...same old argument: spyware experts indicate that with its increased popularity, Firefox itself will become a target Like when they say Unix/Linux is just as insecure as anything else, it just doesn't have a large enough userbase for viruses/trojans/spyware/whatever to be fashionable.
I don't doubt snippets written to exploit Firefox's vulnerabilities will pop up, eventually in larger numbers. But that does not make the above argumentation any more valid, nor any less stupid. And we've been trhough argumentations about that, so I'll just skip that one.
Hahahaha! And you know what the worst thing is? You probably actually believe yourself.
You know what, Mr. AC ? If we would judge an OS by it's looks, noone would ever buy WinXP or else, and Apple would've become world leader with OSX.
Thing is, which is not necessarily sad, but nevertheless true, that the most part of computer users are not in any way developers, nor do they want to do anything development related, nor do they wish to know the insides or power usabilities of any OS they ever coem in conatct with. And that means that usually the GUIs will not be suited for a power user.
From that point of view - developer, geek, power user, etc. - Linux could really prevail in the x86 world. And these prople also are in perfect knowledge of an OS's power lies not in the GUI, so your parent post has quite a bit of truth in it. On the other hand, a KDE GUI is much more user-friendly than many others, for the simple fact that be _very_ easily customized to one's needs. I've seen and heard many opinions according to whom this is exactly a drawback of KDE (too many places to tweak on too many locations), but I've come to appreciate this approach over the years.
It says: Open source is a methodology for licensing and/or developing software - that may or may not be interoperable.
That's like: closed source is a methology for developing software - that may or may not be interoperable, you couldn't and wouldn't know, because you don't have a clue whatsoever what we put in your mouth, but you have to chew and swallow.
Then: Microsoft software can talk to mainframes and minicomputers from...
I don't care if Microsoft software is able to spread it's DoS children over. I don't care if file interchange can occur. I would care if ISS worked well, I would care if Windows could handle at least let's say 2 or 3 of the very widely known non-MS filesystem types, I would care if Office products could open and save other well established document formats, I would care if Microsoft's adherence to standards wouldn't be at end at pushing XML, I would also care if Microsoft's solution to their vulnerabilities wouldn't be the same old story of buying up someone else and pushing tons of PR and marketing on sixpackjoes... (it's sunday monrning, I had enough of this)
if there was more software available for linux, and it was clear how to acquire it,
You know - and I'm sure I will be trolled for this - finding [bad] excuses for one's igonorance won't help. Just say you think it sucks and we'll don't even raise an eyebrow, that's everyday.
I am computer savvy [...] being a regular guy using my computer
Well, that means that regular guys are computer savvy, that is almost everyone out there is computer savvy. Great day, this is:D Sure it is.
It's a typical in-sand-headed Windows guy's behaviour to say/think that many versions/distros available makes finding what you need harder. If you'd ever try, this misconcept would just disappear, pretty quickly.
You know the drill: have your friends close, and your enemies even closer. Every Windows believer should follow that and give an honest (that doubly and overly emphasized) try on some Linux distro. Many people would be really and deeply surprised.
Again, I'm not talking about pro. tech. and dev. people here, they - hopefully - already know both sides [yeah, I can be an idealist sometimes] and don't make false assumptions unkwowingly, right ?:)
If an unpatched and unprotected PC connected to the Internet turns you on as much as a chick walking down SF's Tenderloin after dark in a halter, leather mini & fishnets, I'd be concerned as well.IF IT'S WINDOWS YOU'RE USING, that is.
And please don't come with like "many distros have dozens of services enabled by default". They don't, and if they do, you cannot find any obvious way to hack them to introduce a worm that will spread DoS for 3 billion people+dog in a few minutes.
I know, I'm using Windows and co. all working hours except when writing articles which I do in latex. And I know I have to spend very much time making sure no freaking spyware/worm gets on my machine. In the last 2.5 years my work machine has been infested 1 time, but that big time (even gigs of warez stuff was uploaded and being served during 2 weekend days... no comments). Without the many hours of caretaking per week (regular definition updates, full system scans twice a week by antivir and by 2 antispyware, etc.) that count would be much higher.
Now guess what a non-pro user (that is almost everyone out there, given the numbers) has to go through if (s)he sticks with a Windows machine for everyday use. Hell on Earth, that's what it's called.
Except if they will be occupied to crash each other and never consider what we want.
Naah, scrap that. I just hope Google will keep doing what they do best: gather smart people, create smart stuff, behave cool on the market, provide great service.
Too bad most people jump quickly on other bandwagons sand are very quickly brainwashed and convinced. Just a big shot of a huge marketing gun and they are canned.
Then there are those people who love MS so much they drop Google from day one. Well, I hope this is more a fairytale. But hey, we're living on the same pile of dirt.
For me, having a bluer startpage and a bigger and more cluttered page source and bigger hype won't be enough. I need proof. If it works better, I'll consider. Everything else: yadayadayada.
I thought "Engineer" was a term applied to people with degrees in actual engineering not something to be passed around like a gold watch or a fancy pen.
I can only agree with that, and deeply despise all the jerks that talked up the dead speaking rubbish as a reply to the parent post.
One should absolutely never be eligible and let to use the term Engineer in any way if one does not have the proper education in the field. I strongly believe that, although I very well know how many people are in many industries without such degrees, and make billions of cash.
Thing is, experience is not everything. Believe it or not. Knowing the proper techniques, methods, ways of thinking and tools to use is an asset which most good Engineers posess, and which is very very hard work to gather only by experience, and also taking much time.
I don't say one can't gather the knowledge without papers, because it's not true. I just say, nobody, nowhere, never should depreciate properly educated Engineers, with Engineering degrees.
I take such people as morally and psychically underdeveloped grudging pricks.
Repeatedly: I can very well tolerate and highly appreciate gathered engineering knowledge, but the behaviour mentioned: absolutely not.
Also, when people start again and again over the topic: university is no good, experience is... let's just say I'm quite hard to steam up, but this is a good starter.
What ? You switched the directions here. It's not like: they use iPod's, we bash them, then make an iPod killer, but it should be exactly the opposite: make an iPod killer, then - if you can - persuade the guys to switch to it.
They are saying We still have some validation errors (about 130, the last time i checked) in the W3C Validator for God's sake. Then you say they are XHTML strict. Right.
So, why aren't the search engines taking advantage of this?
This is really quite simple to comprehend. To access all the data you mention one would need to fetch those images, extract the data, and build an indexed database of image locations+extracted data, indexed by the extracted information. That would require HUGE amounts of traffic and storage.
If one could do that, they would provide color, depth, object, etc. -based searching possibilties also. For many years to come these services remain at the level of single databases (image databases, movie and film databases, etc.), at organizations which can index their own data and provide searching capabilities. Which is nothing new.
Yeah, this seems contrary to a full free search, but at least the results are on subject.
Nope, the results are on what they paid for to be. Well, how would you take Microsoft SQL to feed you not the data you select-ed, but the ones somebody cahsed in for ?:)
Apple didn't invent MP3 players, Google didn't invent search engines, I don't see you bashing them, the originators of most technologies are dead and buried because they didn't do anything with them
Having your head int he sand doesn't help you either, you know. People don't mostly hate, or let's say, don't really like, Microsoft because of it's really and very bad effect on innovation and their being very often late in many matters. The reason why they are obnoxious to many is their market behaviour. And that is something which even you can't reasonably deny.
If you try, we'll make you SlashDot NewProduct Beta 1 and give your right arm free to the masses:) then charge them for the rest:)
If the company I worked for started bugging me about me buying and using the digital music player of my choice (which I would do, being a music-fanatic all over, I listen to music almost all day long when I get the chance, wherever I am), that would really make me quit.
I'm not kidding, I really am quite frank on this. No position of mine at a company, nor anyhow good salary could make me stay.
If MS doesn't like their people having iPods, then wait till they start ordering G5's and running Windows under virtual machines:D
Why, no, it just shoots a bit of ultraviolet in, if you're blind at least they are safe [i.e. from you]:D
There was an old joke about the barber who did a terrible job. At his place, all the people who came in had different hairdos. All who came out had the same:]
:) right, let's make some dictionary changes: progress: (n) (invented by Microsoft in the 200x's) process of buying up other companies to hide or cover one's inability to solve problems
Microsoft's message to both it's shareholders and it's customers is crystal-clear: Microsoft would rather BUY an anti-spyware company to "solve" it's Internet explorer problems, than spend the money to fix the problem with it's software.
No, no. The message is: Microsoft will not solve such problems. Microsoft has enough money to buy up e.g. an anty-spyware company, and maybe this way the raise in publicity and the PR will make problems go away. You know: don't see it, doesn't exist.
Secondly, if they truly were the best, they wouldn't have all those security problems, now would they?
I believe being the best is not about not having bugs and holes. It's in the way you handle those problems. Judging along this line, M$ is far, very far from being "the best".
Okay, so how you others to trust some dictionary and/or linguistics site that doesn't even know English alright ? "plural of vir, man, the root the English virile".
I'd be happy even only with options 1+3. I would happily pay something for downloaded shows every week if they could be legally obtained in good quality with good bandwith, and trusted to be available.
But really, how is downloading the episode of a show I missed last night stealing?
No, not really. But there are many many people who don't watch tv, but like to watch some series, even some series which will come to their countries like 5-6+ years later (no kidding here, and it's Europe I'm talking about). And BT is a great place for that.
Well, -you- might not like it ; Does not mean you make up the -whole- targeted demographic.
You don't seem to get it. It's about choice. Or - in this case - the lack of it. They push all the crap on people, and you can only choose between a very crap A, a less crap A, a crap A, a good A, or even a better A. There's hardly any B around.
which calls for nothing less than the destruction of the software industry as we know it
Well, maybe there are more than one opinions on how a software industry should be like. And maybe not all of them are the ultimate solution. And maybe there need to happen some real paradigm shifts from time to time to keep up good evolution and innovation. And, maybe, that "destruction" doesn't mean disappearance, but change.
Slashdot Mirror
...same old argument: spyware experts indicate that with its increased popularity, Firefox itself will become a target Like when they say Unix/Linux is just as insecure as anything else, it just doesn't have a large enough userbase for viruses/trojans/spyware/whatever to be fashionable.
I don't doubt snippets written to exploit Firefox's vulnerabilities will pop up, eventually in larger numbers. But that does not make the above argumentation any more valid, nor any less stupid. And we've been trhough argumentations about that, so I'll just skip that one.
Hahahaha! And you know what the worst thing is? You probably actually believe yourself.
You know what, Mr. AC ? If we would judge an OS by it's looks, noone would ever buy WinXP or else, and Apple would've become world leader with OSX.
Thing is, which is not necessarily sad, but nevertheless true, that the most part of computer users are not in any way developers, nor do they want to do anything development related, nor do they wish to know the insides or power usabilities of any OS they ever coem in conatct with. And that means that usually the GUIs will not be suited for a power user.
From that point of view - developer, geek, power user, etc. - Linux could really prevail in the x86 world. And these prople also are in perfect knowledge of an OS's power lies not in the GUI, so your parent post has quite a bit of truth in it. On the other hand, a KDE GUI is much more user-friendly than many others, for the simple fact that be _very_ easily customized to one's needs. I've seen and heard many opinions according to whom this is exactly a drawback of KDE (too many places to tweak on too many locations), but I've come to appreciate this approach over the years.
Well, mkay, talking about blurb:
...
... (it's sunday monrning, I had enough of this)
It says: Open source is a methodology for licensing and/or developing software - that may or may not be interoperable.
That's like: closed source is a methology for developing software - that may or may not be interoperable, you couldn't and wouldn't know, because you don't have a clue whatsoever what we put in your mouth, but you have to chew and swallow.
Then: Microsoft software can talk to mainframes and minicomputers from
I don't care if Microsoft software is able to spread it's DoS children over. I don't care if file interchange can occur. I would care if ISS worked well, I would care if Windows could handle at least let's say 2 or 3 of the very widely known non-MS filesystem types, I would care if Office products could open and save other well established document formats, I would care if Microsoft's adherence to standards wouldn't be at end at pushing XML, I would also care if Microsoft's solution to their vulnerabilities wouldn't be the same old story of buying up someone else and pushing tons of PR and marketing on sixpackjoes
if there was more software available for linux, and it was clear how to acquire it,
:D Sure it is.
:)
You know - and I'm sure I will be trolled for this - finding [bad] excuses for one's igonorance won't help. Just say you think it sucks and we'll don't even raise an eyebrow, that's everyday.
I am computer savvy [...] being a regular guy using my computer
Well, that means that regular guys are computer savvy, that is almost everyone out there is computer savvy. Great day, this is
It's a typical in-sand-headed Windows guy's behaviour to say/think that many versions/distros available makes finding what you need harder. If you'd ever try, this misconcept would just disappear, pretty quickly.
You know the drill: have your friends close, and your enemies even closer. Every Windows believer should follow that and give an honest (that doubly and overly emphasized) try on some Linux distro. Many people would be really and deeply surprised.
Again, I'm not talking about pro. tech. and dev. people here, they - hopefully - already know both sides [yeah, I can be an idealist sometimes] and don't make false assumptions unkwowingly, right ?
If an unpatched and unprotected PC connected to the Internet turns you on as much as a chick walking down SF's Tenderloin after dark in a halter, leather mini & fishnets, I'd be concerned as well. IF IT'S WINDOWS YOU'RE USING, that is.
And please don't come with like "many distros have dozens of services enabled by default". They don't, and if they do, you cannot find any obvious way to hack them to introduce a worm that will spread DoS for 3 billion people+dog in a few minutes.
I know, I'm using Windows and co. all working hours except when writing articles which I do in latex. And I know I have to spend very much time making sure no freaking spyware/worm gets on my machine. In the last 2.5 years my work machine has been infested 1 time, but that big time (even gigs of warez stuff was uploaded and being served during 2 weekend days... no comments). Without the many hours of caretaking per week (regular definition updates, full system scans twice a week by antivir and by 2 antispyware, etc.) that count would be much higher.
Now guess what a non-pro user (that is almost everyone out there, given the numbers) has to go through if (s)he sticks with a Windows machine for everyday use. Hell on Earth, that's what it's called.
Except if they will be occupied to crash each other and never consider what we want.
Naah, scrap that. I just hope Google will keep doing what they do best: gather smart people, create smart stuff, behave cool on the market, provide great service.
Too bad most people jump quickly on other bandwagons sand are very quickly brainwashed and convinced. Just a big shot of a huge marketing gun and they are canned.
Then there are those people who love MS so much they drop Google from day one. Well, I hope this is more a fairytale. But hey, we're living on the same pile of dirt.
For me, having a bluer startpage and a bigger and more cluttered page source and bigger hype won't be enough. I need proof. If it works better, I'll consider. Everything else: yadayadayada.
I thought "Engineer" was a term applied to people with degrees in actual engineering not something to be passed around like a gold watch or a fancy pen.
I can only agree with that, and deeply despise all the jerks that talked up the dead speaking rubbish as a reply to the parent post.
One should absolutely never be eligible and let to use the term Engineer in any way if one does not have the proper education in the field. I strongly believe that, although I very well know how many people are in many industries without such degrees, and make billions of cash.
Thing is, experience is not everything. Believe it or not. Knowing the proper techniques, methods, ways of thinking and tools to use is an asset which most good Engineers posess, and which is very very hard work to gather only by experience, and also taking much time.
I don't say one can't gather the knowledge without papers, because it's not true. I just say, nobody, nowhere, never should depreciate properly educated Engineers, with Engineering degrees.
I take such people as morally and psychically underdeveloped grudging pricks.
Repeatedly: I can very well tolerate and highly appreciate gathered engineering knowledge, but the behaviour mentioned: absolutely not.
Also, when people start again and again over the topic: university is no good, experience is... let's just say I'm quite hard to steam up, but this is a good starter.
I'm tired of posts like this. For you to know, I have generated about 10 images in the last half hour on that site, and that by using Firefox.
What ? You switched the directions here. It's not like: they use iPod's, we bash them, then make an iPod killer, but it should be exactly the opposite: make an iPod killer, then - if you can - persuade the guys to switch to it.
They are saying We still have some validation errors (about 130, the last time i checked) in the W3C Validator for God's sake. Then you say they are XHTML strict. Right.
Bad joke, and if it wasn't, it's still not a good association with the story here.
Reminds me of a joke.
Reminds me of a roommate back at the university who got reminded of a joke every now and then, and all of them were really bad.
So, why aren't the search engines taking advantage of this?
This is really quite simple to comprehend. To access all the data you mention one would need to fetch those images, extract the data, and build an indexed database of image locations+extracted data, indexed by the extracted information. That would require HUGE amounts of traffic and storage.
If one could do that, they would provide color, depth, object, etc. -based searching possibilties also. For many years to come these services remain at the level of single databases (image databases, movie and film databases, etc.), at organizations which can index their own data and provide searching capabilities. Which is nothing new.
Yeah, this seems contrary to a full free search, but at least the results are on subject.
:)
Nope, the results are on what they paid for to be. Well, how would you take Microsoft SQL to feed you not the data you select-ed, but the ones somebody cahsed in for ?
Apple didn't invent MP3 players, Google didn't invent search engines, I don't see you bashing them, the originators of most technologies are dead and buried because they didn't do anything with them
:) then charge them for the rest :)
Having your head int he sand doesn't help you either, you know. People don't mostly hate, or let's say, don't really like, Microsoft because of it's really and very bad effect on innovation and their being very often late in many matters. The reason why they are obnoxious to many is their market behaviour. And that is something which even you can't reasonably deny.
If you try, we'll make you SlashDot NewProduct Beta 1 and give your right arm free to the masses
If the company I worked for started bugging me about me buying and using the digital music player of my choice (which I would do, being a music-fanatic all over, I listen to music almost all day long when I get the chance, wherever I am), that would really make me quit.
:D
I'm not kidding, I really am quite frank on this. No position of mine at a company, nor anyhow good salary could make me stay.
If MS doesn't like their people having iPods, then wait till they start ordering G5's and running Windows under virtual machines
Why, no, it just shoots a bit of ultraviolet in, if you're blind at least they are safe [i.e. from you] :D
:]
:)
There was an old joke about the barber who did a terrible job. At his place, all the people who came in had different hairdos. All who came out had the same
Whatever, it's late
we feel very good about the progress there
:) right, let's make some dictionary changes: progress: (n) (invented by Microsoft in the 200x's) process of buying up other companies to hide or cover one's inability to solve problems
Microsoft's message to both it's shareholders and it's customers is crystal-clear: Microsoft would rather BUY an anti-spyware company to "solve" it's Internet explorer problems, than spend the money to fix the problem with it's software.
No, no. The message is: Microsoft will not solve such problems. Microsoft has enough money to buy up e.g. an anty-spyware company, and maybe this way the raise in publicity and the PR will make problems go away. You know: don't see it, doesn't exist.
Secondly, if they truly were the best, they wouldn't have all those security problems, now would they?
I believe being the best is not about not having bugs and holes. It's in the way you handle those problems. Judging along this line, M$ is far, very far from being "the best".
If im not mistaken
But you are. So.
Okay, so how you others to trust some dictionary and/or linguistics site that doesn't even know English alright ? "plural of vir, man, the root the English virile".
I'd be happy even only with options 1+3. I would happily pay something for downloaded shows every week if they could be legally obtained in good quality with good bandwith, and trusted to be available.
But really, how is downloading the episode of a show I missed last night stealing?
No, not really. But there are many many people who don't watch tv, but like to watch some series, even some series which will come to their countries like 5-6+ years later (no kidding here, and it's Europe I'm talking about). And BT is a great place for that.
Well, -you- might not like it ; Does not mean you make up the -whole- targeted demographic.
You don't seem to get it. It's about choice. Or - in this case - the lack of it. They push all the crap on people, and you can only choose between a very crap A, a less crap A, a crap A, a good A, or even a better A. There's hardly any B around.
which calls for nothing less than the destruction of the software industry as we know it
Well, maybe there are more than one opinions on how a software industry should be like. And maybe not all of them are the ultimate solution. And maybe there need to happen some real paradigm shifts from time to time to keep up good evolution and innovation. And, maybe, that "destruction" doesn't mean disappearance, but change.