Why disallow melting down the pennies? If inflation is caused by an increase in the amount of money in circulation, think of the reduction in money if all these pennies were melted down!
Fight inflation: throw away (or melt!) a penny today!
"LUA's can already be found in Windows XP, but nobody uses them because of the onerous restrictions they place on usability. In Vista, LUA's are mandatory and inescapable"
That's completely untrue. Vista's UAC/LUA feature can be completely disabled with just one click in a control panel applet. But I think most games, if not all, can run (or should be able to) without admin privileges.
Keep it in Cobol. Compile it with a Cobol.NET compiler, and reap the benefits for years to come without introducing any bugs, and leveraging the code in new "modern technology" projects. Heck, with IKVM you could even leverage the Cobol.NET assemblies from Java.
What is so "dangerous" about advertising actually being interesting to me? For crying out loud: if an advertiser knows what I'm interested in, and NOT interested in, maybe I'll stop getting ads for viagra and start getting ads for discounts on software.
Ooh, I'm so scared of the "dangers"...!
You know... the only part of my blog I retract is the Apache written by the guy who wrote the standard. The rest of it was perfectly correct and enlightened... from a relatively new Linux user's point of view. And that's exactly my point. You dismiss everything I say as "wrong", and avoid facing the facts that other users see it differently than you do.
users should not worry about admins giving them the appropriate permissions. They should not be sharing files without authorization.
Sure. Define the problem away why don't you? You are clearly not user-centric at all. It's a terrible mindset you have. The fact is, there are plenty of use cases out there in the Real World where users should be able to share their files without calling an admin. If you disagree, you're entitled to, but it doesn't change the fact. That Linux doesn't support those use cases is lame, plain and simple.
In response to all the negative feedback I've gotten on this blog entry...
As long as the Linux guru community responds to honest feedback on the problems of their precious OS with such vile hatred and criticism, converts are going to be put out and go back to "friendly Windows." It would be a huge step forward for the Linux community to say "oh, that user couldn't figure out how easy that feature really was, there must be a way to make it even easier or more obvious" rather than "stupid user!". Once that happens, I think the direction of Linux development will take a huge turn for the better.
If you would have actually read my blog, you'd have seen that I had read the article. My article discusses how the 5 reasons NOT to use linux the author gives actually are VALID, whereas he sarcastically makes them all invalid. Yes, it's s a rebuttal to the article after all.
Gosh, you criticizers can be such morons sometimes.
I agree, but I'll take this chance to point out...
FOSS claims that commercial, "proprietary" software inhibits collaboration in favor of competition, whereas open-source promotes collaboration. The fact of FOSS is that competition is rampant. QT vs GTK, Mono vs. Gnu.NET, etc. etc. These programmers who work for free want THEIR product out there for prestige. Collaboration within projects exist of course, but that's true for Windows as well. Developers of Windows work together just like developers of GTK. But GTK and QT compete just like Windows and Unix competes. Why can't open-source programmers get off their prestigeous high-horses and start working TOGETHER rather than competing??
Answer 1: Because with no money to work for, open-source programmers work for prestige. Take that away, and you lose development help.
Answer 2: These obligating and non-free "open source licenses" are stuck onto projects, and the only way to get around them is to duplicate the project with another license. If you need a project, but it's already been created as GPL, and you need a X11 license, you have to start over, and collaboration will be strictly forbidden! Call that free, will ya?! So until we all consolidate on one license (MIT X11, please, since it's a truly free license), there will always be a lack of collaboration, and multiplicity of competing projects.
So, Microsoft finds a security hole in their software and release a patch. Then Sasser or some other virus or worm exploits the hole in unpatched Windows and rades the Internet. Yet this Slashdot community rails Microsoft for the holes in the first place.
Now take FireFox's open source software based web site. If it has a hole, and it's not patched in time, it's THEIR fault??!! Why can't it be the Windows-users' fault when they don't patch THEIR machines??!
Can't you Slashdot community see that you are being unfair to Microsoft? You blame them for everything, and excuse open source for the very same things! It's alright for open source to have a security hole, because they patch it, and if users of the software don't apply the patch, it's the users' fault. But when MS has a patch, and users don't apply it, it's MS' fault, is it? You hypocrites!
So to those who have more familiarity with the region I have two questions.
I'm a "Mormon", or more accurately, a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
1) Did this legislation come about as a result of the elders in the church?
Absolutely not. The Church stays strictly out of politics, except where a serious moral issue is involved, and then only the moral at issue is taught, but the vote and the law is up to the members individually.
And 2) Is this basically an accurate summation of Mormon politics?
No. Even among the members of the Church, it is a matter that often brings up discussion (sometimes heated) as to whether or not laws to restrict rights to behave immorally should be made. But this is not Church mandate or policy. It's up to the members.
If so, that seems scary to me. I wouldn't want a society where there is so much homogenity, even if everyone were basically like me.
On the contrary, the Church is only homogenous in that we share certain core beliefs. I'm often amazed at how much variety fits within the Church. I disagree with political and ethical views with many good, active members of the Church that I know. The Church encourages us to seek out answers for ourselves.
In conclusion, be sure to research "the Mormons" using legitimate sources. That means: if you want to know what we "Mormons" believe in, ask a good, practicing Mormon.
most people that are capable of doing this wouldn't want to.
Agreed. Microsoft has pulled this stunt with their Windows servers repeatedly. Of course bringing either of these down would result in the hack being logged and eventually corrected. Hackers don't want to give up their secrets.
Here here! And its not fair to compare actual Linux kernel bugs to predicted Microsoft bugs and say that Linux is tons better. Who knows? Microsoft is closed source, so you can't compare its bugs per x lines of code.
Say, why is it that when IE has a bug in it, everyone hypes on Microsoft, but when there's a bug like this that affects all the open-source browsers, it's treated as business-as-usual and no one slanders them?
I follow Slashdot for its good coverage of IT news. But I get REALLY sick of hearing so much ill-founded bias against Microsoft and for open source. Open source is good, but Microsoft has its respectful place too.
What about the Advanced button? Others on SlashDot have complained about Microsoft's way of presenting the most common tweaks up front and "hiding" the less used ones, because it is hard to remember where the rarely used ones are.
But gee, this KDE problem is exactly the result of NOT doing that. Chock one up for Microsoft's usability testing.
Chill. If Mono only implemented the CLI and a C# compiler, it WOULD be "just an open source implementation of the CLR/C#". But Mono implements nearly all of the MS.NET base class libraries as well. Those libraries are not part of the CLI. Therefore, the only accurate way to describe Mono is to say it implements.NET in Linux.
Shut up.
Slashdot Mirror
You're wrong, jamstar7. Microsoft Office does NOT write to undocumented system calls any more.
BitLocker certainly does not have a deliberate backdoor. See the story about how the government tried to get Microsoft to create one:
http://blogs.msdn.com/si_team/archive/2006/03/02/542590.aspx
Why disallow melting down the pennies? If inflation is caused by an increase in the amount of money in circulation, think of the reduction in money if all these pennies were melted down!
Fight inflation: throw away (or melt!) a penny today!
"LUA's can already be found in Windows XP, but nobody uses them because of the onerous restrictions they place on usability. In Vista, LUA's are mandatory and inescapable"
That's completely untrue. Vista's UAC/LUA feature can be completely disabled with just one click in a control panel applet. But I think most games, if not all, can run (or should be able to) without admin privileges.
Keep it in Cobol. Compile it with a Cobol.NET compiler, and reap the benefits for years to come without introducing any bugs, and leveraging the code in new "modern technology" projects. Heck, with IKVM you could even leverage the Cobol.NET assemblies from Java.
What is so "dangerous" about advertising actually being interesting to me? For crying out loud: if an advertiser knows what I'm interested in, and NOT interested in, maybe I'll stop getting ads for viagra and start getting ads for discounts on software. Ooh, I'm so scared of the "dangers"...!
Just say NO to productivity and quality software.
You know... the only part of my blog I retract is the Apache written by the guy who wrote the standard. The rest of it was perfectly correct and enlightened... from a relatively new Linux user's point of view. And that's exactly my point. You dismiss everything I say as "wrong", and avoid facing the facts that other users see it differently than you do.
Sure. Define the problem away why don't you? You are clearly not user-centric at all. It's a terrible mindset you have. The fact is, there are plenty of use cases out there in the Real World where users should be able to share their files without calling an admin. If you disagree, you're entitled to, but it doesn't change the fact. That Linux doesn't support those use cases is lame, plain and simple.
In response to all the negative feedback I've gotten on this blog entry... As long as the Linux guru community responds to honest feedback on the problems of their precious OS with such vile hatred and criticism, converts are going to be put out and go back to "friendly Windows." It would be a huge step forward for the Linux community to say "oh, that user couldn't figure out how easy that feature really was, there must be a way to make it even easier or more obvious" rather than "stupid user!". Once that happens, I think the direction of Linux development will take a huge turn for the better.
Retracted. I apologize.
FYI, I wrote this rebuttal BEFORE Slashdot even carried the story.
If you would have actually read my blog, you'd have seen that I had read the article. My article discusses how the 5 reasons NOT to use linux the author gives actually are VALID, whereas he sarcastically makes them all invalid. Yes, it's s a rebuttal to the article after all. Gosh, you criticizers can be such morons sometimes.
See my formal response to Five reasons to NOT use Linux.
I agree, but I'll take this chance to point out...
FOSS claims that commercial, "proprietary" software inhibits collaboration in favor of competition, whereas open-source promotes collaboration. The fact of FOSS is that competition is rampant. QT vs GTK, Mono vs. Gnu.NET, etc. etc. These programmers who work for free want THEIR product out there for prestige. Collaboration within projects exist of course, but that's true for Windows as well. Developers of Windows work together just like developers of GTK. But GTK and QT compete just like Windows and Unix competes. Why can't open-source programmers get off their prestigeous high-horses and start working TOGETHER rather than competing??
Answer 1: Because with no money to work for, open-source programmers work for prestige. Take that away, and you lose development help.
Answer 2: These obligating and non-free "open source licenses" are stuck onto projects, and the only way to get around them is to duplicate the project with another license. If you need a project, but it's already been created as GPL, and you need a X11 license, you have to start over, and collaboration will be strictly forbidden! Call that free, will ya?! So until we all consolidate on one license (MIT X11, please, since it's a truly free license), there will always be a lack of collaboration, and multiplicity of competing projects.
So, Microsoft finds a security hole in their software and release a patch. Then Sasser or some other virus or worm exploits the hole in unpatched Windows and rades the Internet. Yet this Slashdot community rails Microsoft for the holes in the first place.
Now take FireFox's open source software based web site. If it has a hole, and it's not patched in time, it's THEIR fault??!! Why can't it be the Windows-users' fault when they don't patch THEIR machines??!
Can't you Slashdot community see that you are being unfair to Microsoft? You blame them for everything, and excuse open source for the very same things! It's alright for open source to have a security hole, because they patch it, and if users of the software don't apply the patch, it's the users' fault. But when MS has a patch, and users don't apply it, it's MS' fault, is it? You hypocrites!
A agree. Why not use IKVM to run J2EE and others on the Mono platform instead of the other way around?
So to those who have more familiarity with the region I have two questions.
I'm a "Mormon", or more accurately, a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
1) Did this legislation come about as a result of the elders in the church?
Absolutely not. The Church stays strictly out of politics, except where a serious moral issue is involved, and then only the moral at issue is taught, but the vote and the law is up to the members individually.
And 2) Is this basically an accurate summation of Mormon politics?
No. Even among the members of the Church, it is a matter that often brings up discussion (sometimes heated) as to whether or not laws to restrict rights to behave immorally should be made. But this is not Church mandate or policy. It's up to the members.
If so, that seems scary to me. I wouldn't want a society where there is so much homogenity, even if everyone were basically like me.
On the contrary, the Church is only homogenous in that we share certain core beliefs. I'm often amazed at how much variety fits within the Church. I disagree with political and ethical views with many good, active members of the Church that I know. The Church encourages us to seek out answers for ourselves.
In conclusion, be sure to research "the Mormons" using legitimate sources. That means: if you want to know what we "Mormons" believe in, ask a good, practicing Mormon.
most people that are capable of doing this wouldn't want to. Agreed. Microsoft has pulled this stunt with their Windows servers repeatedly. Of course bringing either of these down would result in the hack being logged and eventually corrected. Hackers don't want to give up their secrets.
Now we are letting inanimate objects raise our kids!
You said robots. Robots are animated, not inanimate. These are animate objects.
Very good point. If I were moderating this, I'd give you "insightful".
Here here! And its not fair to compare actual Linux kernel bugs to predicted Microsoft bugs and say that Linux is tons better. Who knows? Microsoft is closed source, so you can't compare its bugs per x lines of code.
Say, why is it that when IE has a bug in it, everyone hypes on Microsoft, but when there's a bug like this that affects all the open-source browsers, it's treated as business-as-usual and no one slanders them?
I follow Slashdot for its good coverage of IT news. But I get REALLY sick of hearing so much ill-founded bias against Microsoft and for open source. Open source is good, but Microsoft has its respectful place too.
What about the Advanced button? Others on SlashDot have complained about Microsoft's way of presenting the most common tweaks up front and "hiding" the less used ones, because it is hard to remember where the rarely used ones are.
But gee, this KDE problem is exactly the result of NOT doing that. Chock one up for Microsoft's usability testing.
Chill. If Mono only implemented the CLI and a C# compiler, it WOULD be "just an open source implementation of the CLR/C#". But Mono implements nearly all of the MS.NET base class libraries as well. Those libraries are not part of the CLI. Therefore, the only accurate way to describe Mono is to say it implements .NET in Linux.
Shut up.