Yeah, the first thought I had was "McDonald Buck"? Are they serious?
Turns out there is a McDonald Buck, who does know something about Linux. As parent says, repeated searching on worldbank.org (or worldbank.int) gets scratch.
For the curious, his e-mail address comes from wmbuck.net, which he owns. His website is however completely locked out using server-side authentication.
Think about this. Google has to bombard you with ads, because that's its business.
Microsoft can wave a magic wand and make its search engine completely advertising free. Only one of the many advantages of being the biggest - and richest - players in the house.
Remember MS's core technique: embrace and extend. Once Microsoft search can do everything Google can do, it's going to start doing even more. And that's when Google is going to be in hot water.
Zeitgeist is a cool word. Also totally inappropriate for the present usage.
Ironically, just like trying to pass off a survey on the most visible brands as a the top global brands. But Google is high on the lists, so it must be Slashdot-worthy!:)
why Firefox will never grow up --> from the article, "Firefox is growing and maturing--there's no question about it. But as long as we're around, it'll never fully grow up. So sit back, relax, and await the delicious delicacies that The Ocho will have to offer."
Website has gone down, so not sure how inflamatory the "controversial... developer recruitment philosophy" line is.
Okay, 'Run as...' I know, but how do you delete a set of files created by the Administrator, or uninstall a program you installed using "Run-as"? AFAIK, you can't without logging in again.
OK, the Win-L thing is a special case: I don't have fast user switching because i need to log into a domain to connect to my college network.
In any case, my point is still that all this stuff that's not given too much prominance in WinXP, unless you count the startup screens. But I still say, it's not obvious enough for something as important as a multi-user computer system.
Radical changes on the inside, yeah. I'm refering to user operation. Fundamentally, WinXP feels much the same as Win95, in terms of how you operate it - same start button, same status bar, and most importantly, same explorer.
Unixs were designed from the ground up as multiuser systems. WindowsXP is the user interface of what is essentially a single user system bolted onto a multiuser system. Which means stuff like changing user (the Windows equivalent of "su") is hard and irritating to pull off, which is the main reason so many people stick with running as Admin. If they'd redesigned the user interface to make multi-user capabilities better defined (*these* are your files. *these* are your brother's files. *this* is how you switch users temporarily, etc.)
There's a huge list of Windows problems, from ActiveX to exploits of the OS. Most of them have some kind of solution: Firefox, Windows Updates, etc.
What I'm saying is that Microsoft hasn't done enough to help it's less computer competant users transition from a single-user, local-network environment to a multi-user international-network setting. The technology has kept up, but the user interface and the *way* ordinary people use computers has stayed right back in 1995. And that's a huge let down for a company like Microsoft, for whome "less computer competant users" have been bread-and-butter for the last two decades.
Everybody does that: even Red Hat (see point 7). IANAL, but basically what this means is that if Windows (or Red Hat) screws up your comp, you can't hold Microsoft or Red Hat accountable. Why? Because as any geek knows, there's about a thousand things which can cause a computer screw-up, from script kiddies to accidently hitting the 'del' button, and they don't think they should be responsible, which is a perfectly reasonable position to take IMHO.
What the guy is saying is that if Windows turns out to have a problem, you can rely on Microsoft to provide updates. You *can't* legally rely on Linus Torvalds or any of the other developers to provide a solution to the problem. However, if you have an agreement with Red Hat, you can rely on them in the same way, AFAIK.
IMHO, the biggest problem is that Windows has remained relatively unchanged since Win95. Win95 was a single-user application, only just beginning to explore the Internet. The biggest risk your computer could face - viruses - could be handled by being very careful about which floppy disks you used. People who used BBSes were competant enough to use antiviral programs.
With the coming of the Internet, all that changed. Windows needs to be secure enough to prevent web-based attacks, such as through badly created web application frameworks like ActiveX, as well as prevent attacks on vulnerabilities in the networking function of the OS. Stuff like using a restricted user mode, frequent updates, using a secure browser, etc. are necessary to stop such attacks.
A Windows computer is probably as secure as a Linux machine if adequate measures are taken: antivirus programs, firewalls (generally included in the former), secure passwords, not running as Admin and most importantly, frequent updates.
All this is new stuff that people have to learn. Atleast if you use Linux, somewhere down the line you *have* to learn the basics of stuff like this (I've found "rm -rf" is the best tool for teaching people to NEVER run as root!). With Windows, you can remain painfully oblivious to the most basic security techniques because the OS will *let* you - and your computer becomes the next hub for Joe Spamboss.
Hopefully, SP2 will improve things - I've found the firewall a real PITA, particularly on university-administered computers, but atleast it makes people a little more aware and careful.
I don't think branding everybody as "stupid" is the way to go about it. They're not stupid, they're just not aware. And I blame Microsoft as their enabler, atleast for these last few years.
And Chrysler went from one of America's largest corporations to near bankrupcy before it was turned around in the 80s. I think GP's point is that large corporations can survive. In business, the bigger you are, the stronger you are, and MS is one big cookie.
Could have been phrased better, but it's a good point: would super-cheap phones encourage crooks to use disposable phones, making it harder for the phone to be tracked and conversations recorded? It's certainly much more convenient. Are there any other advantages for criminals, and how could cops counter this?
Slashdot Mirror
I find your ideas intriguing, and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
Hey! Imagine a Beowulf cluster writing ... oh dear, never mind.
Yeah, the first thought I had was "McDonald Buck"? Are they serious?
:).
Turns out there is a McDonald Buck, who does know something about Linux. As parent says, repeated searching on worldbank.org (or worldbank.int) gets scratch.
For the curious, his e-mail address comes from wmbuck.net, which he owns. His website is however completely locked out using server-side authentication.
Hey, it's a boring Saturday night
We're talking about TCO - Total Cost of Ownership.
You mispronounced 0wnership.
Think about this. Google has to bombard you with ads, because that's its business.
Microsoft can wave a magic wand and make its search engine completely advertising free. Only one of the many advantages of being the biggest - and richest - players in the house.
Remember MS's core technique: embrace and extend. Once Microsoft search can do everything Google can do, it's going to start doing even more. And that's when Google is going to be in hot water.
FIRST CODE! :D
(kudos to everybody working on this. think of how long mozilla took to "come out" - and the impact it had!)
... if GNU/HURD comes out before Longhorn?
This is the funniest thing I've read on Slashdot yet ... I must be new here! :D Somebody with points, mod this guy up!
Zeitgeist is a cool word. Also totally inappropriate for the present usage.
:)
Ironically, just like trying to pass off a survey on the most visible brands as a the top global brands. But Google is high on the lists, so it must be Slashdot-worthy!
*hitting anon coward on the head with a large trout*
... for it is written in the Book of GNU that thou shalt not compare an open source project with The Company of Gates and Windows!
The prescribed punishment is one thousand lines of code for the One True Kernel. So write, sinner, and repent, for the Final Compile is nigh!
Programmers? Ha! You must mean pigeons!
And I'm afraid pizza won't work; you're going to need lin/ax.
A Firefox developer --> actually, Blake Ross (yes, we've heard of him before, and writer of the Firefox guide book)
... developer recruitment philosophy" line is.
why Firefox will never grow up --> from the article, "Firefox is growing and maturing--there's no question about it. But as long as we're around, it'll never fully grow up. So sit back, relax, and await the delicious delicacies that The Ocho will have to offer."
Website has gone down, so not sure how inflamatory the "controversial
:D thanks a lot!
Hey, I didn't know that one!
...' I know, but how do you delete a set of files created by the Administrator, or uninstall a program you installed using "Run-as"? AFAIK, you can't without logging in again.
Okay, 'Run as
OK, the Win-L thing is a special case: I don't have fast user switching because i need to log into a domain to connect to my college network.
In any case, my point is still that all this stuff that's not given too much prominance in WinXP, unless you count the startup screens. But I still say, it's not obvious enough for something as important as a multi-user computer system.
... they can go to Microsoft and present a bill which Microsoft will gladly pay ... Tuesday!
*rimshot*
Radical changes on the inside, yeah. I'm refering to user operation. Fundamentally, WinXP feels much the same as Win95, in terms of how you operate it - same start button, same status bar, and most importantly, same explorer.
Unixs were designed from the ground up as multiuser systems. WindowsXP is the user interface of what is essentially a single user system bolted onto a multiuser system. Which means stuff like changing user (the Windows equivalent of "su") is hard and irritating to pull off, which is the main reason so many people stick with running as Admin. If they'd redesigned the user interface to make multi-user capabilities better defined (*these* are your files. *these* are your brother's files. *this* is how you switch users temporarily, etc.)
There's a huge list of Windows problems, from ActiveX to exploits of the OS. Most of them have some kind of solution: Firefox, Windows Updates, etc.
What I'm saying is that Microsoft hasn't done enough to help it's less computer competant users transition from a single-user, local-network environment to a multi-user international-network setting. The technology has kept up, but the user interface and the *way* ordinary people use computers has stayed right back in 1995. And that's a huge let down for a company like Microsoft, for whome "less computer competant users" have been bread-and-butter for the last two decades.
Who's the dominant person in this photo? What about here? Does this help?
See, it's easy!
Everybody does that: even Red Hat (see point 7). IANAL, but basically what this means is that if Windows (or Red Hat) screws up your comp, you can't hold Microsoft or Red Hat accountable. Why? Because as any geek knows, there's about a thousand things which can cause a computer screw-up, from script kiddies to accidently hitting the 'del' button, and they don't think they should be responsible, which is a perfectly reasonable position to take IMHO.
:|.
What the guy is saying is that if Windows turns out to have a problem, you can rely on Microsoft to provide updates. You *can't* legally rely on Linus Torvalds or any of the other developers to provide a solution to the problem. However, if you have an agreement with Red Hat, you can rely on them in the same way, AFAIK.
Shit, that's a lot of acronyms for one post
IMHO, the biggest problem is that Windows has remained relatively unchanged since Win95. Win95 was a single-user application, only just beginning to explore the Internet. The biggest risk your computer could face - viruses - could be handled by being very careful about which floppy disks you used. People who used BBSes were competant enough to use antiviral programs.
With the coming of the Internet, all that changed. Windows needs to be secure enough to prevent web-based attacks, such as through badly created web application frameworks like ActiveX, as well as prevent attacks on vulnerabilities in the networking function of the OS. Stuff like using a restricted user mode, frequent updates, using a secure browser, etc. are necessary to stop such attacks.
A Windows computer is probably as secure as a Linux machine if adequate measures are taken: antivirus programs, firewalls (generally included in the former), secure passwords, not running as Admin and most importantly, frequent updates.
All this is new stuff that people have to learn. Atleast if you use Linux, somewhere down the line you *have* to learn the basics of stuff like this (I've found "rm -rf" is the best tool for teaching people to NEVER run as root!). With Windows, you can remain painfully oblivious to the most basic security techniques because the OS will *let* you - and your computer becomes the next hub for Joe Spamboss.
Hopefully, SP2 will improve things - I've found the firewall a real PITA, particularly on university-administered computers, but atleast it makes people a little more aware and careful.
I don't think branding everybody as "stupid" is the way to go about it. They're not stupid, they're just not aware. And I blame Microsoft as their enabler, atleast for these last few years.
And Chrysler went from one of America's largest corporations to near bankrupcy before it was turned around in the 80s. I think GP's point is that large corporations can survive. In business, the bigger you are, the stronger you are, and MS is one big cookie.
Betelgeuse is a red supergiant. Could that be responsible for the dark skin in any way?
Could have been phrased better, but it's a good point: would super-cheap phones encourage crooks to use disposable phones, making it harder for the phone to be tracked and conversations recorded? It's certainly much more convenient. Are there any other advantages for criminals, and how could cops counter this?
Could this be the most leet OS and language of 2005?
Yeah, what's with that?
For once , today. I think the editors deserve a round of applause!
[It's alright, Hemos, you know we love you :D]