All the Splinter Cell series have kicked ass, and while I haven't picked this one up yet (Guild Wars is released soon, my money is for that!), I have no doubt I'll enjoy it as I did the other ones.
Fred Langa, a former Chief Editor of Byte and Windows Magazine, has been covering computers since the days when 640K was more RAM than anyone could possibly need.
Wow, a chief editor for two Windows magazines. Go figure where the bias would lie.
I guess if I wrote for Linux Weekly, and published an article why Windows sucked ass, everybody should take me with great consideration because I would inherently be unbiased.
But if I install Firefox and don't use IE on ANY PC, even an OUTDATED version of Firefox, my computer stays immaculate and free of malware/adware/trojans/spyware.
If I use IE6 from the beginning, fully patched... my computer still gets a boatload of garbage attached to it.
So tell me again Mr. Langa, how is it that IE is superior, in any way? Is it superior technologically? No, you say as much yourself -- no innovation since 2001. Is it more secure? Well, with all the updates that have come out for IE, I am still not secure from spyware and malware. Does Microsoft like to patch as early and often as Mozilla? Nope -- Mozilla has set a monthly timetable to release updates and does it even earlier if the security necessitates it.
The arguement Mr. Langa presents is profoundly stupid -- and this is coming from a Microsoft advocate. More entertaining is the fact, that he refers to US-CERT listings of vulnerabilities for browsers, yet fails to mention that they do NOT recommend IE -- but rather Firefox. Go figure.
I have no problem saying that IE is an impressive browser -- especially considering that it's going on 5 years old. However, that impressiveness doesn't last, especially in the world of computing. Firefox is the next generation browser, and they have focused resources in keeping it up to date, and well built. Microsoft ABANDONED its IE team entirely -- it goes to show you the indulgence they had in pursuing the product. The NUMBER of problems Firefox has had is greater, sure... they have more dedicated testers, a more competent userbase, and discover more flaws than IE, and list them as such. Some may be very, very minor, but they are LISTED, nonetheless. Microsoft has time and time again, taken note of IE's 'small' vulnerabilities and passed them over because it doesn't necessitate the cost of fixing them versus the potential return for anything.
So yea, Firefox has more bugs. They also fix more bugs. Firefox works faster, has more features, and takes up less resources. It will NOT give me spyware, popups, and virii. IE does all of that and worse.
So tell me again Mr. Langa, does having the ABILITY to get more problems overshadow actually GETTING more problems? Microsoft is like Valve -- great products, with no updates. Which makes them damn near unusable. It's software like Office that I love, which even if there are security problems -- they still freaking work. Which is less than I can say for IE.
I guess this can be a blessing in disguise...
on
Dell Still Intel Only
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
When AMD processors become more mainstream due to HP and others that offer them, continue to outperform and underprice Intel... Dell is just going to be left in the dust. And by that point, by buying lots of cheaper processors from AMD and reaping the profits associated with a lower cost of production.
It's competition that drives every vendor, and if Dell feels they can get away without offering AMD, that's fine. But then again, when you go looking for jobs, you don't see the need to be 'well versed in Dell Poweredge servers' do you? But HP/Compaq servers... that's a necessity when applying for a lot of jobs -- it just goes to show the reach of Dell's server market anyways. I think Dell makes the majority of its cash from home PC sales, and this move only shows that -- people will continue to be stupid and buy Dells though I have to admit, for $399 I couldn't build a computer as good as what Dell sells.
Time will tell in this departement, but I do believe that Dell will fare just fine, because they prey on ignorance of customers -- home custoemrs. Business customers need the best performance for the least money, and right now (and for the foreseeable future), that will probably be AMD, and businesses will flock to that as it necessitates for their daily chores. We did it here at work, the new Opterons work quite well with SQL Server 2003:)
And yes, Firefox is a threat to my site with the combination of Adblock. But still, I encourage my users to opt to use Firefox instead of IE, because it's a better browser. I will at some point, just put a little section on the site that asks visitors not to disable ads, as this is how my site would produce revenue, especially since the ads I would introduce would be non-intrusive. I don't turn them off on sites I visit if they are not obtrusive.
To those that liken the act of blocking ads to 'Oh, do you get up and walk away to use the bathroom during commercials?' well... that arguement is pointless. Whether you are sitting in front of the TV or not isn't the importance in ad recognition, it's that your TV set is on. When you are tuned to a channel, watching it or not, you are showing say, ABC's advertisers that the show Lost has 20 million viewers. Advertisers look at that as signs of potential market penetration, and do the age/sex/lifestyle demographics to target their products appropriately. That's what you tuning to that channel will do for that station, increase their ad revenue because of PERCIEVED ad benefit to ad companies.
If you turn off the TV every time an ad comes up, that might be a fair comparison, but I highly doubt anybody does that. And since internet sites are integrated with ads and do not generally have a 'commercial' in between them, you can't fast forward and the other alternative -- blocking the ads -- only hurts a site that may give you some information you crave. For example, Anandtech, a site I have grown fond of over the years I've read it, has lots of ads on it. I even click some of them when I find them to picque my interest even slightly, knowing that by doing so, I am helping out the site, and helping to keep information from that site flowing. Granted, Anandtech is probably a bad example because he is flourishing compared to other sites like his in terms of ad revenue, but the point I'm trying to make is still valid.
Moral of the story is, that if you enjoy the site, you want it to stick around, don't disable the ads on it. Hell, even click on them once in a while if they are even remotely interesting to you. Your actions can make or break a good source of information and entertainment, so use your web surfing skills wisely, and use Adblock to properly remove annoyances so that the annoying websites do not garner any more cash by resorting to obtrusive and offensive advertising.
Admittedly, I do think that advertising as a whole is going to be coming down, and coming down hard because of the emergence of 'blogs' and expert reviews on damn near anything you want to buy. When the emergence of blogging meets the Joe Schmo who doesn't know diddly about computers and the internet, prepare to see all advertising start having a null effect.
But I fail to see, even without reading the article, why Linux could not take over Windows as a predominant OS in the market.
Let's discuss a few things.
First, you have multiple developers working on the same OS. Redhat, Mandriva, Novell (SUSE), etc... they all work to the same end, to create a suitable Linux desktop environment as well as a hardened server environment for intranets, web serving, file serving, etc.
Next, you have inherently great security built into Linux. Windows requires more of a careful hand, and is far more prone to virii, but the sheer number of developers reviewing Microsoft code pales in comparison what an established open source product can do. Just look no further than Firefox to discover that, Linux is merely another example.
The strength of the Windows platform does NOT lie in its products. It does NOT lie in its technological marvels. It lies in its simple interoperability with other applications that are polished. Microsoft Outlook ties in great with Microsoft Word, Excel. Microsoft BizTalk ties in great with.NET. Microsoft's Windows platform makes that all come to life.
What the Linux field of products need to start working on is not making Linux great -- it's making Linux EASY to implement and complement a suite of products. If let's say, Redhat and Novell decided to combine efforts to fully develop Open Office to rival ALL features of Microsoft's Office program, then it could be done. In turn, Mozilla's Sunbird (calendar) could be integrated with Thunderbird, to make a proper Outlook replacement, with more stability and functionality. Running on Linux is only a plus, as the software would undoubtedly run smoother and cleaner. Coupling that with the open source nature of both aforementioned products, efforts could be made to make sure that the Sunbird/Thunderbird combo integrate and meld well into OpenOffice's architecture. Make a complex spreadsheet with graphs and equations, database pulls, etc... then simply click 'File -> Send To Mail Recipient' and Sunbird/Thunderbird launches and sends the file to the intended recepient.
It doesn't have to stop there. Products that are offered in a Linux environment can rival Microsoft in terms of sheer technology. That's not what this game and this race is about. It's about interoperability. That's why most businesses nowadays choose Microsoft's Exchange, because it molds so easily into their environment.
Give people a choice with Linux, make it work well TOGETHER, make it simple to use and understand, and you will show the Microsoft crowd (myself included) that Linux CAN make a humungous dent in the chinky armor that Microsoft wears.
The tools are there -- we just need to leverage the open source 'movement' and mobilise it in a way that will show Microsoft that development does not need to come from a corporate structured environment in order to flourish, or in order to be superior in any way.
You don't think that Steve Balmer would be sending memos about how 'Linux is our greatest threat' unless of course, it is, do you?
Point taken, I guess I was responding in part to the germophobes that are/.ers as well.. plenty of comments have echoed this. Hospitals could definately use a higher level of sterility, though since mostly administration and staff uses the keyboard, I don't see how patients could come into contact with any type of threatening germs.
They still don't know how harmless most germs are? Give me a freaking break... I could have HIV, lick the keys on the keyboard, and you wouldn't get a damn thing. And people are worried about a few stupid 'bugs' that by in large, are harmless and do nothing to cause any sickness.
The only problem here is that people need to stop being germophobes. As George Carlin says, if you avoid all contact with germs, you will have no resistance to them when you actually get 'bit'. So grow the hell up, stop complaining, and if you're a dirty bastard, then get more clean so at least your keyboard LOOKS clean. If you want to get a microscope on the keys on my keyboard fine, but I'd ask you to put that same microscope on your socks, your clothes, whatever... and you'll see how many germs you ACTUALLY come into contact with.
Your keyboard's 'bugs' will be suprisingly few in number.
After TRYING to make it thru the stupid watercycle stage, but feeling far too sick to do it (I threw up multiple times ATTEMPTING it), I will not be giving them a dime to buy the expansion. The motion sickness or whatever caused my nausea was violently bad. It was so bad, that I went out and bought a nice 20 inch gaming LCD to see if it was my monitor -- it wasn't. Granted the game is fantastic graphically and otherwise, but the storyline seemed stupid, unlike the first Half Life.
Either way... if I get too sick to play the game, it's not worth it for me to keep getting sick to beat a game that isn't even that fun.
The one site I like, though the reviews are few and far between, is Ars.Technica. Only reason, is because they BUY THEIR OWN HARDWARE:)
Anybody have any sites that they feel are bad or good (with respect to this article)? Please list a few reasons too, few examples if you can -- it makes it nice to see if these points are driven home over time by reading the reviews on different sites:)
But I have to admit, thus far, Google has used intelligence, fairness, and equality to counter situtations. They've been quick to fix problems with their software (we remember the Google bugs earlier this year).
If I wasn't so Linux-stupid, I would be applying there on a daily basis:) I'm sure persistance is a redeeming quality at Google -- they are persistent in making a quality product and service, with great efficiency and management of the EVIL spammers:)
It is by far, the best service of its kind. If there was a comparable service by somebody else that either used proprietary software or worked in Firefox, I'd be on it already. Unfortunately when they have the best product, I am willing to make concessions to use it, but I have emailed them numerous times about supporting Firefox, to which I always got a canned answer.
Start with the goddamn Launchcast service which would REALLY ROCK with Firefox support. I have an IE window running in my background just to play music at work. It's annoying.
Nah, I'm very good on my credit cards... it's just that if I have $200 in my bank account that I am not using for anything... I just find something to 'justify' my spending it.
I just bought a Shuttle cube PC... not that I needed it... but I was convinced at the time I did:)
I know I'm giving out a 0% interest loan, but my inner child has a habit of spending cash I probably shouldn't -- so this is a way of making me save some cash come every tax year. I usually get a return, so I put that into the bank and while I may have leant it out for 0%, it's better than having spent it on booze and hookers like I probably would have:)
Illegal downloads of music is mainly there for us to have music 'on demand' in our preference as we like to hear it. The fact of the matter is, that unless the music industry can start charging us say, $10 a month for unlimited downloads, free music will always win out.
The $.99 they charge now is pretty much the equivalent of a CD. I can go buy a CD with cover art and all for $12 bucks... if there are 15 tracks on it (some of the BETTER bands have that many), you win out by BUYING THE CD!!
That's why I subscribe to Yahoo's Launchcast service. I can listen to what I want, skip songs, and it's cheap ($35 a year). It learns my preferences and finds me new music.
If they could roll that into portalble devices as well as internet service (with better quality than Launch provides..) it would be a killer service.
Besides, artists don't make money from record sales unless they suck (ala nSync or Backdoor Boys), it's from prolonged touring.
I have to say we are in good hands for the time being. Mozilla has been pretty quick to release patches and fixes to bugs that were found. Additionally we have to consider one important thing -- Firefox does not integrate with your operating system, like IE does. This is why when you log onto the net 'unpatched', you can get infected just by being online (which is amazing to me). The future of spyware may be aimed more towards Firefox but in a way, it's helpful to Firefox for spyware/malware writers to target it -- it helps them close security holes that aren't known about and help prevent and protect against other things. And since the Mozilla community (oh yea, open source!) is very good in turnaround time to support the browser, the patches will be relatively swift.
So while the author may be right that malware and spyware authors may target Firefox as it gains popularity -- Mozilla and its hordes of programming legions (the open source community) will work together to close the holes that open and see they can't be opened in different ways. In IE, if you closed one hole, you opened another, very similar one. Not that IE is bad, but it was really just abandoned and now that Firefox has the head start -- it's going to stay ahead for the foreseeable future. We will see what Longhorn brings to the table, with the next iteration of IE though.
Either way, I am the type of person that's convinced we will see the end of SPAM in the foreseeable future... I don't see why continual development can stop spam entirely.
This is why I'd rather work with an open system that doesn't have a 'parent' company attached to it. And that's also why I don't, and have not used Kazaa for a VERY long time.
Slashdot Mirror
All the Splinter Cell series have kicked ass, and while I haven't picked this one up yet (Guild Wars is released soon, my money is for that!), I have no doubt I'll enjoy it as I did the other ones.
Fred Langa, a former Chief Editor of Byte and Windows Magazine, has been covering computers since the days when 640K was more RAM than anyone could possibly need.
Wow, a chief editor for two Windows magazines. Go figure where the bias would lie.
I guess if I wrote for Linux Weekly, and published an article why Windows sucked ass, everybody should take me with great consideration because I would inherently be unbiased.
Bah.
But if I install Firefox and don't use IE on ANY PC, even an OUTDATED version of Firefox, my computer stays immaculate and free of malware/adware/trojans/spyware.
If I use IE6 from the beginning, fully patched... my computer still gets a boatload of garbage attached to it.
So tell me again Mr. Langa, how is it that IE is superior, in any way? Is it superior technologically? No, you say as much yourself -- no innovation since 2001. Is it more secure? Well, with all the updates that have come out for IE, I am still not secure from spyware and malware. Does Microsoft like to patch as early and often as Mozilla? Nope -- Mozilla has set a monthly timetable to release updates and does it even earlier if the security necessitates it.
The arguement Mr. Langa presents is profoundly stupid -- and this is coming from a Microsoft advocate. More entertaining is the fact, that he refers to US-CERT listings of vulnerabilities for browsers, yet fails to mention that they do NOT recommend IE -- but rather Firefox. Go figure.
I have no problem saying that IE is an impressive browser -- especially considering that it's going on 5 years old. However, that impressiveness doesn't last, especially in the world of computing. Firefox is the next generation browser, and they have focused resources in keeping it up to date, and well built. Microsoft ABANDONED its IE team entirely -- it goes to show you the indulgence they had in pursuing the product. The NUMBER of problems Firefox has had is greater, sure... they have more dedicated testers, a more competent userbase, and discover more flaws than IE, and list them as such. Some may be very, very minor, but they are LISTED, nonetheless. Microsoft has time and time again, taken note of IE's 'small' vulnerabilities and passed them over because it doesn't necessitate the cost of fixing them versus the potential return for anything.
So yea, Firefox has more bugs. They also fix more bugs. Firefox works faster, has more features, and takes up less resources. It will NOT give me spyware, popups, and virii. IE does all of that and worse.
So tell me again Mr. Langa, does having the ABILITY to get more problems overshadow actually GETTING more problems? Microsoft is like Valve -- great products, with no updates. Which makes them damn near unusable. It's software like Office that I love, which even if there are security problems -- they still freaking work. Which is less than I can say for IE.
When AMD processors become more mainstream due to HP and others that offer them, continue to outperform and underprice Intel... Dell is just going to be left in the dust. And by that point, by buying lots of cheaper processors from AMD and reaping the profits associated with a lower cost of production.
:)
It's competition that drives every vendor, and if Dell feels they can get away without offering AMD, that's fine. But then again, when you go looking for jobs, you don't see the need to be 'well versed in Dell Poweredge servers' do you? But HP/Compaq servers... that's a necessity when applying for a lot of jobs -- it just goes to show the reach of Dell's server market anyways. I think Dell makes the majority of its cash from home PC sales, and this move only shows that -- people will continue to be stupid and buy Dells though I have to admit, for $399 I couldn't build a computer as good as what Dell sells.
Time will tell in this departement, but I do believe that Dell will fare just fine, because they prey on ignorance of customers -- home custoemrs. Business customers need the best performance for the least money, and right now (and for the foreseeable future), that will probably be AMD, and businesses will flock to that as it necessitates for their daily chores. We did it here at work, the new Opterons work quite well with SQL Server 2003
And yes, Firefox is a threat to my site with the combination of Adblock. But still, I encourage my users to opt to use Firefox instead of IE, because it's a better browser. I will at some point, just put a little section on the site that asks visitors not to disable ads, as this is how my site would produce revenue, especially since the ads I would introduce would be non-intrusive. I don't turn them off on sites I visit if they are not obtrusive.
To those that liken the act of blocking ads to 'Oh, do you get up and walk away to use the bathroom during commercials?' well... that arguement is pointless. Whether you are sitting in front of the TV or not isn't the importance in ad recognition, it's that your TV set is on. When you are tuned to a channel, watching it or not, you are showing say, ABC's advertisers that the show Lost has 20 million viewers. Advertisers look at that as signs of potential market penetration, and do the age/sex/lifestyle demographics to target their products appropriately. That's what you tuning to that channel will do for that station, increase their ad revenue because of PERCIEVED ad benefit to ad companies.
If you turn off the TV every time an ad comes up, that might be a fair comparison, but I highly doubt anybody does that. And since internet sites are integrated with ads and do not generally have a 'commercial' in between them, you can't fast forward and the other alternative -- blocking the ads -- only hurts a site that may give you some information you crave. For example, Anandtech, a site I have grown fond of over the years I've read it, has lots of ads on it. I even click some of them when I find them to picque my interest even slightly, knowing that by doing so, I am helping out the site, and helping to keep information from that site flowing. Granted, Anandtech is probably a bad example because he is flourishing compared to other sites like his in terms of ad revenue, but the point I'm trying to make is still valid.
Moral of the story is, that if you enjoy the site, you want it to stick around, don't disable the ads on it. Hell, even click on them once in a while if they are even remotely interesting to you. Your actions can make or break a good source of information and entertainment, so use your web surfing skills wisely, and use Adblock to properly remove annoyances so that the annoying websites do not garner any more cash by resorting to obtrusive and offensive advertising.
Admittedly, I do think that advertising as a whole is going to be coming down, and coming down hard because of the emergence of 'blogs' and expert reviews on damn near anything you want to buy. When the emergence of blogging meets the Joe Schmo who doesn't know diddly about computers and the internet, prepare to see all advertising start having a null effect.
But I fail to see, even without reading the article, why Linux could not take over Windows as a predominant OS in the market.
.NET. Microsoft's Windows platform makes that all come to life.
Let's discuss a few things.
First, you have multiple developers working on the same OS. Redhat, Mandriva, Novell (SUSE), etc... they all work to the same end, to create a suitable Linux desktop environment as well as a hardened server environment for intranets, web serving, file serving, etc.
Next, you have inherently great security built into Linux. Windows requires more of a careful hand, and is far more prone to virii, but the sheer number of developers reviewing Microsoft code pales in comparison what an established open source product can do. Just look no further than Firefox to discover that, Linux is merely another example.
The strength of the Windows platform does NOT lie in its products. It does NOT lie in its technological marvels. It lies in its simple interoperability with other applications that are polished. Microsoft Outlook ties in great with Microsoft Word, Excel. Microsoft BizTalk ties in great with
What the Linux field of products need to start working on is not making Linux great -- it's making Linux EASY to implement and complement a suite of products. If let's say, Redhat and Novell decided to combine efforts to fully develop Open Office to rival ALL features of Microsoft's Office program, then it could be done. In turn, Mozilla's Sunbird (calendar) could be integrated with Thunderbird, to make a proper Outlook replacement, with more stability and functionality. Running on Linux is only a plus, as the software would undoubtedly run smoother and cleaner. Coupling that with the open source nature of both aforementioned products, efforts could be made to make sure that the Sunbird/Thunderbird combo integrate and meld well into OpenOffice's architecture. Make a complex spreadsheet with graphs and equations, database pulls, etc... then simply click 'File -> Send To Mail Recipient' and Sunbird/Thunderbird launches and sends the file to the intended recepient.
It doesn't have to stop there. Products that are offered in a Linux environment can rival Microsoft in terms of sheer technology. That's not what this game and this race is about. It's about interoperability. That's why most businesses nowadays choose Microsoft's Exchange, because it molds so easily into their environment.
Give people a choice with Linux, make it work well TOGETHER, make it simple to use and understand, and you will show the Microsoft crowd (myself included) that Linux CAN make a humungous dent in the chinky armor that Microsoft wears.
The tools are there -- we just need to leverage the open source 'movement' and mobilise it in a way that will show Microsoft that development does not need to come from a corporate structured environment in order to flourish, or in order to be superior in any way.
You don't think that Steve Balmer would be sending memos about how 'Linux is our greatest threat' unless of course, it is, do you?
It was a joke, sorry to see you missed it though jumping on me like that, I'd imagine your problems surpass 'getting jokes'.
How much do you want to bet people try to overclock it to get 600.000001 GHz?
Point taken, I guess I was responding in part to the germophobes that are /.ers as well.. plenty of comments have echoed this. Hospitals could definately use a higher level of sterility, though since mostly administration and staff uses the keyboard, I don't see how patients could come into contact with any type of threatening germs.
They still don't know how harmless most germs are? Give me a freaking break... I could have HIV, lick the keys on the keyboard, and you wouldn't get a damn thing. And people are worried about a few stupid 'bugs' that by in large, are harmless and do nothing to cause any sickness.
The only problem here is that people need to stop being germophobes. As George Carlin says, if you avoid all contact with germs, you will have no resistance to them when you actually get 'bit'. So grow the hell up, stop complaining, and if you're a dirty bastard, then get more clean so at least your keyboard LOOKS clean. If you want to get a microscope on the keys on my keyboard fine, but I'd ask you to put that same microscope on your socks, your clothes, whatever... and you'll see how many germs you ACTUALLY come into contact with.
Your keyboard's 'bugs' will be suprisingly few in number.
After TRYING to make it thru the stupid watercycle stage, but feeling far too sick to do it (I threw up multiple times ATTEMPTING it), I will not be giving them a dime to buy the expansion. The motion sickness or whatever caused my nausea was violently bad. It was so bad, that I went out and bought a nice 20 inch gaming LCD to see if it was my monitor -- it wasn't. Granted the game is fantastic graphically and otherwise, but the storyline seemed stupid, unlike the first Half Life.
Either way... if I get too sick to play the game, it's not worth it for me to keep getting sick to beat a game that isn't even that fun.
The one site I like, though the reviews are few and far between, is Ars.Technica. Only reason, is because they BUY THEIR OWN HARDWARE :)
:)
Anybody have any sites that they feel are bad or good (with respect to this article)? Please list a few reasons too, few examples if you can -- it makes it nice to see if these points are driven home over time by reading the reviews on different sites
But I have to admit, thus far, Google has used intelligence, fairness, and equality to counter situtations. They've been quick to fix problems with their software (we remember the Google bugs earlier this year).
:) I'm sure persistance is a redeeming quality at Google -- they are persistent in making a quality product and service, with great efficiency and management of the EVIL spammers :)
If I wasn't so Linux-stupid, I would be applying there on a daily basis
Kudos Google!
It is by far, the best service of its kind. If there was a comparable service by somebody else that either used proprietary software or worked in Firefox, I'd be on it already. Unfortunately when they have the best product, I am willing to make concessions to use it, but I have emailed them numerous times about supporting Firefox, to which I always got a canned answer.
Start with the goddamn Launchcast service which would REALLY ROCK with Firefox support. I have an IE window running in my background just to play music at work. It's annoying.
'quixotic'
:)
Damn I love Firefox's dictionary search extension
Nah, I'm very good on my credit cards... it's just that if I have $200 in my bank account that I am not using for anything... I just find something to 'justify' my spending it.
:)
I just bought a Shuttle cube PC... not that I needed it... but I was convinced at the time I did
I know I'm giving out a 0% interest loan, but my inner child has a habit of spending cash I probably shouldn't -- so this is a way of making me save some cash come every tax year. I usually get a return, so I put that into the bank and while I may have leant it out for 0%, it's better than having spent it on booze and hookers like I probably would have :)
It's my poor fiscal responsibility. Oh well...
Why did you buy the software? You can fill the entire thing out online and save half the cash.
:)
The site actually works flawlessly in Firefox too
No.
Illegal downloads of music is mainly there for us to have music 'on demand' in our preference as we like to hear it. The fact of the matter is, that unless the music industry can start charging us say, $10 a month for unlimited downloads, free music will always win out.
The $.99 they charge now is pretty much the equivalent of a CD. I can go buy a CD with cover art and all for $12 bucks... if there are 15 tracks on it (some of the BETTER bands have that many), you win out by BUYING THE CD!!
That's why I subscribe to Yahoo's Launchcast service. I can listen to what I want, skip songs, and it's cheap ($35 a year). It learns my preferences and finds me new music.
If they could roll that into portalble devices as well as internet service (with better quality than Launch provides..) it would be a killer service.
Besides, artists don't make money from record sales unless they suck (ala nSync or Backdoor Boys), it's from prolonged touring.
I have to say we are in good hands for the time being. Mozilla has been pretty quick to release patches and fixes to bugs that were found. Additionally we have to consider one important thing -- Firefox does not integrate with your operating system, like IE does. This is why when you log onto the net 'unpatched', you can get infected just by being online (which is amazing to me). The future of spyware may be aimed more towards Firefox but in a way, it's helpful to Firefox for spyware/malware writers to target it -- it helps them close security holes that aren't known about and help prevent and protect against other things. And since the Mozilla community (oh yea, open source!) is very good in turnaround time to support the browser, the patches will be relatively swift.
So while the author may be right that malware and spyware authors may target Firefox as it gains popularity -- Mozilla and its hordes of programming legions (the open source community) will work together to close the holes that open and see they can't be opened in different ways. In IE, if you closed one hole, you opened another, very similar one. Not that IE is bad, but it was really just abandoned and now that Firefox has the head start -- it's going to stay ahead for the foreseeable future. We will see what Longhorn brings to the table, with the next iteration of IE though.
Either way, I am the type of person that's convinced we will see the end of SPAM in the foreseeable future... I don't see why continual development can stop spam entirely.
I'm not suprised at all.
This is why I'd rather work with an open system that doesn't have a 'parent' company attached to it. And that's also why I don't, and have not used Kazaa for a VERY long time.
WHYYYY????
Point taken... I'm not a dumb fucker though... I'm an arrogant one. Get it right!