Aye, I know what they're trying to do by generating interest by not explaining much, but methinks they have to include a little more information than they currently do. For all the commercials tell you, Linux could be cornbread.
gamerdude**** (12:08:07 AM): My parents are like "WTF IS LINUX!?" gamerdude**** (12:08:13 AM): They don't even say that it's an operating system gamerdude**** (12:09:42 AM): The linux kid is fscking ugly gamerdude**** (12:09:45 AM): too blonde gamerdude**** (12:09:54 AM): he looks mentally challenged anyway gamerdude**** (12:10:05 AM): and they put the commecials on so they talk like him being retawded too gamerdude**** (12:10:10 AM): "Linux is learning.." gamerdude**** (12:10:18 AM): Good job! So are we.
Windows 98 is obsolete and inferior to the newer OSs. Very often the people still running it are those who aren't very technically savy, and thus, more likely than not, couldn't even be bothered to run Windows Update anyway, so it won't even affect them.
This will likely cause many to upgrade to 2000/XP anyway, so those few still left behind on 98 will be less likely targets for exploits anyway.
Why does everyone make a big stink and bi0tch at Microsoft for doing something like this? Very few companies provide any support at all for old versions of products. Many will cease support old versions the very instant a new version comes out, and will tell its users to upgrade to the newest version if they want support.
Microsoft, on the other hand, provides support for it's software for five (?) years, even after it's been succeeded by Windows 2000/XP!
Everyone in my family uses AIM to communicate around the house. There aren't really any cons to it aside from the fact that it tends to make you lazier and you lose the exercise of having to get up and walk to the person you want to talk to.
While I hate Microsoft as much as the next guy, the article is (clearly) biased and even inacurate in many ways..
Firstly, the article brings up the Blaster worm often and states that Microsoft failed to fix that. Microsoft did indeed fix the Blaster. It's end users' faults if they got it, not Microsoft's, as end users need to keep up on security updates. (And before anyone says that you shouldn't have to keep up on so many security updates -- there're just as many security updates for Linux as there are for Windows, and you have an equal responsibility to patch them as you do on Windows.)
Second, Windows is most likely equally as (security)-holey as any other OS. The only reason it seems like its so much of a big thing is because so many people use it - namely novice computer users who don't keep up on security updates. You do not see the exploitation of Linux systems because mostly only intermediate-advanced users run Linux, and these users are merely smart enough to stay on top of updates.
Anyway.. Is MS financially backing SCO in their lawsuits against Linux?
Slashdot Mirror
Aye, I know what they're trying to do by generating interest by not explaining much, but methinks they have to include a little more information than they currently do. For all the commercials tell you, Linux could be cornbread.
gamerdude**** (12:08:07 AM): My parents are like "WTF IS LINUX!?"
gamerdude**** (12:08:13 AM): They don't even say that it's an operating system
gamerdude**** (12:09:42 AM): The linux kid is fscking ugly
gamerdude**** (12:09:45 AM): too blonde
gamerdude**** (12:09:54 AM): he looks mentally challenged anyway
gamerdude**** (12:10:05 AM): and they put the commecials on so they talk like him being retawded too
gamerdude**** (12:10:10 AM): "Linux is learning.."
gamerdude**** (12:10:18 AM): Good job! So are we.
Windows 98 is obsolete and inferior to the newer OSs. Very often the people still running it are those who aren't very technically savy, and thus, more likely than not, couldn't even be bothered to run Windows Update anyway, so it won't even affect them.
This will likely cause many to upgrade to 2000/XP anyway, so those few still left behind on 98 will be less likely targets for exploits anyway.
Why does everyone make a big stink and bi0tch at Microsoft for doing something like this? Very few companies provide any support at all for old versions of products. Many will cease support old versions the very instant a new version comes out, and will tell its users to upgrade to the newest version if they want support.
Microsoft, on the other hand, provides support for it's software for five (?) years, even after it's been succeeded by Windows 2000/XP!
Meh, just a troller. :P Funny that all of sudden I'm anti-social, but he's the one posting anonymously.
If the CAT5 came out of the wall, you wouldn't be talking to them on IM anyway.. ;)
Thanks, but no thanks. The only one in my family like that is my brother, and ironically he is the one who will generally get up to talk to people.
Well, there's always the `net send' feature in the command prompt. You can just open a command prompt and type
net send [computername] [message]
Sometimes I'll send messages or URLs or whatnot to my server which doesn't have IM installed, and I just use
net send HYDROGEN http://www.someurl.com/id.php?x=34624
Everyone in my family uses AIM to communicate around the house. There aren't really any cons to it aside from the fact that it tends to make you lazier and you lose the exercise of having to get up and walk to the person you want to talk to.
Well that's not Microsoft though is it? ;)
If I'm not mistaken, Linux was the first OS to include virtual desktops. [/uncertain]
They're not innovating, they just happen to have a particular GUI that some people, for some reason, like.
While I hate Microsoft as much as the next guy, the article is (clearly) biased and even inacurate in many ways..
Firstly, the article brings up the Blaster worm often and states that Microsoft failed to fix that. Microsoft did indeed fix the Blaster. It's end users' faults if they got it, not Microsoft's, as end users need to keep up on security updates. (And before anyone says that you shouldn't have to keep up on so many security updates -- there're just as many security updates for Linux as there are for Windows, and you have an equal responsibility to patch them as you do on Windows.)
Second, Windows is most likely equally as (security)-holey as any other OS. The only reason it seems like its so much of a big thing is because so many people use it - namely novice computer users who don't keep up on security updates. You do not see the exploitation of Linux systems because mostly only intermediate-advanced users run Linux, and these users are merely smart enough to stay on top of updates.
Anyway.. Is MS financially backing SCO in their lawsuits against Linux?