but it doesn't run her casual games. I still require Windows. It's not that bad anyway -- I'll set it up properly and lock her out of admin, and she can't screw it up that badly. And it's cute.
Give me WinFS -- that's the best technology idea that Windows has had in a long time, and it got shelved for Vista... no excuse now why it shouldn't come out with Windows 7.
Amazingly, the $20 million could be used to offset the imaginary pirating of music that happens, and setting up a method where we can purchase high quality MP3s instead.
:)
Amazon has the right idea. I won't ever use iTunes due to DRM and lock-in, but I love Amazon's music service. And to those Ogg lovers... sorry, but just because we are nerds, doesn't mean everybody is
Everybody has an iPod.
We have it set up right now, so that at a large corporation (we have about 4000 employees), everybody that's low level can make AD policy changes at a whim. And to boot, they use a 'generic' account so it's difficult to track who is doing what, making what changes.
Your job sounds like it's going a bit far and fast with the access cuts, but honestly be glad they do it that way instead of the other way around, where if you leave the company -- the passwords don't even change because it is "inconvienient".
I'll be laughing if we ever get a proper audit. Because I have been telling them this for two years.
We are talking about this from a malware perspective, not a *hacking* perspective.
If a *nix server was to get hacked, I'd agree with you that the data on it is likely more valuable and damaging if leaked or lost.
Malware as most is designed, to use a person's computer in a way that they don't intend, in order to direct attacks or capture sensitive information. Servers in and of themselves are hardened beasts -- even for Windows -- and take much more effort to hack. It's not like a Linux admin is going to be surfing on his server, downloading executables and running them so that he's now "infected". This is even true on a Windows server -- admins don't do that. And if they do, they are idiots and the hack has little to do with the security of the OS, but rather the idiocy of the SA. As far as getting malware transmitted from a client machine into a server (where the valuable information is) again -- is where we have security separations between clients and servers. This is the same principle on Windows as it is on Linux.
Largely speaking, Windows still has the largest surface attack area for 'malware'. The average Windows user is not generally as savvy as a Linux user. The Linux users you are talking about with "Grandma" getting on the internet and using Firefox, or typing docs in OpenOffice -- they usually have a wonderfully smart grandson who installed that stuff for them. Otherwise, they would have bought the off the shelf Dell they could get cheap, and been running Windows.
My argument is a logical one, and I'm talking in terms of malware. If you want to open it up to hacking attempts then I'm sure my argument is stupid. As far as the "ego" thing, it's usually displayed by hackers, not malware authors. They are the ones who write "Central Stupidity Agency" when they hack and write their handle name on it.
Again, I think the stupidity of mine is a matter of semantics here.
It's a laptop with a "phone" feature.
It's a question of proliferation of malware.
Why would a malware writer write software that will only affect technically elite users? The goal in his eyes, is to damage as many people as possible through the least path of resistance.
That means Linux simply isn't targetted.
This is a stupid question.
If you spend any money on Symantec products.
They way they work to prevent viruses and malware, is to take up all your system resources so that no other malware/viruses can run at all.
Pretty brilliant I think.
Well said, and to add -- these things can happen with one-race/class games. It's why I look forward to DarkFall Online (I am a fanboy, I'll admit it), because it's a skills based system where all the players have access to all the skills. No being locked into a "rogue" or a "priest" -- you can be both.. but as you take on more skills, it gets more complex for you as well.
WoW has in game balance down pat -- and it's their highest strength.
Okay, let's not equate POS with "ability to surf the web" type of machine.
:)
Use a little sense on that one... the comparison being made is that AOC takes far more resources compared to WOW, and that is considering both games at the first launch dates. WOW was still a less hungry beast.
As for your low FPS -- well, if you play Maeiv (where I used to play), nobody's ever on so that FPS should pick up some since you have nothing to animate
That remains to be seen :)
:)
I don't play an MMO for the graphics -- it's about the gameplay. And while AOC is not bad, its questing engine is a direct ripoff of WOW, and its social networking ability (groupings, raids, etc) are not nearly as intuitive as WOW.
The PvP is better, but not by a lot. It's just not a game that's revolutionary, only evolutionary, and given the amount of time people have invested into WOW, I doubt you will see a lot of people going to AOC over WOW. The people that will flock are those that "used to play" WOW, and got bored with it. They need their next addiction. WOW is good enough for me, because I can play it casually and still have enjoyment out of it (thus far). And the cartoony graphics and simple gameplay, mean that I can probably get my fiance (soon to be wife) to play it as well and enjoy it
May well be true, but honestly... it still takes a beefy machine to run the game well.
It will not run like WoW runs, on a piece of crap machine and still quite playable.
And to relate TFA -- it means AOC won't make any competition to WoW.
And it's a decent game, very buggy (although it was beta) and ran very choppy on my reasonably good machine (4GB ram, 8800GTS 320MB, Core2 Duo).
For others it ran well.
The PvP is pretty good -- think of it as a type of "Guild Wars" game. The classes are EXTREMELY imbalanced, where the ones that can 'stun' can stun you for a half hour. You can get DoTs that last a long time, and all you do is cast it, and run away -- eventually the other guy dies.
World of Warcraft will not be unseated or even touched by this game. It's going to be a rush to try it out, and you'll see everybody go back to WoW. WoW is simple to play (not a lot to figure out, it gets more advanced as you level), it takes a very little power machine, the classes are VERY balanced, and every instance and dungeon is well thought out. It's not to say that the game is that great either -- but the social aspect of WoW is a lot nicer than AoC will ever offer, and it's why they have 9 million subscribers. Because it's easy to group, easy to socialize, and easy to play.
AoC is a good game for those looking for a 'hardcore' experience, or Guild Wars on steroids. I don't know about WAR, but I'm patiently waiting for beta access (fingers crossed!) to see how it plays out.
Right now though, I am sticking to WoW.
That stupid people are the ones any type of marketing ever works on.
The rest of us do research and buy based on our research and our own opinions.
Oh, I play every day and do the quests.. I just figure in time that I'm *not* playing, I glided to get XP/Gold/Items.
... I learned the game reasonably well, I did instances all the way from 60 to 70, and now I can settle and start investing in more hardcore style raiding.
:)
That combination is a winner for me
And then maybe be bored like the rest of you guys
No, I caught it afterward and hoped nobody would notice :p
Could be right... I guess I'll find out now. I haven't had time to play lately but eventually I'll go get bored with the rest of you :)
They can buy a money hole and make it profitable.
They aren't digging into their capital, they are digging into their savings to get this deal made. And as I checked, Microsoft increased their profitability over the last year where Yahoo took a negative turn.
So yea, I wouldn't worry terribly if I were an MS Shareholder (I'm not -- work for a financial institution so I can't trade easily so I just don't bother).
Really? Look at the 1y or 2y graphs and let me know that isn't a "decline".
I say "continue to decline" because they are almost $10 off their share price from only a year ago. That's a decline, last I checked.
If Yahoo's stock price continues to decline, MS has intelligently kept their offer "on the table".
If stockholders come to MS for a bailout of their capital, they don't even need a hostile takeover -- it will be a willing one. And the profits Yahoo posts from Google won't reflect in their stock price for a while.
We'll see how long it takes Yahoo investors to either let the company rebound, or to bail themselves out. Yang is in an interesting position, that's all I can say.
Because the Glider owner is going to Open Source the project.
This is Barbara Steisand syndrome, and it's only going to get worse for Blizzard.
On a positive note, I just hit level 70 (with Glider, I won't deny it), and now I can finally start enjoying the raiding and getting gear and whatnot, since before 70 it's no point to get good gear since it's replaceable so easily.
As one of the few Windows sysadmins (and happily so), to see so many /.ers defending Microsoft on .NET.
:)
And here I thought I was going to have to dig out other posts, but it's been done for me.
Kudos to the posters then... less biased than I give credit for