Second, put your XP box behind a firewall, all IT professionals know, and you have no problems. The rest of your point is completely moot.
Using terms like M$ and winblows just shows how childish you are, and how much you need to bolster your tenuous argument with emotive phrasiology. Your whole story is probably made up, anyway.
EXACTLY! I can't believe it took so long for someone to post the blatantly obvious solution to all of this - don't give your box a public IP to begin with. I thought we were supposed to be IT professionals here? The only possible reasons no-one has mentioned it are:
1. They're having too much fun slamming MS
2. They don't actually have a clue about Windows
Which one do you think?:)
I've been running XP since before it came out, always behind a firewall. My machine has never been owned, hacked into, or otherwise been made unstable by the internet. Of course, that's not anti-MS, so it can't possibly be real.
You can install windows fine, and even run it perfectly without any patches and have it connected to the net. Just have it behind a firewall. Why isn't anyone mentioning this? Because they're having too much fun bashing microsoft without cause.
Until anything that can be tenuously blamed on microsoft happens.
Seriously, what's with all these stupid anti-ms articles here? I know it's/. and has as much objectivity as herman goering at a bar mitzvah, but please. This lack of objectivity makes everyone here look as mature as an 8-year-old kid. Nerds get a bad enough rap as it is.
It does. I installed a 2K3 server the other day, and it asked to go on the net to download the latest update files. Of course there must be something horrid in that. Boo microsoft! how dare you waste my bandwidth like that! piracy! fascists! republicans! boo!
So you were building a windows PC and put it on the internet without a hardware firewall or NAT in the way? What on earth do you expect? If I was building a 2k box at work, when I put it on the network, it would be fine as our internet connection is NATted. I mean, it's not hard to do, which kind of adds a wee bit of doubt (or at least uncertainty) to your story...
But they do. Going on about "blue screens of death" and crashing is one that immediately springs to mind. That's not been the case since before 2000...
You missed out the "and embraces double-standards as a way of life, vehemently opposing anything remotely truthful if it contradicts a tenet of the/. philosophy":)
Aaah yes. More "flamebait" modding. Obviously from someone with an AMD chip in their computer and an even larger one on their shoulder. Grow up, mods. Get some objectivity in your lives.
Of course, flamebait. Ripping the shit out of microsoft for no good reason never, ever happens on this site. It's not something we as a community need to worry about, and it's not something that's damaging the quality of reporting on slashdot.
It's fine. Who needs objectivity anyway? Highly over-rated. Oh, unless you're talking about linux, in which case objectivity is essential.
How on earth is that interesting? They're not trying to make it sound "illegal". You only got that impression because that's what you want to think. "Stolen the lead" is a perfectly accepted, neutral phrase, meaning "to lose the lead to someone performing better than you", not "to have the lead mercilessly and cruelly ripped from your oh-so-righteous hands, like dingoes snatching a beautiful little baby".
Of course, this is slashdot, where every post that panders to the common consensus is modded up, and vice versa.
And that means you get away with being immature how, exactly? Or, is this just another really, really good example of the double-standards this site has with Microsoft?
Whatever MS does, good or bad, is branded bad and accepted. Whatever linux does, good or bad, is branded good and anyone who says otherwise is a troll.
And somehow both are good reasons to rip the shit out of microsoft, and sling around lots of half-truths and asshatisms that have been plaguing this site for years:) yay objectivity!
Indeed. How are people supposed to take Linux seriously when a very large (and very vocal) linux-friendly community uses such childish imagery to describe their competitors. If you go on microsoft.com, they don't call linux "linsux" and have pictures of tux fucking a hooker.
That's what I'm saying. The government/politicians are pulling these things out of thin air, yet there are real threats. That means we simply can't tell how many are real or not, which is what they want. We're now supposed to be mulling it over in our heads, and eventually come up with the notion that we're in danger (which is normal for people). They need that reaction, as it makes us vote for the strongest-looking candidate (hence the republican move to try to belittle JK's vietnam record, and to make bush look like some sort of benevolent SuperJesus-type-robot-with-holy-flamethrower, etc.).
Lots of those security threats are made up by the government or politicians with a vested interest. That fact alone means that there might not be any threat at all, or there might be more. Speculating on the amount is exactly what they want you to do, as the human psyche will undoubtedly conjure up tens of thousands of foiled attempts to blow up $NEAREST_CITY.
Don't fall for their game. They want everyone to be afraid. Try and figure out what's really going on (clue: turn off Fox)
2. Mine was the Diamond Monster:) 4meg, with the pass-thru. ace stuff
4. Yes, but we're comparing Slackware to Windows 9x here, though I appreciate the history.
5. And that ran Office and all my other apps natively how?:)
Linux was live in 96? The commercial world used Office back then too, remember? That's only just getting up to speed 8 years later - please don't say it's just been pretending these last 8 years, and has really been ready all along. Yeah, Windows had games, but then lots of people (not just kids) wanted to play games on their PCs. Windows let them do that. Slackware didn't.
And as we're talking Linux'96 with Windows'98, Linux can't have done the same things, as DirectX is still an issue here. Windows98 had it, and Slackware didn't (or even anything similar). That's my point. Linux'96 can't do what Windows'98 did. This debate could go on for hours:)
Just one more thought - what the heck was driver support like back in '96? I guess, with less hardware "on chip" it might have been better, but then with less market penetration, the impetus for linux drivers would have been much slimmer... just a thought.
Just think of the logistics in doing the same thing for a crashed plane. The "building" is 2,000 miles out at sea (and 300m under), everyone who could have been on the plane is either on it or somewhere else in the world. Taking a quick roll-call isn't a matter of "everyone raise your hand and we'll be done in a minute".
People are reading too much into this. They're getting annoyed because they have to show their ID to a private entity who's letting them use their aircraft. Also remember, with the American litigious climate, people have to cover their asses, and I'm sure that's the major driving force here.
Why on earth is that redundant? It's the real answer to this problem. It's not so the government can keep a log of your movements, but so people know exactly who's on the plane should it fly into a mountain. Are your office fire marshall guys CIA/FBI/NSA spooks? No - their attendance list is to ensure no-one is left in the building.
Recording information != spying... not by a long shot.
1. Very true, and I'm not. The two beasts are VERY different, even for a complete eejit.
2. No, NT4 was constantly coming up short when compared to Windows95. The DirectX issue was huge at the time (trust me, I remember it clearly). No hardware-acceleration was a big deal, as the games weren't all dos apps (obviously, requiring DirectX they can't be). No fancy video cards? 3DfX was around in '96 too... I had one
3. Windows98 has had support for DirectX ever since it was released, and even now supports DirectX 9
4. Because a '96 vintage Slackware was pretty much unknown on the desktop, for very good reasons
5. And that has something to do with what, exactly?:)
There's no point arguing about this one. Windows 9x were great OSes with multimedia support and every single popular game available for them. They ran Office perfectly and everyones software worked. Slackware didn't have that in '96, and no amount of playing NT off against 9x will make it so;)
How on earth do you figure that? I could get up from my chair right now, but I don't want to. Does that mean I can't get out of my chair? Obviously not. Sheesh. Get back to work.
Slashdot Mirror
Second, put your XP box behind a firewall, all IT professionals know, and you have no problems. The rest of your point is completely moot.
Using terms like M$ and winblows just shows how childish you are, and how much you need to bolster your tenuous argument with emotive phrasiology. Your whole story is probably made up, anyway.
You do know you can install windows without it being connected to the net, don't you? You do know every version of XP has had a firewall, don't you?
1. They're having too much fun slamming MS
2. They don't actually have a clue about Windows
Which one do you think? :)
I've been running XP since before it came out, always behind a firewall. My machine has never been owned, hacked into, or otherwise been made unstable by the internet. Of course, that's not anti-MS, so it can't possibly be real.
You can install windows fine, and even run it perfectly without any patches and have it connected to the net. Just have it behind a firewall. Why isn't anyone mentioning this? Because they're having too much fun bashing microsoft without cause.
Seriously, what's with all these stupid anti-ms articles here? I know it's /. and has as much objectivity as herman goering at a bar mitzvah, but please. This lack of objectivity makes everyone here look as mature as an 8-year-old kid. Nerds get a bad enough rap as it is.
It does. I installed a 2K3 server the other day, and it asked to go on the net to download the latest update files. Of course there must be something horrid in that. Boo microsoft! how dare you waste my bandwidth like that! piracy! fascists! republicans! boo!
So you were building a windows PC and put it on the internet without a hardware firewall or NAT in the way? What on earth do you expect? If I was building a 2k box at work, when I put it on the network, it would be fine as our internet connection is NATted. I mean, it's not hard to do, which kind of adds a wee bit of doubt (or at least uncertainty) to your story...
Exactly. "Fair or not". That's what I've been talking about.
XP doesn't crash. Bad drivers crash XP. Read up on WHQL, then fix your computer. Don't blame the OS when the user is clearly to blame.
But they do. Going on about "blue screens of death" and crashing is one that immediately springs to mind. That's not been the case since before 2000...
You missed out the "and embraces double-standards as a way of life, vehemently opposing anything remotely truthful if it contradicts a tenet of the /. philosophy" :)
Aaah yes. More "flamebait" modding. Obviously from someone with an AMD chip in their computer and an even larger one on their shoulder. Grow up, mods. Get some objectivity in your lives.
It's fine. Who needs objectivity anyway? Highly over-rated. Oh, unless you're talking about linux, in which case objectivity is essential.
How on earth is that interesting? They're not trying to make it sound "illegal". You only got that impression because that's what you want to think. "Stolen the lead" is a perfectly accepted, neutral phrase, meaning "to lose the lead to someone performing better than you", not "to have the lead mercilessly and cruelly ripped from your oh-so-righteous hands, like dingoes snatching a beautiful little baby".
Of course, this is slashdot, where every post that panders to the common consensus is modded up, and vice versa.
Whatever MS does, good or bad, is branded bad and accepted. Whatever linux does, good or bad, is branded good and anyone who says otherwise is a troll.
And somehow both are good reasons to rip the shit out of microsoft, and sling around lots of half-truths and asshatisms that have been plaguing this site for years :) yay objectivity!
Indeed. How are people supposed to take Linux seriously when a very large (and very vocal) linux-friendly community uses such childish imagery to describe their competitors. If you go on microsoft.com, they don't call linux "linsux" and have pictures of tux fucking a hooker.
It's all a game.
Don't fall for their game. They want everyone to be afraid. Try and figure out what's really going on (clue: turn off Fox)
2. Mine was the Diamond Monster :) 4meg, with the pass-thru. ace stuff :)
4. Yes, but we're comparing Slackware to Windows 9x here, though I appreciate the history.
5. And that ran Office and all my other apps natively how?
Linux was live in 96? The commercial world used Office back then too, remember? That's only just getting up to speed 8 years later - please don't say it's just been pretending these last 8 years, and has really been ready all along. Yeah, Windows had games, but then lots of people (not just kids) wanted to play games on their PCs. Windows let them do that. Slackware didn't.
And as we're talking Linux'96 with Windows'98, Linux can't have done the same things, as DirectX is still an issue here. Windows98 had it, and Slackware didn't (or even anything similar). That's my point. Linux'96 can't do what Windows'98 did. This debate could go on for hours :)
Just one more thought - what the heck was driver support like back in '96? I guess, with less hardware "on chip" it might have been better, but then with less market penetration, the impetus for linux drivers would have been much slimmer... just a thought.
People are reading too much into this. They're getting annoyed because they have to show their ID to a private entity who's letting them use their aircraft. Also remember, with the American litigious climate, people have to cover their asses, and I'm sure that's the major driving force here.
Recording information != spying... not by a long shot.
1. Very true, and I'm not. The two beasts are VERY different, even for a complete eejit. :)
2. No, NT4 was constantly coming up short when compared to Windows95. The DirectX issue was huge at the time (trust me, I remember it clearly). No hardware-acceleration was a big deal, as the games weren't all dos apps (obviously, requiring DirectX they can't be). No fancy video cards? 3DfX was around in '96 too... I had one
3. Windows98 has had support for DirectX ever since it was released, and even now supports DirectX 9
4. Because a '96 vintage Slackware was pretty much unknown on the desktop, for very good reasons
5. And that has something to do with what, exactly?
There's no point arguing about this one. Windows 9x were great OSes with multimedia support and every single popular game available for them. They ran Office perfectly and everyones software worked. Slackware didn't have that in '96, and no amount of playing NT off against 9x will make it so ;)
much appreciated ;) hehehe
Make sure your tie is flung over your shoulder for that real "dynamic man on the go" look. Unstoppable.
How on earth do you figure that? I could get up from my chair right now, but I don't want to. Does that mean I can't get out of my chair? Obviously not. Sheesh. Get back to work.