It really is true. While it may be a good project, Theo is an absolute ass. I graduated from the same school as him (U of C) and they're still telling stories about how much an ass he was while he was there.
I really hope OpenBSD doesn't die, because despite Theo the project obviously still has a lot of merit.
But, having said that, it doesn't surprise me one bit to hear that it's in trouble... and the reason is completely self explanitory: Theo de Raadt.
And this is different from needing to sudo how? In what way does su make you think but not sudo?
Well... obviously this is more dependant on personal psychology than anything else, but in my own experiences with using a sudo based system, it becomes second nature to use sudo. And because you're using your own password there's not that second level of thought required before you do something. PLUS you kind of get into the feeling that things ARE more secure and since you're only executing things command by command, you don't need to be so careful.
Whereas when you su... you KNOW you gotta be careful. Accidentally do something like "rm -rf dir/ *" instead of "rm -rf dir/*" and you could be ****ed:). And then there's that additional psychological level of a second password.
But having said that you're right it's not inherently more secure just for those reasons alone. Those are purely human factors, although I would argue that eventually they will affect most people in some degree or another.
The main point I was making was that going into single user mode won't require a password any more. People get around this by arguing that local access to a machine is a huge breech of security anyway, so all bets are off. But this simply isn't true. My case has a decent lock, and has a cover opening sensor. If you're super paranoid use some loctite on the screws:).
Yes this isn't total security, but basically it takes the time and effort required to locally root an Ubuntu box from zero effort and 2.5 minutes (or less) to a fair amount of effort and probably well over half an hour. Which is really a big difference if you think about it.
First of all enabling the root account is in no way less secure than giving unrestricted sudo access to a user account. In fact it's actually quite a bit less secure if you think about it. Yeah it's handy because you don't need to su and remember TWO really strong passwords, but that's the great part of needing to su. It really makes you think about what you're doing before you do it.
But, besides that, having a passwordless root account (which is what is actually happening on your default *Ubuntu install) means that if you switch to single user mode you can gain full root access to your machine without a password.
So say you're at your buddies house who happens to run Ubuntu. He goes to the bathroom or something... you quickly reboot, boot up in single user mode (very easy to do with GRUB), set a password on the root account, reboot back into multi user mode. When he comes back you might have to make up some story about how there was some kinda weird power glitch or something and his machine rebooted, but other than that you're home free.
Go home, ssh into the machine with your new root account, create an SUID binary somewhere handy, and reset the root account back to normal. There yah go. Permanent root access on your friends hyper-secure Ubuntu machine:).
Basically doing things the Ubuntu way, is doing it the lazy way. Enhanced security via sudo is a total misnomer.
This is true... but just because a few people do something incorrectly doesn't all of a sudden make it correct. There are lots of cases where people do things wrong when using English. More people probably get the apostrophe and semicolon wrong; than otherwise, but that doesn't mean the language changes because they outnumber those who know what the correct usage is.
Personally I like virii. It sounds and looks cool. But it's not technically correct. I still understand people when they use it, but my perception of reality is that virii is not a word.
Who's perception is correct? I guess only time will tell. But until I can look it up in the dictionary... you're wrong!:).
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about! How on earth did this get modded up!?
There is only the Linux kernel... and no you don't have to develop a driver for multiple versions of Linux! That's nothing short of absolute lies!
If it's one thing I hate it's an anti-Linux zealot that doesn't even know what they're talking about. At least take the time to learn about what you preach against.
A point by point rebuttal of everything you said:
But first let me point out that I've actually written device drivers for both Windows and Linux, I am an open source software author, and I've played parts in writing large applications for big Windows shops. I run and use Linux and Windows on a daily basis... something you have obviously never done.
So here goes...
Windows moves *slower*. When you're writing drivers, slower is demonstrably a good thing.
Windows does not move slower than Linux. The driver API changed significantly with NT, then with 2000. It's been largely stable since then, but there are still continuous changes. It's a complete misnomer to suggest otherwise.
By the same token, the Linux API isn't as unstable as "keeping the API open" suggests. There are many drivers available in the kernel that have been there for... a LONG time. Most of them were ported to 2.6 with no trouble at all.
As a person who has written device drivers I can tell you that writing and maintaining a Linux driver is significantly easier. The docs and community support is all there, and everything makes sense. It's pretty much the opposite when it comes to Windows driver development.
Trying to maintain a driver for Linux would require constant attention.
Simply not true. And the beautiful part about Linux is that even if a driver does need updating, there's a significant chance that if the driver is used by enough people, some person will just fix it on their own. But let me just reiterate that this is completely untrue in most cases. At least not any more than it's true for Windows.
Plus, Linus' kernel isn't stable. He just waves his hand in the air and announces that 'the distros' will have to make Linux actually work. That means that now we have Red Hat's kernel, Suse's kernel, Mandrake's kernel, Debian's kernel...
I'm sighing right now. Why... where do these idiots come from? And how do they get modded up!? Linux is a kernel. It's not an operating system. Nor is Red Hat, Ubuntu, Gentoo, etc... they're distributions of an OS that uses Linux as its kernel.
I've built Linux From Scratch a few times, so I'm painfully / joyfully aware of what this actually means. You're obviously confused about this point so I'll explain it to you.
Basically no matter what distro of Linux you use... you are using your own customized version of a Linux based OS. It may not seem like it when you've first installed it, but it's still true. By the time you get to know what you're doing your OS is probably inherently different than even some other person using the same base distro. You've installed different packages, maybe compiled your own apps and installed them wherever you feel like it. Customized start up scripts, etc.
Whether or not you see that as a benefit is up to you. But let me tell it is a great benefit, and that's what makes Linux so great! That's why there are so many flavors (and no there's not just 5, there are literally hundreds). Choice is what makes it so great.
Imagine a world with 5 automobiles that were supposed to fit everyone.
Anyway... getting back to the point. So you've got all these infinite numbers and possibilities of Linux based OSes out there. Driver hell? I don't think so. This doesn't mean the kernel is any different and it doesn't mean writing a device driver for Linux has to be re-done for every OS, distro, or any other such nonsense.
it means any commercial entity has to develop separate driver
To quote the wikipedia: viri and virii are virtually unknown in edited prose, and no major dictionary recognizes them as alternative forms... The virii form would not have been a correct plural, since the -ii ending only occurs in the plural of words ending in -ius. For instance, take radius, plural radii: the root is radi-, with the singular ending -us and the plural -i. Thus the plural virii is that of the nonexistent word virius. The viri form is also incorrect in Latin. The ending -i is used only for masculine nouns, not neuter ones such as virus; moreover, viri (albeit with a short i in the first syllable) is the plural of vir, and means "men".
Really only people who don't know much about malware, or who don't have a very good grasp on the english language will be seen using the incorrect viri or virii.
I know you were making a point, and it's a good one... I just wanted to make sure he understands that neither viri nor virii are any kind of correct variant of the word virus.
As someone who has personally seen Bill Buxton speak, and also as someone who has had HCI (Human Computer Interaction as the field is actually called) training, I can say that for once the Zonk is not totally wrong.
I agree he should have read the article before posting, but it's also not correct to say he has no direct relation to GUIs. He speaks very much of design and how to make proper GUIs. In fact he actually teaches design at his university.
A big part of HCI is GUI design. How could it not be? After all how do most humans interact with computers?
To quote Bill Buxton:
"Not only should you get the design right, but more importantly, you should get the right design."
He is most certainly a guru of design, and that includes GUI.
Here are some direct quotes from the link you posted that contradict what you said:
Sega was not only losing money on the Saturn, but asked retailers to expect the same.
The Saturn was the first console that was actively being marketed and the company was losing money.
The Dreamcast was a money losing venture for Sega. Sega went for broke in building the best console they could buy with the Dreamcast, and sold them at less than cost. A lot less than cost.
So according to your own link Sega started the process in 1995, while the XBox didn't come out until 2001. At which point Nintendo also started taking a loss on their GameCube even though they had never done so in the past.
Kubuntu defaults to KDE, so does Mandriva, SuSe did too, same with Mepis, Knoppix, Xandros, Slackware, also Gentoo is 100% agnostic obviously, same with all non Linux unices I'm aware of (ie *BSD).
The list really does go on and on. And in fact of the top 10 distros (according to distrowatch.com) 5 default to KDE, one defaults to Fluxbox, and another has no default (Gentoo). That's 7 of the top 10 distros that don't use Gnome!
Out of all the distros listed on distrowatch.com, 216 use KDE as the default desktop environment, while only 135 use Gnome.
Ahh two years sorry... mmy point is still valid though... are you really trying to say that comparing open source and closed source vulnerabilities in pure numeric form to determine how secure an application is is a valid thing to do?
Also suggesting that IIS6 ships fewer things and is "thus more secure" is absolute nonsense! First all this just makes it a less useful product, and is then comparing apples to oranges. It's not even close to the same product! But regardless you missed my point completely. I was trying to say that you simply can't make such claims. There's no way to prove it, as the code is not auditable. You just making a guess which is based on your own internal biases and nothing remotely resembling a scientific analysis.
I was not trying to claim either is more or less secure than the other... just that the post I replied to was inherently wrong by trying to do what it did.
What could be different? Well it's not the underlying OS (Debian distribution) since it has that in common. It's not the GNU userland utils. Hmmm...:).
In all seriousness, this is actually a fair question. I mean, the switch to a different kernel must have some other implications on the distro side? Can everything else really remain the same? Init scripts, supported programs (such as ones that make use of Linux specific API's and/or syscalls).
Basically what advantages / disadvantages does the Solaris kernel have over Linux? Why should I try this out (or avoid it for that matter)? Why did they go to so much trouble to do this... they must have been motivated to do it for some reason!
I don't know enough about Solaris to know why this is a good thing, and I'm sure there's some people out there that can quickly give me some info.
People often quote the number of security advisories against a product as evidence of how secure it is. In some cases this is warranted, but this is not one of them... a general rule: comparing closed source and open source products in this fashion is not valid.
Most security flaws in open source programs are discovered by people looking through the code, and noticing things like unchecked buffers, etc. In closed source programs, these types of flaws are found generally through more sinister means. What this means is usually closed source vulnerabilities are less frequently reported, but when they are they are generally more serious -- not because the potential exploit is more serious, but because it's almost always guaranteed that at the time of discovery a working exploit is already loose in the wild.
And there are many other factors involved as well. Apache does WAY more things than IIS does (when you include all of the add on modules and so forth), and this is fair to say since the security advisories include problems that relate only to modules.
The Apache 2.0.x stream is almost 6 years old now. IIS 6.0 has only been around for about a year or so.
It seems silly to count the number of security vulnerabilities in a new closed source product against a much older, more widely used, more complex, open source one.
Having said all of that, I feel the need to point out that secunia.org is really not a very trustworthy source of information. There are many known IIS 6.0 exploits that don't appear on that list.
Use something like gaim, or trillian. They can both connect to irc, so you're using an IM client (no wasted screen real estate), and all the IM functions. People have been doing this for years!
What do you think Google messenger does? It uses Jabber! The original Jabber client was basically an IRC style client.
As for "whispering" in the IRC world this is called sending a private "message." And why is it so cumbersome to double click a persons name and type into a window?
You may be speaking from experience... but you've done nothing other than guess when you talk about 10%. I've given you empirical proof that java is significantly slower for doing calculations.
The example I provided was, in no way, tailored to C++. If you're doing scientific computing, or graphics programming you can't get away from doing tight loop calculations. Many (ie almost all) of the graphics algorithms are O(n^3) or higher!.
You obviously ARE a java zealot or you wouldn't be outright lieing just to try to prove your point.
Java is significantly slower. That's all there is to it.
Yes you can do everything you want in java, and yes it will run fine, but there's a reason you'll NEVER -- EVER see a top commercial game written in java, it's because the performance simply isn't there.
If you want performance you gotta go lower level.
If you want something else, such as fast development, nice libs, easy GUI creation, handy built in garbage collection, and some of the cooler java API elements such as the reflection API... then java is a great choice!
Just don't go kidding yourself it's anywhere close to the speed of low level compiled code.
Actually these days it's a myth that java isn't slow. Especially for things like games which are very processor (and math) intensive, java is EXTREMELY slow. Anyone who does a lot of programming (other than app programming, ie games, scientific, etc) knows this. It's really only the java zealots (who don't understand that every tool has its purpose -- including java! but also including other languages -- probably because they only know one language) who push this idea, when it simply isn't true... it never has been, and never will be, it's simply not possible (without an instruction set that directly implements java bytecode, or a truly optimizing native java compiler -- and no gcj does not fit this bill).
Don't believe me? Try the following experiment:
public class jprog { public static void main (String args[]) { double t = 0, lp, ilp; for (lp = 0; lp < 1000000000; lp ++) for (ilp = 5; ilp >= 0; ilp --) t ++; } }
Obviously it's slightly akin to the bogomip, but it does illustrate an important point. All this does is do some floating point math, in a loop, 5 billion times.
Quickly port this code to C, compile with gcc, and on my machine its execution takes 16.8 seconds.
Compile and run this code with Sun's latest java release and it takes 1 minute 18 seconds. That's approximately 1/5 the speed of C!
Java is just plain really really slow. It's not so bad if you're just doing GUI stuff, or simple application programming since that's not processor intensive, and yeah I could see a general slow down of 10% being reasonable.
But for anything else, especially games, java is not a smart choice.
Please java zealots stop spreading lies. Take the time to learn many languages, and stop trying use a single tool for every purpose! Java is great for certain things, but execution speed is not one of them.
First of all you're right! Creative makes some decent stuff. Too bad there's not more of a market for it.
I think, as a few others have mentioned, this may be changing. With the sudden HTPC boom... MythTV, MCE, etc... people gotta have good sound. Can't do that with onboard that's for sure.
When I built my MythTV box the first thing I had to do was go out and buy a new sound card! Funny enough, the second was to upgrade / add another tuner card.
Sound is one of those funny things where you don't realize how much you need it until it's gone.
This is totally backwards! Linux has the really basic stuff down and is now working toward the really advanced stuff.
And these statements just aren't true anymore. There was a period of a few years there where cut 'n paste of some of the higher level functions (like pasting formatted html, etc) didn't work very well... but with the exceptions of some really crazy things (like cut 'n pasting of sections of video/movies) Linux does these tasks really well!
Windows on the other hand can't even do basic cut 'n paste with even regular text very well at all.
Seriously try cut 'n pasting from a command shell:).
Try cut 'n pasting without using the keyboard or accessing a context menu.
Your opinion is outdated. Check again and see how far things have come on Linux, and see how absolutely nothing (in fact reverse progress has been made) on the Windows end of things (ie the "advanced" microsoft office clipboard features).
I've never tried cut 'n pasting a part of a movie -- this sounds pretty cool!
But you can do most of what you said in Linux just fine. Cut 'n paste non-contiguous cells, images, sound clips, etc.
Keep in mind that many of the limitations Windows clipboard has also exist in Linux, and I know what your point was -- that in certain instances you can do those types of things (which was definitely an issue in Linux for a while), but even so there are still HUGE limitations in Windows.
What happens when you try to paste a powerpoint slide into notepad? Ever tried to cut 'n paste even text (the most basic operation) from or to a command shell?
Windows has _some_ higher level functionality, very little of it Linux doesn't have, but it totally lacks all lower level functionality.
It is true though that there's much room for improvement on both systems.
But to make claims that Linux can't do those things, or that Linux clipboard support isn't as good as Window is not only not true -- it's really the opposite of the truth.
Linux clipboarding is leaps and bounds ahead of Windows. It's really only people who don't understand the Linux clipboard that complain about it.
This is actually one of the reasons I loathe using Windows now. I can't believe people would put up with its absolutely horrible cut 'n paste support.
A funny point of note is that I, like many people, complained about the Linux clipboard when I was going through the steps of switching away from Windows. It was foreign and didn't act as I expected a clipboard should. But that quickly faded away once I figured out how it works and realized how much better it is.
The only annoying thing is you can't cut and paste between X and pure console mode without using something like xclip. But since Windows can't even do pure console mode (while at the same time doing graphical mode) this isn't realy a point against Linux cut 'n paste.
Anyway... all you've got to do is wrap your head around the fact that X has two (or more) cut and paste modes (depending on what WM / desktop system you use). The standard mode allows selection of text and immediate pasting of text using the middle mouse button. This is so much more convenient than Windows cut 'n paste for most things!
The second mode is basically an exact copy of how Windows cut 'n paste works. Highlight, use the copy command, then use the paste command. This is useful for situations where you want to paste over some text that needs to be highlighted (which obviously thwarts the first cut 'n paste mode).
Also note that having two separate modes is also a god send. Sometimes it's very useful to have two selection buffers.
Some WM's have an implementation of their own cut 'n paste method too. KDE has klipper which is a great tool. It can be configured to work a number of different ways, but essentially it keeps a history of your copy commands so you have access to many of them at any given time.
It's been a long time since Windows had a leg up on Unix style clipboards.
I can't speak for OSX since I've never really used it, but I assume it has some handy things that are either on par with or better than a standard *nix/*BSD setup.
What? How is this insightful? You've said absolutely nothing useful.
TCO discussions, without context, are ridiculous. Pick an OS: Linux, Windows, *BSD, OSX, Solaris, etc... doesn't matter. It's all about the current infrastructure and intended uses.
Linux could be like a company without benefits as you suggest, in some scenarios... and in others it could be like Company B but with the cost of Company A. Or it could just be like Company B. It all depends.
The key is finding the right tool for the right purpose. AND you have to find the right people to use the tools.
Please don't make such blanket statements, it's people like you that try to force square pegs in round holes. Just relax, have an open mind, and I guarantee you your life will be much better (and profitable) in many respects.
In case you're curious most datacenters are connected to the Big Guys (tm) via something from the OC3 to OC192 range, tiny ones may use DS3 (T3), and bigger ones are most likely using one of the 10 gigabit class technologies.
In case you're curious:
OC3 = 155.52 Mb/s OC192 = 9.95 Gb/s
The Big Guys (tm) are likely running many banks of parallel OC192's to service the smaller guys, with the larger connections being served by OC256 or even OC768's (40 Gb/s).
An interesting point of note is that an OC768 connection is actually quite a bit faster than even PC3200 DDR SDRAM!!!
I think the idea is that you decide their orientation.
It's interesting that all of your sims are bisexual.
I wonder what that says about you?;)
I'm just messing with yah. In all seriousness, they might have thought about it, but what fun would it be if you couldn't make the wife sleep with the husband's mistress?
First of all, this is a great idea. A bluetooth add on would be a really nice addition to their product line. Especially as an add on, since lots of people would not need (or want) it.
One thing I wanted to mention though, I can't really see bluetooth being a suitable replacement for the USB connector. I'm not a bluetooth expert (so someone please correct me if I'm wrong) but as far as I understand it there's two common bluetooth transfer modes: DH5/DH1 and DH5/DH5.
DH5/DH1 gives a maximum theoretical forward transfer rate of 723.2 Kb/s, with 57.6 Kb/s reverse.
DH5/DH5 gives 433.9 Kb/s both directions.
I believe the DH5/DH5 is the most commonly used mode (for obvious reasons), which gives a maximum theoretical speed of 54.125 KB/s up and down. I use bluetooth to connect my PDA to my computer, and every once in a while (if I'm too lazy to dock) I use it to transfer a couple of MP3s. I also have a handy network bandwidth meter, and I have never seen speeds higher than 45 KB/s, and it usually stays around 40. But since this could be a crappy device I bought, or interference or who knows what, let's stick with the theoretical.
Think of transferring 4 GB at that speed: It would take 21.53 hours!
As you probably know the theoretical max speed of USB 2.0 in High-Speed mode is 480 Mb/s (60 MB/s) or 1135 times faster than Bluetooth.
Using USB High-Speed the same transfer would take: 1.14 minutes.
Of course these are theoretical values. Transfer overhead in the system (both network and computer) increases the time of the USB transfer quite a bit.
Either way I think you can see that Bluetooth is not a good thing to use to replace USB:).
While this is a good idea in practice, I'm not sure I'd trust it. You'd be trusting that the device was turned on and functional.
What a better way to collect credit card information than to set up a station that basically says "I am worried someone might steal my CC info, therefore I must have something worth protecting here."
Put into the mix that most hotel workers are low paid, overworked, and all of that -- I'd say there's a potential for abuse there.
Really the only good thing to do is enact a law that forces hotels and other users of these systems to only store non-personal info on the cards, or to encrypt them via reasonable means.
Slashdot Mirror
It really is true. While it may be a good project, Theo is an absolute ass. I graduated from the same school as him (U of C) and they're still telling stories about how much an ass he was while he was there.
I really hope OpenBSD doesn't die, because despite Theo the project obviously still has a lot of merit.
But, having said that, it doesn't surprise me one bit to hear that it's in trouble... and the reason is completely self explanitory: Theo de Raadt.
And this is different from needing to sudo how? In what way does su make you think but not sudo?
:). And then there's that additional psychological level of a second password.
:).
Well... obviously this is more dependant on personal psychology than anything else, but in my own experiences with using a sudo based system, it becomes second nature to use sudo. And because you're using your own password there's not that second level of thought required before you do something. PLUS you kind of get into the feeling that things ARE more secure and since you're only executing things command by command, you don't need to be so careful.
Whereas when you su... you KNOW you gotta be careful. Accidentally do something like "rm -rf dir/ *" instead of "rm -rf dir/*" and you could be ****ed
But having said that you're right it's not inherently more secure just for those reasons alone. Those are purely human factors, although I would argue that eventually they will affect most people in some degree or another.
The main point I was making was that going into single user mode won't require a password any more. People get around this by arguing that local access to a machine is a huge breech of security anyway, so all bets are off. But this simply isn't true. My case has a decent lock, and has a cover opening sensor. If you're super paranoid use some loctite on the screws
Yes this isn't total security, but basically it takes the time and effort required to locally root an Ubuntu box from zero effort and 2.5 minutes (or less) to a fair amount of effort and probably well over half an hour. Which is really a big difference if you think about it.
First of all enabling the root account is in no way less secure than giving unrestricted sudo access to a user account. In fact it's actually quite a bit less secure if you think about it. Yeah it's handy because you don't need to su and remember TWO really strong passwords, but that's the great part of needing to su. It really makes you think about what you're doing before you do it.
:).
But, besides that, having a passwordless root account (which is what is actually happening on your default *Ubuntu install) means that if you switch to single user mode you can gain full root access to your machine without a password.
So say you're at your buddies house who happens to run Ubuntu. He goes to the bathroom or something... you quickly reboot, boot up in single user mode (very easy to do with GRUB), set a password on the root account, reboot back into multi user mode. When he comes back you might have to make up some story about how there was some kinda weird power glitch or something and his machine rebooted, but other than that you're home free.
Go home, ssh into the machine with your new root account, create an SUID binary somewhere handy, and reset the root account back to normal. There yah go. Permanent root access on your friends hyper-secure Ubuntu machine
Basically doing things the Ubuntu way, is doing it the lazy way. Enhanced security via sudo is a total misnomer.
This is true... but just because a few people do something incorrectly doesn't all of a sudden make it correct. There are lots of cases where people do things wrong when using English. More people probably get the apostrophe and semicolon wrong; than otherwise, but that doesn't mean the language changes because they outnumber those who know what the correct usage is.
:).
Personally I like virii. It sounds and looks cool. But it's not technically correct. I still understand people when they use it, but my perception of reality is that virii is not a word.
Who's perception is correct? I guess only time will tell. But until I can look it up in the dictionary... you're wrong!
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about! How on earth did this get modded up!?
There is only the Linux kernel... and no you don't have to develop a driver for multiple versions of Linux! That's nothing short of absolute lies!
If it's one thing I hate it's an anti-Linux zealot that doesn't even know what they're talking about. At least take the time to learn about what you preach against.
A point by point rebuttal of everything you said:
But first let me point out that I've actually written device drivers for both Windows and Linux, I am an open source software author, and I've played parts in writing large applications for big Windows shops. I run and use Linux and Windows on a daily basis... something you have obviously never done.
So here goes...
Windows moves *slower*. When you're writing drivers, slower is demonstrably a good thing.
Windows does not move slower than Linux. The driver API changed significantly with NT, then with 2000. It's been largely stable since then, but there are still continuous changes. It's a complete misnomer to suggest otherwise.
By the same token, the Linux API isn't as unstable as "keeping the API open" suggests. There are many drivers available in the kernel that have been there for... a LONG time. Most of them were ported to 2.6 with no trouble at all.
As a person who has written device drivers I can tell you that writing and maintaining a Linux driver is significantly easier. The docs and community support is all there, and everything makes sense. It's pretty much the opposite when it comes to Windows driver development.
Trying to maintain a driver for Linux would require constant attention.
Simply not true. And the beautiful part about Linux is that even if a driver does need updating, there's a significant chance that if the driver is used by enough people, some person will just fix it on their own. But let me just reiterate that this is completely untrue in most cases. At least not any more than it's true for Windows.
Plus, Linus' kernel isn't stable. He just waves his hand in the air and announces that 'the distros' will have to make Linux actually work. That means that now we have Red Hat's kernel, Suse's kernel, Mandrake's kernel, Debian's kernel...
I'm sighing right now. Why... where do these idiots come from? And how do they get modded up!? Linux is a kernel. It's not an operating system. Nor is Red Hat, Ubuntu, Gentoo, etc... they're distributions of an OS that uses Linux as its kernel.
I've built Linux From Scratch a few times, so I'm painfully / joyfully aware of what this actually means. You're obviously confused about this point so I'll explain it to you.
Basically no matter what distro of Linux you use... you are using your own customized version of a Linux based OS. It may not seem like it when you've first installed it, but it's still true. By the time you get to know what you're doing your OS is probably inherently different than even some other person using the same base distro. You've installed different packages, maybe compiled your own apps and installed them wherever you feel like it. Customized start up scripts, etc.
Whether or not you see that as a benefit is up to you. But let me tell it is a great benefit, and that's what makes Linux so great! That's why there are so many flavors (and no there's not just 5, there are literally hundreds). Choice is what makes it so great.
Imagine a world with 5 automobiles that were supposed to fit everyone.
Anyway... getting back to the point. So you've got all these infinite numbers and possibilities of Linux based OSes out there. Driver hell? I don't think so. This doesn't mean the kernel is any different and it doesn't mean writing a device driver for Linux has to be re-done for every OS, distro, or any other such nonsense.
it means any commercial entity has to develop separate driver
Virii is just plain incorrect.
To quote the wikipedia: viri and virii are virtually unknown in edited prose, and no major dictionary recognizes them as alternative forms... The virii form would not have been a correct plural, since the -ii ending only occurs in the plural of words ending in -ius. For instance, take radius, plural radii: the root is radi-, with the singular ending -us and the plural -i. Thus the plural virii is that of the nonexistent word virius. The viri form is also incorrect in Latin. The ending -i is used only for masculine nouns, not neuter ones such as virus; moreover, viri (albeit with a short i in the first syllable) is the plural of vir, and means "men".
Really only people who don't know much about malware, or who don't have a very good grasp on the english language will be seen using the incorrect viri or virii.
I know you were making a point, and it's a good one... I just wanted to make sure he understands that neither viri nor virii are any kind of correct variant of the word virus.
The correct form is definitely: viruses.
As someone who has personally seen Bill Buxton speak, and also as someone who has had HCI (Human Computer Interaction as the field is actually called) training, I can say that for once the Zonk is not totally wrong.
I agree he should have read the article before posting, but it's also not correct to say he has no direct relation to GUIs. He speaks very much of design and how to make proper GUIs. In fact he actually teaches design at his university.
A big part of HCI is GUI design. How could it not be? After all how do most humans interact with computers?
To quote Bill Buxton:
"Not only should you get the design right, but more importantly, you should get the right design."
He is most certainly a guru of design, and that includes GUI.
Here are some direct quotes from the link you posted that contradict what you said:
Sega was not only losing money on the Saturn, but asked retailers to expect the same.
The Saturn was the first console that was actively being marketed and the company was losing money.
The Dreamcast was a money losing venture for Sega. Sega went for broke in building the best console they could buy with the Dreamcast, and sold them at less than cost. A lot less than cost.
So according to your own link Sega started the process in 1995, while the XBox didn't come out until 2001. At which point Nintendo also started taking a loss on their GameCube even though they had never done so in the past.
Uhh there's quite a few!
Gnome is by no means the de-facto standard.
Kubuntu defaults to KDE, so does Mandriva, SuSe did too, same with Mepis, Knoppix, Xandros, Slackware, also Gentoo is 100% agnostic obviously, same with all non Linux unices I'm aware of (ie *BSD).
The list really does go on and on. And in fact of the top 10 distros (according to distrowatch.com) 5 default to KDE, one defaults to Fluxbox, and another has no default (Gentoo). That's 7 of the top 10 distros that don't use Gnome!
Out of all the distros listed on distrowatch.com, 216 use KDE as the default desktop environment, while only 135 use Gnome.
Obviously you didn't think very hard did you?
Ahh two years sorry... mmy point is still valid though... are you really trying to say that comparing open source and closed source vulnerabilities in pure numeric form to determine how secure an application is is a valid thing to do?
Also suggesting that IIS6 ships fewer things and is "thus more secure" is absolute nonsense! First all this just makes it a less useful product, and is then comparing apples to oranges. It's not even close to the same product! But regardless you missed my point completely. I was trying to say that you simply can't make such claims. There's no way to prove it, as the code is not auditable. You just making a guess which is based on your own internal biases and nothing remotely resembling a scientific analysis.
I was not trying to claim either is more or less secure than the other... just that the post I replied to was inherently wrong by trying to do what it did.
Debian GNU/Linux vs Debian GNU/Solaris.
:).
What could be different? Well it's not the underlying OS (Debian distribution) since it has that in common. It's not the GNU userland utils. Hmmm...
In all seriousness, this is actually a fair question. I mean, the switch to a different kernel must have some other implications on the distro side? Can everything else really remain the same? Init scripts, supported programs (such as ones that make use of Linux specific API's and/or syscalls).
Basically what advantages / disadvantages does the Solaris kernel have over Linux? Why should I try this out (or avoid it for that matter)? Why did they go to so much trouble to do this... they must have been motivated to do it for some reason!
I don't know enough about Solaris to know why this is a good thing, and I'm sure there's some people out there that can quickly give me some info.
It's good that this is modded as funny.
People often quote the number of security advisories against a product as evidence of how secure it is. In some cases this is warranted, but this is not one of them... a general rule: comparing closed source and open source products in this fashion is not valid.
Most security flaws in open source programs are discovered by people looking through the code, and noticing things like unchecked buffers, etc. In closed source programs, these types of flaws are found generally through more sinister means. What this means is usually closed source vulnerabilities are less frequently reported, but when they are they are generally more serious -- not because the potential exploit is more serious, but because it's almost always guaranteed that at the time of discovery a working exploit is already loose in the wild.
And there are many other factors involved as well. Apache does WAY more things than IIS does (when you include all of the add on modules and so forth), and this is fair to say since the security advisories include problems that relate only to modules.
The Apache 2.0.x stream is almost 6 years old now. IIS 6.0 has only been around for about a year or so.
It seems silly to count the number of security vulnerabilities in a new closed source product against a much older, more widely used, more complex, open source one.
Having said all of that, I feel the need to point out that secunia.org is really not a very trustworthy source of information. There are many known IIS 6.0 exploits that don't appear on that list.
For example:
IIS Information Disclosure
I just wanted to say that you really can't do such a comparison.
Use something like gaim, or trillian. They can both connect to irc, so you're using an IM client (no wasted screen real estate), and all the IM functions. People have been doing this for years!
What do you think Google messenger does? It uses Jabber! The original Jabber client was basically an IRC style client.
As for "whispering" in the IRC world this is called sending a private "message." And why is it so cumbersome to double click a persons name and type into a window?
You realize your results are impossible.
Try again next time.
You may be speaking from experience... but you've done nothing other than guess when you talk about 10%. I've given you empirical proof that java is significantly slower for doing calculations.
The example I provided was, in no way, tailored to C++. If you're doing scientific computing, or graphics programming you can't get away from doing tight loop calculations. Many (ie almost all) of the graphics algorithms are O(n^3) or higher!.
You obviously ARE a java zealot or you wouldn't be outright lieing just to try to prove your point.
Java is significantly slower. That's all there is to it.
Yes you can do everything you want in java, and yes it will run fine, but there's a reason you'll NEVER -- EVER see a top commercial game written in java, it's because the performance simply isn't there.
If you want performance you gotta go lower level.
If you want something else, such as fast development, nice libs, easy GUI creation, handy built in garbage collection, and some of the cooler java API elements such as the reflection API... then java is a great choice!
Just don't go kidding yourself it's anywhere close to the speed of low level compiled code.
Actually these days it's a myth that java isn't slow. Especially for things like games which are very processor (and math) intensive, java is EXTREMELY slow. Anyone who does a lot of programming (other than app programming, ie games, scientific, etc) knows this. It's really only the java zealots (who don't understand that every tool has its purpose -- including java! but also including other languages -- probably because they only know one language) who push this idea, when it simply isn't true... it never has been, and never will be, it's simply not possible (without an instruction set that directly implements java bytecode, or a truly optimizing native java compiler -- and no gcj does not fit this bill).
Don't believe me? Try the following experiment:
public class jprog
{
public static void main (String args[]) {
double t = 0, lp, ilp;
for (lp = 0; lp < 1000000000; lp ++)
for (ilp = 5; ilp >= 0; ilp --)
t ++;
}
}
Obviously it's slightly akin to the bogomip, but it does illustrate an important point. All this does is do some floating point math, in a loop, 5 billion times.
Quickly port this code to C, compile with gcc, and on my machine its execution takes 16.8 seconds.
Compile and run this code with Sun's latest java release and it takes 1 minute 18 seconds. That's approximately 1/5 the speed of C!
Java is just plain really really slow. It's not so bad if you're just doing GUI stuff, or simple application programming since that's not processor intensive, and yeah I could see a general slow down of 10% being reasonable.
But for anything else, especially games, java is not a smart choice.
Please java zealots stop spreading lies. Take the time to learn many languages, and stop trying use a single tool for every purpose! Java is great for certain things, but execution speed is not one of them.
First of all you're right! Creative makes some decent stuff. Too bad there's not more of a market for it.
I think, as a few others have mentioned, this may be changing. With the sudden HTPC boom... MythTV, MCE, etc... people gotta have good sound. Can't do that with onboard that's for sure.
When I built my MythTV box the first thing I had to do was go out and buy a new sound card! Funny enough, the second was to upgrade / add another tuner card.
Sound is one of those funny things where you don't realize how much you need it until it's gone.
This is totally backwards! Linux has the really basic stuff down and is now working toward the really advanced stuff.
:).
And these statements just aren't true anymore. There was a period of a few years there where cut 'n paste of some of the higher level functions (like pasting formatted html, etc) didn't work very well... but with the exceptions of some really crazy things (like cut 'n pasting of sections of video/movies) Linux does these tasks really well!
Windows on the other hand can't even do basic cut 'n paste with even regular text very well at all.
Seriously try cut 'n pasting from a command shell
Try cut 'n pasting without using the keyboard or accessing a context menu.
Your opinion is outdated. Check again and see how far things have come on Linux, and see how absolutely nothing (in fact reverse progress has been made) on the Windows end of things (ie the "advanced" microsoft office clipboard features).
I've never tried cut 'n pasting a part of a movie -- this sounds pretty cool!
But you can do most of what you said in Linux just fine. Cut 'n paste non-contiguous cells, images, sound clips, etc.
Keep in mind that many of the limitations Windows clipboard has also exist in Linux, and I know what your point was -- that in certain instances you can do those types of things (which was definitely an issue in Linux for a while), but even so there are still HUGE limitations in Windows.
What happens when you try to paste a powerpoint slide into notepad? Ever tried to cut 'n paste even text (the most basic operation) from or to a command shell?
Windows has _some_ higher level functionality, very little of it Linux doesn't have, but it totally lacks all lower level functionality.
It is true though that there's much room for improvement on both systems.
But to make claims that Linux can't do those things, or that Linux clipboard support isn't as good as Window is not only not true -- it's really the opposite of the truth.
Linux clipboarding is leaps and bounds ahead of Windows. It's really only people who don't understand the Linux clipboard that complain about it.
This is actually one of the reasons I loathe using Windows now. I can't believe people would put up with its absolutely horrible cut 'n paste support.
A funny point of note is that I, like many people, complained about the Linux clipboard when I was going through the steps of switching away from Windows. It was foreign and didn't act as I expected a clipboard should. But that quickly faded away once I figured out how it works and realized how much better it is.
The only annoying thing is you can't cut and paste between X and pure console mode without using something like xclip. But since Windows can't even do pure console mode (while at the same time doing graphical mode) this isn't realy a point against Linux cut 'n paste.
Anyway... all you've got to do is wrap your head around the fact that X has two (or more) cut and paste modes (depending on what WM / desktop system you use). The standard mode allows selection of text and immediate pasting of text using the middle mouse button. This is so much more convenient than Windows cut 'n paste for most things!
The second mode is basically an exact copy of how Windows cut 'n paste works. Highlight, use the copy command, then use the paste command. This is useful for situations where you want to paste over some text that needs to be highlighted (which obviously thwarts the first cut 'n paste mode).
Also note that having two separate modes is also a god send. Sometimes it's very useful to have two selection buffers.
Some WM's have an implementation of their own cut 'n paste method too. KDE has klipper which is a great tool. It can be configured to work a number of different ways, but essentially it keeps a history of your copy commands so you have access to many of them at any given time.
It's been a long time since Windows had a leg up on Unix style clipboards.
I can't speak for OSX since I've never really used it, but I assume it has some handy things that are either on par with or better than a standard *nix/*BSD setup.
What? How is this insightful? You've said absolutely nothing useful.
TCO discussions, without context, are ridiculous. Pick an OS: Linux, Windows, *BSD, OSX, Solaris, etc... doesn't matter. It's all about the current infrastructure and intended uses.
Linux could be like a company without benefits as you suggest, in some scenarios... and in others it could be like Company B but with the cost of Company A. Or it could just be like Company B. It all depends.
The key is finding the right tool for the right purpose. AND you have to find the right people to use the tools.
Please don't make such blanket statements, it's people like you that try to force square pegs in round holes. Just relax, have an open mind, and I guarantee you your life will be much better (and profitable) in many respects.
In case you're curious most datacenters are connected to the Big Guys (tm) via something from the OC3 to OC192 range, tiny ones may use DS3 (T3), and bigger ones are most likely using one of the 10 gigabit class technologies.
In case you're curious:
OC3 = 155.52 Mb/s
OC192 = 9.95 Gb/s
The Big Guys (tm) are likely running many banks of parallel OC192's to service the smaller guys, with the larger connections being served by OC256 or even OC768's (40 Gb/s).
An interesting point of note is that an OC768 connection is actually quite a bit faster than even PC3200 DDR SDRAM!!!
I think the idea is that you decide their orientation.
;)
It's interesting that all of your sims are bisexual.
I wonder what that says about you?
I'm just messing with yah. In all seriousness, they might have thought about it, but what fun would it be if you couldn't make the wife sleep with the husband's mistress?
First of all, this is a great idea. A bluetooth add on would be a really nice addition to their product line. Especially as an add on, since lots of people would not need (or want) it.
:).
One thing I wanted to mention though, I can't really see bluetooth being a suitable replacement for the USB connector. I'm not a bluetooth expert (so someone please correct me if I'm wrong) but as far as I understand it there's two common bluetooth transfer modes: DH5/DH1 and DH5/DH5.
DH5/DH1 gives a maximum theoretical forward transfer rate of 723.2 Kb/s, with 57.6 Kb/s reverse.
DH5/DH5 gives 433.9 Kb/s both directions.
I believe the DH5/DH5 is the most commonly used mode (for obvious reasons), which gives a maximum theoretical speed of 54.125 KB/s up and down. I use bluetooth to connect my PDA to my computer, and every once in a while (if I'm too lazy to dock) I use it to transfer a couple of MP3s. I also have a handy network bandwidth meter, and I have never seen speeds higher than 45 KB/s, and it usually stays around 40. But since this could be a crappy device I bought, or interference or who knows what, let's stick with the theoretical.
Think of transferring 4 GB at that speed: It would take 21.53 hours!
As you probably know the theoretical max speed of USB 2.0 in High-Speed mode is 480 Mb/s (60 MB/s) or 1135 times faster than Bluetooth.
Using USB High-Speed the same transfer would take: 1.14 minutes.
Of course these are theoretical values. Transfer overhead in the system (both network and computer) increases the time of the USB transfer quite a bit.
Either way I think you can see that Bluetooth is not a good thing to use to replace USB
While this is a good idea in practice, I'm not sure I'd trust it. You'd be trusting that the device was turned on and functional.
What a better way to collect credit card information than to set up a station that basically says "I am worried someone might steal my CC info, therefore I must have something worth protecting here."
Put into the mix that most hotel workers are low paid, overworked, and all of that -- I'd say there's a potential for abuse there.
Really the only good thing to do is enact a law that forces hotels and other users of these systems to only store non-personal info on the cards, or to encrypt them via reasonable means.