You don't think there's a boatload of money that's been trying to prove you correct for quite a long time now?
Thing is though, the only way you could prove (or disprove) that Linux having a huge marketshare would mean that more malware would be written for Linux is for Linux to actually have a huge marketshare and for malware makers to start making or not start making malware for it. So all you can really argue with now are hypotheticals and previous examples, making the whole thing moot. Of course this leads to a catch 22; if Microsoft or someone really wanted to use their boatload of money to prove that a Linux monoculture would get lots of malware, they'd have to decimate their own install base to find out anything conclusive, by which point the whole thing would have been entirely pointless.
The best example I can think of is Firefox. Since it's growing rapidly in popularity, some seedy websites now try and install spyware using XPIs, if I recall correctly. However, since Firefox's share is still low compared to IEs, the malware XPIs are few and far between. Firefox being a web browser and Linux being an OS, however, introduces all kinds of differences.
The deault install should be the minimum needed to access the net and use office.
This would probably work quite well, and is quite close to the Linux/UNIX way of working, where you only run the print server or whatever if you actually need it.
That's a good idea especially if the OS is able to enable services as they are needed. For example, if you don't have a printer installed, what use is running the Print Spooler service? If you don't have a sound card, why have Windows Audio running? If you're running the Windows Classic theme, disable the Themes service! If you only have one user, what use is Fast User Switching; disable it! If you're not on a big network, why have the Remote Registry service installed?
Of course if you try and install a printer, install a sound card, switch back to the Luna/Aero theme or add a new user, the services should get automatically enabled. Less bloat and the same flexibility...win win situation:)
No, it doesn't. Using inflammatory language like that immediately makes the bias of an article clear; the authors were predisposed to think that way.
Could you imagine that quote in a scientific paper, or a reputable magazine article? No. It screams "nutjob", regardless of what the person is trying to say and/or the truth within it.
Eris's journal entry is not a bad summary if you don't have time to read further than the second paragraph.
To be honest, if Wikipedia had to jettison some things to make way for others, I'd be more inclined to jettison things that don't exist (e.g Star Trek races, yellow bleating thing) vs things that actually do (e.g. schools, places, things, people).
Thankfully, Wikipedia doesn't prioritise these things. However, if they did at some point, there's no question that Wikipedia's core editor base would probably tend to favour the Star Trek pages they wrote and helped build over a to-all-intents-and-purposes anonymous school in Bumfuck, Ohio that they've never heard of. That should be insured against, IMO.
But then...the school exists. It is a real place, it is important to many people. Why NOT have a page about it? What harm does it do? So what if it isn't "notable", on some spurious scale of "notability", which basically seems to mean "has been on TV" on Wikipedia? It's information. It's an encyclopedia, it should store as much verifiable information as it can reasonably hold.
What needs to be said though is that having an article about Pikachu doesn't make Wikipedia less worthwhile, nor does not having the article make it more so. It makes it more worthwhile precisely because some people might want to look up Pikachu. Some, however, might want to look up the school...but it's "not notable", according to some people whose only hint it exists came when the article was created, so any trace of it was removed from Wikipedia. That definitely makes Wikipedia far less useful, at least to these people who couldn't give a fuck what a Pikachu is.
If you want to be usefull you could find a working link, preferably from a site that shows Linux market penetration at something more realistic than 0.37%.
Maybe YOU could find that link then, since you're the one arguing the point.
Or does "realistic" revolve around YOUR view of reality (e.g. OMG LUNIX HAS 9 BILLION PERCENT MARKETSHARE)?
They feel slighted when they give away such samples, but then cannot afford the patented vaccines.
And the Shah of Iran in 1973, just before the oil crisis:
"Of course [the world price of oil] is going to rise," the Shah told the New York Times in 1973. "Certainly! And how...; You [Western nations] increased the price of wheat you sell us by 300%, and the same for sugar and cement...; You buy our crude oil and sell it back to us, redefined as petrochemicals, at a hundred times the price you've paid to us...; It's only fair that, from now on, you should pay more for oil. Let's say ten times more."
No real point. Just found the similarities interesting.
Yes, but as I posted elsewhere, what exactly were these torrents of? Was it a legal download (e.g. a Linux ISO) or an illegal one (e.g. copyrighted movie)? If the former, then yes this is wrong, however in the latter case it's a little more understandable...in the absence of any indication of what a user has downloaded or uploaded, how else are you supposed to tell if someone is trying to download something other than their being connected to a torrent for that something?
These torrents...what were they of exactly? If they were of Linux ISOs or other legally available material, then sure, get angry. But if you're connected to a torrent for movies, games, music etc...well, they can't tell how much you've uploaded or downloaded, can they? Whether you're connected to a torrent or not is the only truly reliable metric that there can be. I mean, if you're seen hanging around with drug dealers and talking to them in places where they tend to deal drugs, isn't it fairly safe to assume you're trying to buy drugs?
Outside of this application, a BitTorrent client designed to not do anything BitTorrent was designed to do except connect to a torrent, how many other people connect to torrents only not to (attempt to) download/upload what's on them?
So, the message here is: don't try to download copyrighted stuff and you won't get sued for downloading copyrighted stuff.
Slashdot Mirror
You don't think there's a boatload of money that's been trying to prove you correct for quite a long time now?
Thing is though, the only way you could prove (or disprove) that Linux having a huge marketshare would mean that more malware would be written for Linux is for Linux to actually have a huge marketshare and for malware makers to start making or not start making malware for it. So all you can really argue with now are hypotheticals and previous examples, making the whole thing moot. Of course this leads to a catch 22; if Microsoft or someone really wanted to use their boatload of money to prove that a Linux monoculture would get lots of malware, they'd have to decimate their own install base to find out anything conclusive, by which point the whole thing would have been entirely pointless.
The best example I can think of is Firefox. Since it's growing rapidly in popularity, some seedy websites now try and install spyware using XPIs, if I recall correctly. However, since Firefox's share is still low compared to IEs, the malware XPIs are few and far between. Firefox being a web browser and Linux being an OS, however, introduces all kinds of differences.
I don't know what's scarier, that you wrote this or that it sounds like reasonably sane advice.
The deault install should be the minimum needed to access the net and use office.
:)
This would probably work quite well, and is quite close to the Linux/UNIX way of working, where you only run the print server or whatever if you actually need it.
That's a good idea especially if the OS is able to enable services as they are needed. For example, if you don't have a printer installed, what use is running the Print Spooler service? If you don't have a sound card, why have Windows Audio running? If you're running the Windows Classic theme, disable the Themes service! If you only have one user, what use is Fast User Switching; disable it! If you're not on a big network, why have the Remote Registry service installed?
Of course if you try and install a printer, install a sound card, switch back to the Luna/Aero theme or add a new user, the services should get automatically enabled. Less bloat and the same flexibility...win win situation
That depends on your perspective.
No, it doesn't. Using inflammatory language like that immediately makes the bias of an article clear; the authors were predisposed to think that way.
Could you imagine that quote in a scientific paper, or a reputable magazine article? No. It screams "nutjob", regardless of what the person is trying to say and/or the truth within it.
Eris's journal entry is not a bad summary if you don't have time to read further than the second paragraph.
Why not just post it? I mean, you wrote it.
It's the part with the hacksaw that's worst.
Cau-freakin'-castic
Caucastic? Is that like some brand new description of Charlie Brooker or something that I haven't heard yet?
"He's caustic...he's sarcastic...he's CAUCASTIC!"
Unless you know of a better name that describes the music or film industries as a whole
How about "the music industry" or "the film industry"?
I'd pay good money to see that.
To be honest, if Wikipedia had to jettison some things to make way for others, I'd be more inclined to jettison things that don't exist (e.g Star Trek races, yellow bleating thing) vs things that actually do (e.g. schools, places, things, people).
Thankfully, Wikipedia doesn't prioritise these things. However, if they did at some point, there's no question that Wikipedia's core editor base would probably tend to favour the Star Trek pages they wrote and helped build over a to-all-intents-and-purposes anonymous school in Bumfuck, Ohio that they've never heard of. That should be insured against, IMO.
But then...the school exists. It is a real place, it is important to many people. Why NOT have a page about it? What harm does it do? So what if it isn't "notable", on some spurious scale of "notability", which basically seems to mean "has been on TV" on Wikipedia? It's information. It's an encyclopedia, it should store as much verifiable information as it can reasonably hold.
What needs to be said though is that having an article about Pikachu doesn't make Wikipedia less worthwhile, nor does not having the article make it more so. It makes it more worthwhile precisely because some people might want to look up Pikachu. Some, however, might want to look up the school...but it's "not notable", according to some people whose only hint it exists came when the article was created, so any trace of it was removed from Wikipedia. That definitely makes Wikipedia far less useful, at least to these people who couldn't give a fuck what a Pikachu is.
Oh come on, "Troll"? That's easily the funniest comment I've read all day...
Why the fuck would the Recording Industry Association of America care about movies being pirated, precisely?
(Seriously, I see this far too often on Slashdot. It annoys me. A lot.)
Actually, I think you'll find this site had that little thing going first... ;)
If you want to be usefull you could find a working link, preferably from a site that shows Linux market penetration at something more realistic than 0.37%.
Maybe YOU could find that link then, since you're the one arguing the point.
Or does "realistic" revolve around YOUR view of reality (e.g. OMG LUNIX HAS 9 BILLION PERCENT MARKETSHARE)?
Or copy album art to a 5G iPod, or not delete all the album art currently on your 5G iPod (at least with the latest firmware).
:)
Other than those, Amarok is just peachy
There was, for a short spell, a British ISP called G-Wizz.
:)
So if that ever happens...cue more GoogleMail vs GMail fun
Being British might have a smidge to do with it :)
From the summary:
They feel slighted when they give away such samples, but then cannot afford the patented vaccines.
And the Shah of Iran in 1973, just before the oil crisis:
"Of course [the world price of oil] is going to rise," the Shah told the New York Times in 1973. "Certainly! And how...; You [Western nations] increased the price of wheat you sell us by 300%, and the same for sugar and cement...; You buy our crude oil and sell it back to us, redefined as petrochemicals, at a hundred times the price you've paid to us...; It's only fair that, from now on, you should pay more for oil. Let's say ten times more."
No real point. Just found the similarities interesting.
Yes, but as I posted elsewhere, what exactly were these torrents of? Was it a legal download (e.g. a Linux ISO) or an illegal one (e.g. copyrighted movie)? If the former, then yes this is wrong, however in the latter case it's a little more understandable...in the absence of any indication of what a user has downloaded or uploaded, how else are you supposed to tell if someone is trying to download something other than their being connected to a torrent for that something?
These torrents...what were they of exactly? If they were of Linux ISOs or other legally available material, then sure, get angry. But if you're connected to a torrent for movies, games, music etc...well, they can't tell how much you've uploaded or downloaded, can they? Whether you're connected to a torrent or not is the only truly reliable metric that there can be. I mean, if you're seen hanging around with drug dealers and talking to them in places where they tend to deal drugs, isn't it fairly safe to assume you're trying to buy drugs?
Outside of this application, a BitTorrent client designed to not do anything BitTorrent was designed to do except connect to a torrent, how many other people connect to torrents only not to (attempt to) download/upload what's on them?
So, the message here is: don't try to download copyrighted stuff and you won't get sued for downloading copyrighted stuff.
Will all the girls be wearing chastity belts where the keys have been thrown away?
Y'know, for completeness.
FUck that, my REAL CD collection just went sky high! IMMA RICH!!!
Hello, Twitter. Care to explain why you're using your own sockpuppet, Erris, to reply to one of your own posts?
Well obviously twitter is a leviathan in the open source community and as such is worthy of incredible amounts of attention.
He's a member of a LUG, after all.
the last time I tried to open the crappy new .DOCX with Open Office, it did not work.
Cos OpenOffice doesn't support it yet? Hardly Microsoft's fault.
(Nor, on the other hand, is it OpenOffice's fault. It's still a new format, for christ's sake.)