Imagine I hire you as a programmer, and I let you work for 3 months on some software I need. You deliver a copy of what you have written on a CD
It costs me time, effort and tools to deliver that software. If you go and duplicate the CD that I delivered, it costs me NOTHING. Once of the software is written, the cost of duplication is zero. You sound a lot like the RIAA, trying to claim every pirated copy is a copy that would have been purchased had it not been pirated.
The argument that a larger target leads to a more vulernable system is flawed. Apache has > 60% marketshare, yet IIS has more vulernabilities.
The whole "windows gets infected more because more people are targeting it" argument doesn't hold up - otherwise, apache would have more security problems than IIS.
Voice of REASON? This is more akin to someone MAKING COPIES of your TV, stereo, car, wallet, etc.
In both software and music "piracy," NO ACTUAL THEFT OCCURS. Duplication of bits occurs, but theft means that someone TAKES a thing and DEPRIVES YOU OF IT.
Your analogy is flawed, unless the cost to the barber for duplicating someone else's haircut is ZERO. It isn't, it costs him time. With software, after the initial product has been written, the cost to duplicate that is ZERO.
They cost the companies MONEY. Therefore, the penalty should be paying back that MONEY, not imprisonment and the inevitable rape.
This seems akin to RIAA thugs going around raping people who pirate a song. Would you stand for that if they came for your son or daughter? No, you'd call the cops, and pick up a weapon.
Your argument claiming so much fact is an interesting attempt at ignoring simple facts.
(Below is a paste of my post from above.)
Apache has > 60% marketshare, yet IIS has more vulernabilities.
The whole "windows gets infected more because more people are targeting it" argument doesn't hold up - otherwise, apache would have more security problems than IIS.
Apache has > 60% marketshare, yet IIS has more vulernabilities.
The whole "windows gets infected more because more people are targeting it" argument doesn't hold up - otherwise, apache would have more security problems than IIS.
A. "Something like 90% compatible." Good job making up stastistics there. It was a complete implentation of the Windows API, and therefore 100% compatible. (Badly written apps are a different story - if they don't obey the API, they're technically not even windows compatible.)
A1. OS/2 supported the same Win32s that Windows 3.1's win32s package supported.
"Better" means in a faster, more stable, and more efficent manner - all of which OS/2 did. As for OS/2 being "more resource intensive" - it actually _used_ the 386 with pre-emptive multi-tasking - unlike windows, in which the entire computer was at the mercy of the currently running program to suspend itself.
C. You apparently didn't even bother a cursory google for the information. You are competely wrong, sorry. Digital Research even had a succesfull lawsuit against Microsoft for the intentional, anti-competitive flaws added to windows.
Oh, really? Great, I hadn't realized you could use Windows 3.0 drivers on Windows XP.
What? You meant YOU CAN'T? And the original company isn't around anymore?
Then you've got worthless hardware that you cannot get a driver for. With OSS, if the kernel changes to break a driver for your hardware, you can port the driver to the new kernel, and not be SOL as you are with binary only drivers.
A. OS/2 was not incompatible with windows; in fact, OS/2 had a tendency to run windows applications BETTER than Windows 3.1
A.1. OS/2 supported Win32 quite well.
B. Bill Gates himself asked Andy Grove (intel) not to invest in Go, and that such an action would be taken as anti-Microsoft.
C. The reason those "shells" and Windows itself were "more compatible with DOS" is because Microsoft intentionally added code to DOS to cause problems with those other shells. Google for "Digital Research DOS."
M'kay, softie? At least know your facts before you start spouting mindless fanboy-isms.
Slashdot Mirror
It costs me time, effort and tools to deliver that software. If you go and duplicate the CD that I delivered, it costs me NOTHING. Once of the software is written, the cost of duplication is zero. You sound a lot like the RIAA, trying to claim every pirated copy is a copy that would have been purchased had it not been pirated.
Critical difference.
It costs a plumber his time, tools, and gas to fix your house.
Big difference.
The whole "windows gets infected more because more people are targeting it" argument doesn't hold up - otherwise, apache would have more security problems than IIS.
In both software and music "piracy," NO ACTUAL THEFT OCCURS. Duplication of bits occurs, but theft means that someone TAKES a thing and DEPRIVES YOU OF IT.
This from a guy who writes software for a living.
It's not justification, and it's not theft.
This seems akin to RIAA thugs going around raping people who pirate a song. Would you stand for that if they came for your son or daughter? No, you'd call the cops, and pick up a weapon.
Rather than posting obvious flamebait, why don't you download it and see?
Now, go back to where you came from.
I was replying to your incorrect conclusions and assumptions; not the parent post. Nice attempt at diversion.
(Below is a paste of my post from above.)
Apache has > 60% marketshare, yet IIS has more vulernabilities.
The whole "windows gets infected more because more people are targeting it" argument doesn't hold up - otherwise, apache would have more security problems than IIS.
Great, so we even have a Microsoft apologist pointing out that binary drivers are not better than open source drivers.
The whole "windows gets infected more because more people are targeting it" argument doesn't hold up - otherwise, apache would have more security problems than IIS.
A1. OS/2 supported the same Win32s that Windows 3.1's win32s package supported.
"Better" means in a faster, more stable, and more efficent manner - all of which OS/2 did. As for OS/2 being "more resource intensive" - it actually _used_ the 386 with pre-emptive multi-tasking - unlike windows, in which the entire computer was at the mercy of the currently running program to suspend itself.
C. You apparently didn't even bother a cursory google for the information. You are competely wrong, sorry. Digital Research even had a succesfull lawsuit against Microsoft for the intentional, anti-competitive flaws added to windows.
http://moztorrent.mozdev.org/. Looks like the firefox extension is in the alpha stages.
It certainly seems like you're implying that OSS developers are out to harm businesses. This is not the point.
Either you're with bloat in the browser world or you aren't. "Either you're with us or against us." Nice rhetoric.
PS. The world is not black and white.
What? You meant YOU CAN'T? And the original company isn't around anymore?
Then you've got worthless hardware that you cannot get a driver for. With OSS, if the kernel changes to break a driver for your hardware, you can port the driver to the new kernel, and not be SOL as you are with binary only drivers.
A.1. OS/2 supported Win32 quite well.
B. Bill Gates himself asked Andy Grove (intel) not to invest in Go, and that such an action would be taken as anti-Microsoft.
C. The reason those "shells" and Windows itself were "more compatible with DOS" is because Microsoft intentionally added code to DOS to cause problems with those other shells. Google for "Digital Research DOS."
M'kay, softie? At least know your facts before you start spouting mindless fanboy-isms.
From:
1 8209&tid=172&tid=220&tid=218
To: daddypants@slashdot.org
Date: Jul 5, 2005 9:48 AM
Subject: [DP] Windows Infected in 12 Minutes
dupe. http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/07/01/02
RAWR! What good are editors? I and how many other people told them..
*Gasp* You mean it's not all right to change your mind about something?
How dare someone make a mistake, ever.
[/sarcasm]
Pshaw, experts can't ask advice, that's too un-Dvoark-like! :)
for pointing out how harmful the reduction of math in public education really is. :)
Uhm, the IBM system is actually using Intel processors...
This from a guy who admittedly hears voices?
Wow, he really *does* work at microsoft!