While I completely agree with you for virtually the entire population, I don't think such a diet is a complete solution for the type 1 diabetic. It may be for some.
Recommending a carb-loaded diet as the ADA is has done for decades is a crime.
And for those people, if they didn't have type 2 diabetes then maybe losing the weight might be easier. Perhaps if the medical community wasn't so invested in fighting diets that are successful in helping people with just such conditions...
"I think it's pretty obvious from my tone that I was joking."
No, it was clear at all. You displayed contempt for fat people, their ugliness, and how stereotypically American they are. Somehow I bet you aren't overweight, much less obese, and that you're too young to even appreciate how difficult it can be to maintain weight with insulin resistance. It is clear that you feel qualified to be judgemental.
"So calm down. I know it's fun to build up a big load of righteous indignation, but there's just no call for it."
Of course there is. You're a conceited asshole. No better reason than that.
"emphasized the key part for you. You pay once. That gets you updates for a certain time. When the time is up, you have to pay again, be it for extended support or for a new version of Windows. Either way, you have to keep paying, or the updates stop."
Give it a rest. Support for obsolete OSes is time limited for every product, even your precious Ubuntu. The only way to avoid paying for another license is only use free software. Eventually a Windows user will buy a new computer along with a new Windows license. That doesn't mean he's paying for patches. I can't get support for my old Red Hat installs either. It's called end of life.
"Ergo, the updates are _not_ free."
Yes, they are. Every update offered is free. Updates never continue to the end of time.
"There's no need to be so offensive."
I'm not being offensive. Twice in that post you forgot what you had posted yourself and didn't bother to understand what was being talked about. I try to delete text as I go so as not to make comments too long. That doesn't entitle you to change the subject.
"Well, that is what the original poster mentioned, and what I responded to."
Actually no you didn't. This is the original comment and your original response:
"``And how is it expensive to maintain windows machines properly? Windows Update is free, no?''
Well, apart from the cost of the license, the time spent testing the patches and/or cleaning up if a batch goes awry, time spent running virus/adware/whatever scanners (which you almost certainly need, despite Windows Update), and anything I forgot about."
As you can see, you wanted to associate the Windows license cost and the time and effort of validation of patches (which you have ceased arguing) plus the cost of 3rd party tools which are not part of the update process. You never mentioned the difficulty of updating 3rd party apps which is now the thrust of your argument. Had you done that I wouldn't have argued. Instead you focused on Windows Update itself, insisting that it is not free even though it is.
"you do pay for Windows updates"
No, you don't. Show me a single invoice that you've paid assuming you have a legitimate Windows license at all. I've NEVER paid for a Windows update ever. No one else has either. How about a link showing prices for Windows Update? It doesn't exist. Give it up.
"Fine, so you have two examples of updaters that didn't work for you. That doesn't mean there isn't _any_ updater outside the Windows world that doesn't work."
Never said differently, in fact, I gave an example of one in my first post. The fact that there may be Linux updaters that DO work is not proof that Windows Update is unnecessarily difficult. That was your contention.
"No. We accept additional applications on both. The point I was trying to make is that, on Windows, these use separate mechanisms for keeping up to date, whereas on Ubuntu, they all use the same mechanism that everything else uses."
Ubuntu cannot ensure that 3rd party apps update themselves thru the Ubuntu mechanism. In fact, it seems unlikely that it would ever happen. Ubuntu's unified update stems from the fact that it comes from a common source base.
In any event, I have no argument over the complications of 3rd party software. Windows has a lot; Ubuntu little or none. Irrelevant to your claim that Windows Update isn't free.
"...I find absolutely no reason to believe it wouldn't be the same way if Ubuntu were more popular."
That is true in the market we have where commercial software is almost entirely Windows or OS X. If Ubuntu has the marketshare of Windows, Photoshop would run on it (for example) and you can be certain that Adobe wouldn't provide source to Ubuntu for packaging. That is the point I was making. There's a whole world of commercial software that doesn't consider Linux a viable platform but would if Windows didn't exist.
"That's your interpretation. My interpretation of "maintaining
"It's not a "baseless insult": his idea that there is a well defined group of IRC providers that can be held responsible makes no sense."
I certainly didn't take his comment to suggest thaat IRC providers be held entirely responsible. He was pointing out that IRC providers did business knowing that their services where being used for malicious purposes. I can't imagine why you think that makes no sense.
"To put it bluntly: the way I read his post, the guy is simply lying. I don't believe his claim that he operates a UNIX system that was hacked into."
Why is that? Assuming that he is lying about that, do you then believe that his claim about the IRC providers is also a lie?
"The way I read his post, he is probably a Windows user with a grudge against UNIX and IRC."
That's ridiculous.
"And, frankly, so I think are you (assuming that you aren't simply the same guy posting under a different account)."
Even more ridiculous. It's far more likely that you're the same guy posting follow-ups as an AC.
I could give a shit about IRC. Never used it. I have used all the major OSes though, and I don't carry a grudge against any of them since that would be irrational. Nothing in the original post was insulting to unix or even IRC.
Exactly. It's a fundamental aspect of manufacturing with PC's and many, many companies do it successfully every day.
Had it been Dell, they would have been laughed at for the virus and ridiculed for passing the blame (and rightfully so). Apple should be treated no different.
"It is, because Microsoft will only give you updates if you pay the licensing fee, and only for a limited time."
Where do you come up with this crap? Have you ever bought a Windows license? MS has a business license that includes recurring charges but that's not the only way Windows is licensed. The normal way is a one time fee that includes free maintenance releases as long as MS provides them.
"Most Windows users don't pay licensing costs?"
You need to learn to read your own postings, my comment referred to "the time spent testing the patches and/or cleaning up if a batch goes awry". I never said users don't pay for licenses. I said that license fees aren't the same as fees for patches.
"And, in this case, there are OSes for which it is different: Debian, for example, has never required anyone to pay a license fee."
So what? That doesn't mean that Microsoft charges for patches. It does not.
"Getting updates is not necessary to keep Windows up to date? Kindly explain to me how you would keep Windows up to date without them."
You have a real problem understanding your own posts, don't you? Running virus scanning software is not the same as getting an update. Why bother posting at all if you can't make the effort to understand what's being said?
"But we weren't talking about Windows in isolation, we were talking about the cost of "maintaining Windows machines properly". That includes the applications."
No we aren't. We're talking about Windows. Even so, are you suggesting that Windows makes it harder to keep apps up to date than other platforms? I suppose you've never run a 3rd party app on Linux then.
"That may be the interpretation _you_ prefer, but that doesn't mean it's the correct one....
Yes, which means he missed the costs that don't involve directly spending money."
No, he didn't. He made a simple, and correct, statement about Windows updates being free. You're the one who has misinterpreted that.
"It's not, because you have to pay Microsoft to get these updates."
You do not! Where are you getting this absurd notion?
"Keeping all software on an Ubuntu machine up to date: click the updates icon, enter password, click apply updates, reboot if prompted to."
Perhaps as long as the only software you use is what comes with Ubuntu. That used to be true for other distributions as well. My experience is that those tools would work for a while and then fail. How long before Ubuntu disappears or changes its service and requires manual intervention to get updates working again? I gave up on my Red Hat and SuSE updaters.
"1. For Windows components (and I think other Microsoft software): click the install updates icon, reboot as necessary (forgive me if I missed any steps here)"
Windows can be simplified further. It can be made fully automatic of you prefer. This is a Windows discussion, not a 3rd party app discussion.
"2. For applications that include their own automatic updaters, the process is probably similar. It may actually be fully automatic.
3. For applications that include non-automatic updaters: run the updater, follow instructions.
4. For applications that don't include any updater: get announcements of updates by searching the web, subscribing to mailing lists, or whatever mechanism. Download updates. Apply updates by whatever process they use."
What, we have to accept additional apps on Windows and not on Ubuntu?
"5. Periodically scan your system with malware scanning tool."
Not part of the update process. Doesn't matter but you would need to do that with Ubuntu. Oh, doesn't have it?
" ``Are you claiming that you don't have to run 3rd party software to help you keep your system up to date''
Yes."
You are wrong. Windows includes its own updater. No other tool exists or is necessary.
"They add somewhat to the maintenance cost, but Windows licenses are cheap compared to laubor
Except that you're totally wrong about that. He said the hackers were specifically ones who hacked unix systems (in response to his parent who said that Microsoft should be held legally accountable). There is no FUD in that, as everyone knows that all systems can be potentially compromised and unix systems are targeted as well. If his parent hadn't accused Microsoft of being the problem, I doubt unix would have been mentioned. I also don't see how you get that he must have a commercial stake in Windows other than you making a blanket assumption that anyone who disagrees with you must be corrupt. He was calling attention to to operators of IRC channels, not spreading FUD about unix systems.
Now, aftering discrediting your claim that his post was FUD, let's take a look at yours. You edited the text quoted by deleting about 3 paragraphs, essentially the entire content of the post, to suggest that the content of the post was about the hackers being "unix hackers" when it was not. Why did you do that? It appears so that you can throw a baseless insult about his qualifications. Here's the unedited comment:
"I had a machine hacked by a german movie filesharing group, and they incldued a bot which logged into their channel on Rizon. Like a good little admin, I logged into rizon, checked out the channel. It had several thousand users, a whole slew of fserves...and ZERO conversation. None.
I went to #help and reported the botnet attack and the response was: "hey, you want us to shut down one of the most popular channels here because of a evidenceless accusation that you were hacked by them and used as one of their fserves? LOL ZOMG GET SECURITY AHAHAHAHAHA LUSER P0WNZORED" etc. etc.
It is patently obvious that the Rizon admins are FULLY aware that they have dozens, if not hundreds, of illegal filesharing groups that are using botnets to set up fserves, attack other systems for more bots, etc. They're doing jack shit about it (and in fact, they're making it easier- they now support SSL connections) and I think it's time someone sued them to hell and back. It's time IRC operators were taught that you can't knowingly support criminal activity, and that if users report hackings- they need to look into said reports and act on them. I also think it's time IRC traffic was considered "highly suspicous" and monitored by ISPs for fserve commands and such; fserves have no real legitimate purpose today, except illegal filesharing.
PS: Next time you download a movie or program, bittorrent or IRC DCC....realize that it was distributed, most likely, by a group that hacked unix systems."
And here's your version:
"I had a machine hacked by a german movie filesharing group, [...] by a group that hacked unix systems."
Wow, talk about a misrepresentation of a quote. Interesting, eh FUD-slinger?
Businesses have separated LANs connected to to other LANs and the internet through firewalls. It's not like this is a revalation nor is it sufficient to protect machines. The highest security applications don't connect to the internet or to a LAN at all, they lock down physical access and prevent unapproved software from being installed. This is not new.
"(Consider the recent Sony rootkit...known by all the virus protection companies, and detected by NONE of them.)"
It requires the user to run an untrusted app off of media installed in the drive. Hardly an internet concern.
"If you've got MSWind installed, presume that you are infected."
OK, as long as you extend that to Linux, OS X, etc. I don't presume what you say at all, as you are suggesting that essentially 100% of the systems out there are compromised. Can you prove that?
"That's why the jokes."
No, that's not why the jokes.
"It's a kind of bitterness at the situation that people are forced to live with and deal with...and which the end-users insist upon, largely because of ignorance."
No one's forcing you, and there are plenty that consider your views to be due to ignorance, me among them.
"They don't, and WON'T, consider the risks that they are taking. They are a mix of ignorant and willfully ignorant."
Bullshit. The market is inherently going to adopt what it considers the preferable platform and that platform will inherently present the biggest target for abusers. The ignorant are those that believe that replacing Windows with something else is going to change that.
"It doesn't need an off switch. Turns itself off automaticaly after a few minutes of inactivity."
No it doesn't. The iPod can't ever be turned off. The screen is blanked and that's it (and yes, there's a way to do it).
"As for the rest of your comment, where's the "recycled rant" tag when I need it?"
And just as true now as it ever was. If only there was a "recycled rant" tag for every time someone claims that Apple products are easier to use.
Re:Add feature when they can make them work.
on
Jobs Unfazed by Zune
·
· Score: 1
"Who listens to radio these days?"
If no one did then radio stations wouldn't be in business. An FM tuner is especially useful for the gym where TV's will modulate their audio. An FM tuner would be a great addition even if you don't personally want it. Hopefully Apple will invent it soon.
"He is referring to how Apple waited to include video support until the low power portable video chipsets were mature and powerful enough and they had content lined up for the iTunes Store. Based on this past behavior, he is speculating that Apple will do the same thing with WiFi. I suspect that Apple will wait until they can use a low power WiFi "N" chipset."
I don't know how you can read that into his comments. This is what Steve Jobs when asked if he was worried about Zune:
"In a word, no. I've seen the demonstrations on the Internet about how you can find another person using a Zune and give them a song they can play three times. It takes forever. By the time you've gone through all that, the girl's got up and left! You're much better off to take one of your earbuds out and put it in her ear. Then you're connected with about two feet of headphone cable."
First, how do you get that Steve Jobs knows people want WiFi on their iPod out of that? Second, Jobs is spreading FUD by making unsubstantiated claims after admitting that his source is internet demonstrations. Third, he's made an assumption about how social interaction works (and a sexist one at that), and finally, he offers an absurd alternative. These are the words of a marketer, nothing more.
Regarding the video feature, Jobs said that video was undesirable because the screen was too small, not that video was undesirable because Apple couldn't do it yet. Now, if what you're saying is that Apple has to wait until another company does the work then I can agree with you, but I don't agree with your silly, revisionist spin. Jobs fought the video feature with FUD when he didn't have it, and now he fights WiFi the same way. It has nothing to do with waiting until it can be done right. Are the iPod's perpetual battery issues an example of doing it right?
"The license is a cost that is amortized over time."
Which still doesn't make it a cost of keeping Windows up to date.
"Besides, you have to renew the license, or Microsoft won't give you "free" updates."
I've never had to do that. Is renewal a cost of continued use? If it is, it's not a cost of keeping Windows up to date.
"It's still a cost."
Most Windows users don't do any on this. For those who do, it is no different than any other OS so it's not a differentiator.
"What other category would you book this cost under?"
It's not a cost if it isn't done. Running these tools may be an important part of using Windows, or any other platform, but it isn't necessary to keep Windows up to date.
"How would I know? I just said that to point out that I don't claim my list is exhaustive."
Who says you forgot about anything? Oh yeah, you did. Costs not listed aren't costs.
"One thing that comes to mind is keeping the applications up to date with security patches. This works via a different mechanism, often involving manually tracking updates. Of course, whether or not you have this cost depends on whether or not you have such applications."
And is not relevant to Windows.
"Not completely (see cost of Windows license; same for applications). Even if you don't have to spend a dime of actual money, the fact that it takes time means it's still a cost."
I certainly don't have to keep paying my Windows license in order to keep my machine up to date. I'd like to know what you're talking about. Some businesses pay recurring fees, but that's not to keep Windows up to date either. "Free" in this context means you aren't paying money for it. Refer to the original post.
"However, paulmer2003 suggested that maintaining Windows machines doesn't cost anything, and that's not true."
Here's what he said so there is no question what we're talking about:
"Now now. I am a Linux fan and such, but blaming Microsoft here is just stupid! You know why? Because usaully the thing is exploited hasent been patched yet. Every program has bugs, thats just how it is. Get over it. And how is it expensive to maintain windows machines properly? Windows Update is free, no?"
It is clear that he's referring to money here. Of all the update mechanisms, the Windows one is not especially hard to use and it is free.
"I would even go so far as to agree with his parent that it is ``unreasonably difficult, expensive, and time-consuming to maintain a Windows machine properly.'', seeing that maintenance is so much easier on, for example, Ubuntu."
So you claim that Ubuntu's maintenance process is much easier and you thereby conclude that Windows is "unreasonably difficult, expensive, and time-consuming". Ignoring the absurdity of that for a moment, just what makes the Ubuntu process so much easier. Could Windows be any easier than fully automatic and requiring no user interaction? Do you somehow not have to test Ubuntu packages or worry about application vulnerabilities? Are you claiming that you don't have to run 3rd party software to help you keep your system up to date (because you don't in Windows either) or are you referring to the red herring that is your bogus licensing fee arguments?
Of all the update processes, I personally find OS X to be the easiest but it's really not significantly better than Windows. I simply prefer it since it doesn't use a browser. Ubuntu I don't know, but I've ran other Linux distributions and they've always been inadequate in that area. I don't get how anything could get easier than fully automatic or cheaper than free. Anything has to be tested or trusted regardless of platform, and it's absurd to suggest that running Windows Update is "difficult, expensive, and time-consuming". That's something I'd say about Red Hat.
"the cost of the license" - which isn't part of the cost of maintaining Windows. You've already paid it.
"the time spent testing the patches and/or cleaning up if a batch goes awry" - which is no different than any other system and a no-op for most people.
"time spent running virus/adware/whatever scanners" which is also not a cost of maintaining Windows and technically not different from other systems, unless you pretend that other systems don't have these issues.
"and anything I forgot about." Which is?
Keeping your Windows system updated costs you potentially some time but is otherwise free. Businesses will take a more cautious approach but they will with any system. You can always stick your head in the sand and pretend that non-Windows machines are not vulnerable. I guess that's your point.
"I strongly suspect you're just spreading FUD: you don't sound like you're in any position to run a UNIX system, and even if you are, based on your comments, you don't sound capable of securing it, so it's no surprise that you got hacked."
And you're someone who doesn't know what FUD is you don't sound like you're in any position to run a UNIX system, either.
It's certainly not informative nor insightful. It should be modded either offtopic or flamebait, yet some still mod it funny after the 10 thousandth time it's been posted. Apparently a cheap shot at Windows never goes out of style.
"The reason for the iPod's success us that the Nomad is a device. The iPod is a well thought out product."
Really? Then why is it so hard to find the off switch?
Face it, the iPod isn't really any different to learn how to use than any other player. I've watched the non-technical customer in the Apple store being taught how to use one. Fully half the hours spent at the Genius Bar are for iPod problems and tutoring. I had a Creative product and a 1G iPod back in the day. The iPod was prettier, smaller, and had a nicer screen but it wasn't any easier to learn and it had very low capacity (along with no PC support). iPod's ease of use is overblown and what value it has comes from the jog wheel which was taken directly from VCRs. The menu interface itself wasn't the big selling point. The iPod was sold as a lifestyle device that played to the superiority complex of mac users and Jobs said at the time that supporting PCs with the iPod defeated the purpose.
How do you define "dating age"? The only age group that consistently hasn't seen a "phonograph" in their life is below dating age. Perhaps you like em young (and apparently stupid too).
The incredibly stupid DRM you refer to is a necessity for sharing at all. Without it the feature couldn't exist, so how is that stupid? Remove it and the critical mass issue is moot.
You could buy a Zune because you liked it better. Not saying that you should, but it's proof that there's no catch-22.
"Couple this with increasing introverted behavior."
While I don't disagree with you, I'd like to know where this comes from and why it's relevant. Since when does the Zune feature appeal more to the introverted? Since when are kids increasingly introverted?
Re:Add feature when they can make them work.
on
Jobs Unfazed by Zune
·
· Score: 1
"Apples Strength is that they tend to only add features that people really need and can use."
Yeah, like the contacts feature in the iPod? People really need and can use that. How about an FM radio instead?
"Apple knows that people wants wireless access to their iPod but apple won't put it in there until they can find a way to make it right..."
What evidence do you have to support that claim? Apple hasn't said anything to suggest that.
"Lets take a look at virtual screens...Why now did apple finally release it. Well because there is enough CPU/GPU power to make it so people can understand it and not call and complain about there windows being missing."
What? CPU/GPU power irrelevant to the issue. Since when have people complained about "windows being missing" with other implementations?
"It is about not releasing a feature until it can be made useful. Not just putting in a feature half hazardly jest because people who like buzzwords say they want it."
Says the Apple apologist. If Apple hasn't done it then it can't be good.
To elaborate on the GPL comment, if a programmer were to contribute to a software effort while in prison, the benefits of that work should either be granted to the state (to the profit of the prison system), to the people (through a BSD-style license), or to the public domain. The GPL discriminates against proprietary competitors through it's forced GPL licensing of derivative works and therefore is inappropriate. The government should not be sponsoring projects whose idealogical goal is to bankrupt certain business models.
If you refuse to allow earnings (or you require his earnings to be paid to the state) then there would be those who would raise the concern over his children and their financial welfare. If, taking Resier's specific case, the state allows him to continue his work unpaid, then there's still the matter of increasing value in the product he works on and the IP that's generated. Our government, through it's prison system, should not be subsidizing a private corporation or an open source project that releases under the GPL since both would discriminate against competitors.
Of course we have this situation anyway to a limited extent because we allow inmates a certain amount of liberty. They are allowed to write and that, in and of itself, is potentially profitable. Certainly there are celebrity inmates that seem only to become more valuable for their prison experience as well. These issues aren't justification for allowing more though.
I think you'll find it true in general that there will always be someone who will be wronged by the continuation of work while in prison. I suspect that any work projects for inmates must be the created by the prison system itself in order to avoid competing with the private sector. I doubt that's the primary reason for denying inmates work but I think it would make such a program difficult.
I'm not defending the current system nor do I know a great deal about it, but there are certainly jobs to be done by inmates while they are in prison. They get their choice on whether to participate but there are incentives to work. Many of the jobs help run the facility but some benefit society directly and all help reduce costs and theretically help with rehabilitation.
If you expand that concept to allow inmates to pursue certain careers then you have a host of new hardships. What jobs will you allow? Who will pay for the needed facilities? Where will the additional work space come from? Who will provide support? How will earnings be divided? What will happen when internal jobs go unfilled because the Reiser's of the jail are busy earning personal wealth while society pays for their incarceration?
I don't think the point is that people like Reiser want to work to benefit society so much as they work to get paid and some, like him, are lucky enough to be doing exactly what they want. There's a commumity that's enthusiastic about his work and hopes it continues but they don't get consideration from the legal process.
There's a continual argument over punishment vs rehabilitation that's more at the root of your specific comments, but that argument has been going on a long time. The fact is that prison is for both punishment and rehabilitation even if the balance isn't what it should be. Prison sentences are also a deterrent, so if Reiser is convicted yet continues his profession while incarcerated, especially if he keeps his earnings, then what deterrent does that really provide?
Would you think it should be different had this specific case not come up? Is Reiser somehow different enough to warrant a rethinking of centuries old techniques? Denying inmates their freedoms (including work) is certainly not controversial. I think what motivates so many to take the oposing viewpoint isn't that they question the justice system but rather that they want ReiserFS more than they care about crime and punishment.
Slashdot Mirror
While I completely agree with you for virtually the entire population, I don't think such a diet is a complete solution for the type 1 diabetic. It may be for some.
Recommending a carb-loaded diet as the ADA is has done for decades is a crime.
And for those people, if they didn't have type 2 diabetes then maybe losing the weight might be easier. Perhaps if the medical community wasn't so invested in fighting diets that are successful in helping people with just such conditions...
"I think it's pretty obvious from my tone that I was joking."
No, it was clear at all. You displayed contempt for fat people, their ugliness, and how stereotypically American they are. Somehow I bet you aren't overweight, much less obese, and that you're too young to even appreciate how difficult it can be to maintain weight with insulin resistance. It is clear that you feel qualified to be judgemental.
"So calm down. I know it's fun to build up a big load of righteous indignation, but there's just no call for it."
Of course there is. You're a conceited asshole. No better reason than that.
Apparently you don't know what compassion is.
"emphasized the key part for you. You pay once. That gets you updates for a certain time. When the time is up, you have to pay again, be it for extended support or for a new version of Windows. Either way, you have to keep paying, or the updates stop."
Give it a rest. Support for obsolete OSes is time limited for every product, even your precious Ubuntu. The only way to avoid paying for another license is only use free software. Eventually a Windows user will buy a new computer along with a new Windows license. That doesn't mean he's paying for patches. I can't get support for my old Red Hat installs either. It's called end of life.
"Ergo, the updates are _not_ free."
Yes, they are. Every update offered is free. Updates never continue to the end of time.
"There's no need to be so offensive."
I'm not being offensive. Twice in that post you forgot what you had posted yourself and didn't bother to understand what was being talked about. I try to delete text as I go so as not to make comments too long. That doesn't entitle you to change the subject.
"Well, that is what the original poster mentioned, and what I responded to."
Actually no you didn't. This is the original comment and your original response:
"``And how is it expensive to maintain windows machines properly? Windows Update is free, no?''
Well, apart from the cost of the license, the time spent testing the patches and/or cleaning up if a batch goes awry, time spent running virus/adware/whatever scanners (which you almost certainly need, despite Windows Update), and anything I forgot about."
As you can see, you wanted to associate the Windows license cost and the time and effort of validation of patches (which you have ceased arguing) plus the cost of 3rd party tools which are not part of the update process. You never mentioned the difficulty of updating 3rd party apps which is now the thrust of your argument. Had you done that I wouldn't have argued. Instead you focused on Windows Update itself, insisting that it is not free even though it is.
"you do pay for Windows updates"
No, you don't. Show me a single invoice that you've paid assuming you have a legitimate Windows license at all. I've NEVER paid for a Windows update ever. No one else has either. How about a link showing prices for Windows Update? It doesn't exist. Give it up.
"Fine, so you have two examples of updaters that didn't work for you. That doesn't mean there isn't _any_ updater outside the Windows world that doesn't work."
Never said differently, in fact, I gave an example of one in my first post. The fact that there may be Linux updaters that DO work is not proof that Windows Update is unnecessarily difficult. That was your contention.
"No. We accept additional applications on both. The point I was trying to make is that, on Windows, these use separate mechanisms for keeping up to date, whereas on Ubuntu, they all use the same mechanism that everything else uses."
Ubuntu cannot ensure that 3rd party apps update themselves thru the Ubuntu mechanism. In fact, it seems unlikely that it would ever happen. Ubuntu's unified update stems from the fact that it comes from a common source base.
In any event, I have no argument over the complications of 3rd party software. Windows has a lot; Ubuntu little or none. Irrelevant to your claim that Windows Update isn't free.
"...I find absolutely no reason to believe it wouldn't be the same way if Ubuntu were more popular."
That is true in the market we have where commercial software is almost entirely Windows or OS X. If Ubuntu has the marketshare of Windows, Photoshop would run on it (for example) and you can be certain that Adobe wouldn't provide source to Ubuntu for packaging. That is the point I was making. There's a whole world of commercial software that doesn't consider Linux a viable platform but would if Windows didn't exist.
"That's your interpretation. My interpretation of "maintaining
"It's not a "baseless insult": his idea that there is a well defined group of IRC providers that can be held responsible makes no sense."
I certainly didn't take his comment to suggest thaat IRC providers be held entirely responsible. He was pointing out that IRC providers did business knowing that their services where being used for malicious purposes. I can't imagine why you think that makes no sense.
"To put it bluntly: the way I read his post, the guy is simply lying. I don't believe his claim that he operates a UNIX system that was hacked into."
Why is that? Assuming that he is lying about that, do you then believe that his claim about the IRC providers is also a lie?
"The way I read his post, he is probably a Windows user with a grudge against UNIX and IRC."
That's ridiculous.
"And, frankly, so I think are you (assuming that you aren't simply the same guy posting under a different account)."
Even more ridiculous. It's far more likely that you're the same guy posting follow-ups as an AC.
I could give a shit about IRC. Never used it. I have used all the major OSes though, and I don't carry a grudge against any of them since that would be irrational. Nothing in the original post was insulting to unix or even IRC.
Exactly. It's a fundamental aspect of manufacturing with PC's and many, many companies do it successfully every day.
Had it been Dell, they would have been laughed at for the virus and ridiculed for passing the blame (and rightfully so). Apple should be treated no different.
"It is, because Microsoft will only give you updates if you pay the licensing fee, and only for a limited time."
...
Where do you come up with this crap? Have you ever bought a Windows license? MS has a business license that includes recurring charges but that's not the only way Windows is licensed. The normal way is a one time fee that includes free maintenance releases as long as MS provides them.
"Most Windows users don't pay licensing costs?"
You need to learn to read your own postings, my comment referred to "the time spent testing the patches and/or cleaning up if a batch goes awry". I never said users don't pay for licenses. I said that license fees aren't the same as fees for patches.
"And, in this case, there are OSes for which it is different: Debian, for example, has never required anyone to pay a license fee."
So what? That doesn't mean that Microsoft charges for patches. It does not.
"Getting updates is not necessary to keep Windows up to date? Kindly explain to me how you would keep Windows up to date without them."
You have a real problem understanding your own posts, don't you? Running virus scanning software is not the same as getting an update. Why bother posting at all if you can't make the effort to understand what's being said?
"But we weren't talking about Windows in isolation, we were talking about the cost of "maintaining Windows machines properly". That includes the applications."
No we aren't. We're talking about Windows. Even so, are you suggesting that Windows makes it harder to keep apps up to date than other platforms? I suppose you've never run a 3rd party app on Linux then.
"That may be the interpretation _you_ prefer, but that doesn't mean it's the correct one.
Yes, which means he missed the costs that don't involve directly spending money."
No, he didn't. He made a simple, and correct, statement about Windows updates being free. You're the one who has misinterpreted that.
"It's not, because you have to pay Microsoft to get these updates."
You do not! Where are you getting this absurd notion?
"Keeping all software on an Ubuntu machine up to date: click the updates icon, enter password, click apply updates, reboot if prompted to."
Perhaps as long as the only software you use is what comes with Ubuntu. That used to be true for other distributions as well. My experience is that those tools would work for a while and then fail. How long before Ubuntu disappears or changes its service and requires manual intervention to get updates working again? I gave up on my Red Hat and SuSE updaters.
"1. For Windows components (and I think other Microsoft software):
click the install updates icon, reboot as necessary (forgive me if I missed any steps here)"
Windows can be simplified further. It can be made fully automatic of you prefer. This is a Windows discussion, not a 3rd party app discussion.
"2. For applications that include their own automatic updaters, the process is probably similar. It may actually be fully automatic.
3. For applications that include non-automatic updaters: run the updater, follow instructions.
4. For applications that don't include any updater: get announcements of updates by searching the web, subscribing to mailing lists, or whatever mechanism. Download updates. Apply updates by whatever process they use."
What, we have to accept additional apps on Windows and not on Ubuntu?
"5. Periodically scan your system with malware scanning tool."
Not part of the update process. Doesn't matter but you would need to do that with Ubuntu. Oh, doesn't have it?
"
``Are you claiming that you don't have to run 3rd party software to help you keep your system up to date''
Yes."
You are wrong. Windows includes its own updater. No other tool exists or is necessary.
"They add somewhat to the maintenance cost, but Windows licenses are cheap compared to laubor
Except that you're totally wrong about that. He said the hackers were specifically ones who hacked unix systems (in response to his parent who said that Microsoft should be held legally accountable). There is no FUD in that, as everyone knows that all systems can be potentially compromised and unix systems are targeted as well. If his parent hadn't accused Microsoft of being the problem, I doubt unix would have been mentioned. I also don't see how you get that he must have a commercial stake in Windows other than you making a blanket assumption that anyone who disagrees with you must be corrupt. He was calling attention to to operators of IRC channels, not spreading FUD about unix systems.
Now, aftering discrediting your claim that his post was FUD, let's take a look at yours. You edited the text quoted by deleting about 3 paragraphs, essentially the entire content of the post, to suggest that the content of the post was about the hackers being "unix hackers" when it was not. Why did you do that? It appears so that you can throw a baseless insult about his qualifications. Here's the unedited comment:
"I had a machine hacked by a german movie filesharing group, and they incldued a bot which logged into their channel on Rizon. Like a good little admin, I logged into rizon, checked out the channel. It had several thousand users, a whole slew of fserves...and ZERO conversation. None.
I went to #help and reported the botnet attack and the response was: "hey, you want us to shut down one of the most popular channels here because of a evidenceless accusation that you were hacked by them and used as one of their fserves? LOL ZOMG GET SECURITY AHAHAHAHAHA LUSER P0WNZORED" etc. etc.
It is patently obvious that the Rizon admins are FULLY aware that they have dozens, if not hundreds, of illegal filesharing groups that are using botnets to set up fserves, attack other systems for more bots, etc. They're doing jack shit about it (and in fact, they're making it easier- they now support SSL connections) and I think it's time someone sued them to hell and back. It's time IRC operators were taught that you can't knowingly support criminal activity, and that if users report hackings- they need to look into said reports and act on them. I also think it's time IRC traffic was considered "highly suspicous" and monitored by ISPs for fserve commands and such; fserves have no real legitimate purpose today, except illegal filesharing.
PS: Next time you download a movie or program, bittorrent or IRC DCC....realize that it was distributed, most likely, by a group that hacked unix systems."
And here's your version:
"I had a machine hacked by a german movie filesharing group, [...] by a group that hacked unix systems."
Wow, talk about a misrepresentation of a quote. Interesting, eh FUD-slinger?
"The problem is, it's accurate...well, sort of."
Perhaps, but off-topic to the discussion at hand.
"...as it would require a separated LAN..."
Businesses have separated LANs connected to to other LANs and the internet through firewalls. It's not like this is a revalation nor is it sufficient to protect machines. The highest security applications don't connect to the internet or to a LAN at all, they lock down physical access and prevent unapproved software from being installed. This is not new.
"(Consider the recent Sony rootkit...known by all the virus protection companies, and detected by NONE of them.)"
It requires the user to run an untrusted app off of media installed in the drive. Hardly an internet concern.
"If you've got MSWind installed, presume that you are infected."
OK, as long as you extend that to Linux, OS X, etc. I don't presume what you say at all, as you are suggesting that essentially 100% of the systems out there are compromised. Can you prove that?
"That's why the jokes."
No, that's not why the jokes.
"It's a kind of bitterness at the situation that people are forced to live with and deal with...and which the end-users insist upon, largely because of ignorance."
No one's forcing you, and there are plenty that consider your views to be due to ignorance, me among them.
"They don't, and WON'T, consider the risks that they are taking. They are a mix of ignorant and willfully ignorant."
Bullshit. The market is inherently going to adopt what it considers the preferable platform and that platform will inherently present the biggest target for abusers. The ignorant are those that believe that replacing Windows with something else is going to change that.
"It doesn't need an off switch. Turns itself off automaticaly after a few minutes of inactivity."
No it doesn't. The iPod can't ever be turned off. The screen is blanked and that's it (and yes, there's a way to do it).
"As for the rest of your comment, where's the "recycled rant" tag when I need it?"
And just as true now as it ever was. If only there was a "recycled rant" tag for every time someone claims that Apple products are easier to use.
"Who listens to radio these days?"
If no one did then radio stations wouldn't be in business. An FM tuner is especially useful for the gym where TV's will modulate their audio. An FM tuner would be a great addition even if you don't personally want it. Hopefully Apple will invent it soon.
"He is referring to how Apple waited to include video support until the low power portable video chipsets were mature and powerful enough and they had content lined up for the iTunes Store. Based on this past behavior, he is speculating that Apple will do the same thing with WiFi. I suspect that Apple will wait until they can use a low power WiFi "N" chipset."
I don't know how you can read that into his comments. This is what Steve Jobs when asked if he was worried about Zune:
"In a word, no. I've seen the demonstrations on the Internet about how you can find another person using a Zune and give them a song they can play three times. It takes forever. By the time you've gone through all that, the girl's got up and left! You're much better off to take one of your earbuds out and put it in her ear. Then you're connected with about two feet of headphone cable."
First, how do you get that Steve Jobs knows people want WiFi on their iPod out of that? Second, Jobs is spreading FUD by making unsubstantiated claims after admitting that his source is internet demonstrations. Third, he's made an assumption about how social interaction works (and a sexist one at that), and finally, he offers an absurd alternative. These are the words of a marketer, nothing more.
Regarding the video feature, Jobs said that video was undesirable because the screen was too small, not that video was undesirable because Apple couldn't do it yet. Now, if what you're saying is that Apple has to wait until another company does the work then I can agree with you, but I don't agree with your silly, revisionist spin. Jobs fought the video feature with FUD when he didn't have it, and now he fights WiFi the same way. It has nothing to do with waiting until it can be done right. Are the iPod's perpetual battery issues an example of doing it right?
"The license is a cost that is amortized over time."
Which still doesn't make it a cost of keeping Windows up to date.
"Besides, you have to renew the license, or Microsoft won't give you "free" updates."
I've never had to do that. Is renewal a cost of continued use? If it is, it's not a cost of keeping Windows up to date.
"It's still a cost."
Most Windows users don't do any on this. For those who do, it is no different than any other OS so it's not a differentiator.
"What other category would you book this cost under?"
It's not a cost if it isn't done. Running these tools may be an important part of using Windows, or any other platform, but it isn't necessary to keep Windows up to date.
"How would I know? I just said that to point out that I don't claim my list is exhaustive."
Who says you forgot about anything? Oh yeah, you did. Costs not listed aren't costs.
"One thing that comes to mind is keeping the applications up to date with security patches. This works via a different mechanism, often involving manually tracking updates. Of course, whether or not you have this cost depends on whether or not you have such applications."
And is not relevant to Windows.
"Not completely (see cost of Windows license; same for applications). Even if you don't have to spend a dime of actual money, the fact that it takes time means it's still a cost."
I certainly don't have to keep paying my Windows license in order to keep my machine up to date. I'd like to know what you're talking about. Some businesses pay recurring fees, but that's not to keep Windows up to date either. "Free" in this context means you aren't paying money for it. Refer to the original post.
"However, paulmer2003 suggested that maintaining Windows machines doesn't cost anything, and that's not true."
Here's what he said so there is no question what we're talking about:
"Now now. I am a Linux fan and such, but blaming Microsoft here is just stupid! You know why? Because usaully the thing is exploited hasent been patched yet. Every program has bugs, thats just how it is. Get over it. And how is it expensive to maintain windows machines properly? Windows Update is free, no?"
It is clear that he's referring to money here. Of all the update mechanisms, the Windows one is not especially hard to use and it is free.
"I would even go so far as to agree with his parent that it is ``unreasonably difficult, expensive, and time-consuming to maintain a Windows machine properly.'', seeing that maintenance is so much easier on, for example, Ubuntu."
So you claim that Ubuntu's maintenance process is much easier and you thereby conclude that Windows is "unreasonably difficult, expensive, and time-consuming". Ignoring the absurdity of that for a moment, just what makes the Ubuntu process so much easier. Could Windows be any easier than fully automatic and requiring no user interaction? Do you somehow not have to test Ubuntu packages or worry about application vulnerabilities? Are you claiming that you don't have to run 3rd party software to help you keep your system up to date (because you don't in Windows either) or are you referring to the red herring that is your bogus licensing fee arguments?
Of all the update processes, I personally find OS X to be the easiest but it's really not significantly better than Windows. I simply prefer it since it doesn't use a browser. Ubuntu I don't know, but I've ran other Linux distributions and they've always been inadequate in that area. I don't get how anything could get easier than fully automatic or cheaper than free. Anything has to be tested or trusted regardless of platform, and it's absurd to suggest that running Windows Update is "difficult, expensive, and time-consuming". That's something I'd say about Red Hat.
"the cost of the license" - which isn't part of the cost of maintaining Windows. You've already paid it.
"the time spent testing the patches and/or cleaning up if a batch goes awry" - which is no different than any other system and a no-op for most people.
"time spent running virus/adware/whatever scanners" which is also not a cost of maintaining Windows and technically not different from other systems, unless you pretend that other systems don't have these issues.
"and anything I forgot about." Which is?
Keeping your Windows system updated costs you potentially some time but is otherwise free. Businesses will take a more cautious approach but they will with any system. You can always stick your head in the sand and pretend that non-Windows machines are not vulnerable. I guess that's your point.
"I strongly suspect you're just spreading FUD: you don't sound like you're in any position to run a UNIX system, and even if you are, based on your comments, you don't sound capable of securing it, so it's no surprise that you got hacked."
And you're someone who doesn't know what FUD is you don't sound like you're in any position to run a UNIX system, either.
It's certainly not informative nor insightful. It should be modded either offtopic or flamebait, yet some still mod it funny after the 10 thousandth time it's been posted. Apparently a cheap shot at Windows never goes out of style.
"The reason for the iPod's success us that the Nomad is a device. The iPod is a well thought out product."
Really? Then why is it so hard to find the off switch?
Face it, the iPod isn't really any different to learn how to use than any other player. I've watched the non-technical customer in the Apple store being taught how to use one. Fully half the hours spent at the Genius Bar are for iPod problems and tutoring. I had a Creative product and a 1G iPod back in the day. The iPod was prettier, smaller, and had a nicer screen but it wasn't any easier to learn and it had very low capacity (along with no PC support). iPod's ease of use is overblown and what value it has comes from the jog wheel which was taken directly from VCRs. The menu interface itself wasn't the big selling point. The iPod was sold as a lifestyle device that played to the superiority complex of mac users and Jobs said at the time that supporting PCs with the iPod defeated the purpose.
How do you define "dating age"? The only age group that consistently hasn't seen a "phonograph" in their life is below dating age. Perhaps you like em young (and apparently stupid too).
The incredibly stupid DRM you refer to is a necessity for sharing at all. Without it the feature couldn't exist, so how is that stupid? Remove it and the critical mass issue is moot.
You could buy a Zune because you liked it better. Not saying that you should, but it's proof that there's no catch-22.
"Couple this with increasing introverted behavior."
While I don't disagree with you, I'd like to know where this comes from and why it's relevant. Since when does the Zune feature appeal more to the introverted? Since when are kids increasingly introverted?
"Apples Strength is that they tend to only add features that people really need and can use."
Yeah, like the contacts feature in the iPod? People really need and can use that. How about an FM radio instead?
"Apple knows that people wants wireless access to their iPod but apple won't put it in there until they can find a way to make it right..."
What evidence do you have to support that claim? Apple hasn't said anything to suggest that.
"Lets take a look at virtual screens...Why now did apple finally release it. Well because there is enough CPU/GPU power to make it so people can understand it and not call and complain about there windows being missing."
What? CPU/GPU power irrelevant to the issue. Since when have people complained about "windows being missing" with other implementations?
"It is about not releasing a feature until it can be made useful. Not just putting in a feature half hazardly jest because people who like buzzwords say they want it."
Says the Apple apologist. If Apple hasn't done it then it can't be good.
To elaborate on the GPL comment, if a programmer were to contribute to a software effort while in prison, the benefits of that work should either be granted to the state (to the profit of the prison system), to the people (through a BSD-style license), or to the public domain. The GPL discriminates against proprietary competitors through it's forced GPL licensing of derivative works and therefore is inappropriate. The government should not be sponsoring projects whose idealogical goal is to bankrupt certain business models.
If you refuse to allow earnings (or you require his earnings to be paid to the state) then there would be those who would raise the concern over his children and their financial welfare. If, taking Resier's specific case, the state allows him to continue his work unpaid, then there's still the matter of increasing value in the product he works on and the IP that's generated. Our government, through it's prison system, should not be subsidizing a private corporation or an open source project that releases under the GPL since both would discriminate against competitors.
Of course we have this situation anyway to a limited extent because we allow inmates a certain amount of liberty. They are allowed to write and that, in and of itself, is potentially profitable. Certainly there are celebrity inmates that seem only to become more valuable for their prison experience as well. These issues aren't justification for allowing more though.
I think you'll find it true in general that there will always be someone who will be wronged by the continuation of work while in prison. I suspect that any work projects for inmates must be the created by the prison system itself in order to avoid competing with the private sector. I doubt that's the primary reason for denying inmates work but I think it would make such a program difficult.
I'm not defending the current system nor do I know a great deal about it, but there are certainly jobs to be done by inmates while they are in prison. They get their choice on whether to participate but there are incentives to work. Many of the jobs help run the facility but some benefit society directly and all help reduce costs and theretically help with rehabilitation.
If you expand that concept to allow inmates to pursue certain careers then you have a host of new hardships. What jobs will you allow? Who will pay for the needed facilities? Where will the additional work space come from? Who will provide support? How will earnings be divided? What will happen when internal jobs go unfilled because the Reiser's of the jail are busy earning personal wealth while society pays for their incarceration?
I don't think the point is that people like Reiser want to work to benefit society so much as they work to get paid and some, like him, are lucky enough to be doing exactly what they want. There's a commumity that's enthusiastic about his work and hopes it continues but they don't get consideration from the legal process.
There's a continual argument over punishment vs rehabilitation that's more at the root of your specific comments, but that argument has been going on a long time. The fact is that prison is for both punishment and rehabilitation even if the balance isn't what it should be. Prison sentences are also a deterrent, so if Reiser is convicted yet continues his profession while incarcerated, especially if he keeps his earnings, then what deterrent does that really provide?
Would you think it should be different had this specific case not come up? Is Reiser somehow different enough to warrant a rethinking of centuries old techniques? Denying inmates their freedoms (including work) is certainly not controversial. I think what motivates so many to take the oposing viewpoint isn't that they question the justice system but rather that they want ReiserFS more than they care about crime and punishment.