You are not an administrator. Look: If an application needs admin rights, you may allow it to run under an admin account, but event then you remain non-admin. Do you see it? Technically, you are never admin under Vista. That's the brilliance of the solution. OS X and Linux don't even come close to this.
Um, I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. Again, do you admit that your blanket statement was wrong? I mean this one: "With Windows, almost everyone runs as Administrator"
If you said Windows XP/2000 you would be right. Because on Vista almost everyone runs as non-admin and can comfortably elevate with per-app granularity if needed.
But only two of them were new machines, the rest were used G4s. The statistics in this review are only counting sales of new computers, so these switchers are "invisible."
If I count well, if you start using a used Mac, then its previous owner is no longer a Mac User unless he bought a new one and the he would be counted as switcher. Any way I look at it, the stats that count new purchases are valid. Used computers are useless for counting Mac switchers.
Hmmm, Corporate Troll is not trolling here, but you are.
Actually, neither me, nor Corporate Troll, but you are trolling here (as an Anonymous Coward). Check the definition of trolling. I pointed out that he was wrong when he said that Windows 9x is based on MS-DOS. That is not trolling, moron.
You correctly used the word "included". That's correct. It was only included as legacy component, it was not based on it. Win32 and MS-DOS are like apples and oranges. Similarly, Win32 and Win3 are like apples and oranges.
Are you an idiot? I didn't agree with you. You stated that Windows 9x was BASED ON MS-DOS. That is utter nonsense. The system only has portions that allow legacy code to run. Otherwise it is a completely new kernel.
Wrong. MS-DOS was NOT the underlying architecture, kernel or anything. It migh have served as boot loader or kickstart. Do you really think that the MS-DOS "kernel" was Windows 9x kernel? Nope.
Wrong. Windows 9x is not MS-DOS based. Only Windows 3.x was (it was a GUI add-on for MS DOS). Windows 9x is Win32 which was IN ADDITION able to run MS-DOS apps.
Is a filesystem not in essence a library full of catalogued files?
Heh, well the judge would tell you that the term "library" as used in the text of the law is literal (not figurative) and that therefore it means the place where you go to borrow books.
Copyright surely is a right. You have a right to vote, a copyright holder has a right to license her work (among other things). The term copyright is of course correct.
And remember son, if you merely allow something to be used legally, you do not create it. Someone else did (otherwise you'd have nothing to allow to be used).
Actually no, you are. If a scientist creates (as in invent) a new cure, and a senator only helps by creating a law that allows people to use the cure, do you believe that the senator created the cure? Or was it the scientist. Hmm....
In this particular case, mere common sense would tell most practicing attorneys that if Microsoft had valid claims, it would simply start rolling out the lawsuits and collecting money.
I wonder if people really are so naive to believe that Microsoft is only bluffing. FYI, there are patents on things like GUI hyperlink, checkbox, double click, listview, you name it.
What kind of nonsense is this? I live in the EU and if I ping ANY site in Europe, the ping reports a 30 ms delay, not 150 ms (as would be the case if the packets went via the US).
Nope. If you have code under a permissive license, such as BSD, and you put the code UNDER a more restrictive license (such as the GPL) you are in fact adding additional terms to the BSD license. That is relicensing and BSD gives you no right to relicense the code.
The site is not as big as Amazon. However, it receives almost one million unique visitors a month. It is big enough to be representative ("50 or so copies" wasn't a hyperbole it was an irritating troll).
If you release the code under a different license, you are changing its license terms. The word under refers to the verbs "cover" and "govern". That is relicensing.
Slashdot Mirror
If you weren't an administrator
You are not an administrator. Look: If an application needs admin rights, you may allow it to run under an admin account, but event then you remain non-admin. Do you see it? Technically, you are never admin under Vista. That's the brilliance of the solution. OS X and Linux don't even come close to this.
You know what? You either don't know what you're talking about, or you do (and then you are... a good old anti-MS troll).
the point is that you're still running as admin
You're not. Read something about it.
If you think that the extra clicks makes it more secure
Yes, it does.
Um, I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. Again, do you admit that your blanket statement was wrong? I mean this one: "With Windows, almost everyone runs as Administrator"
If you said Windows XP/2000 you would be right. Because on Vista almost everyone runs as non-admin and can comfortably elevate with per-app granularity if needed.
With Windows, almost everyone runs as Administrator,
You mean Windows XP, not Windows in general. As on Vista, almost everyone runs as non-admin.
It can't do that, only root can, and I don't browse the internet as root.
Uh, ever heard of privilege escalation vulnerabilities? FYI, these affect Linux too (both kernel and user-space apps like Firefox).
But only two of them were new machines, the rest were used G4s. The statistics in this review are only counting sales of new computers, so these switchers are "invisible."
If I count well, if you start using a used Mac, then its previous owner is no longer a Mac User unless he bought a new one and the he would be counted as switcher. Any way I look at it, the stats that count new purchases are valid. Used computers are useless for counting Mac switchers.
Hmmm, Corporate Troll is not trolling here, but you are.
Actually, neither me, nor Corporate Troll, but you are trolling here (as an Anonymous Coward). Check the definition of trolling. I pointed out that he was wrong when he said that Windows 9x is based on MS-DOS. That is not trolling, moron.
MS-DOS 7 (the version included with Win95)
You correctly used the word "included". That's correct. It was only included as legacy component, it was not based on it. Win32 and MS-DOS are like apples and oranges. Similarly, Win32 and Win3 are like apples and oranges.
that was only a PORTION of the OS
You finally agreed with me.... Good boy...
Are you an idiot? I didn't agree with you. You stated that Windows 9x was BASED ON MS-DOS. That is utter nonsense. The system only has portions that allow legacy code to run. Otherwise it is a completely new kernel.
MS-DOS and Win32 are two different things. Windows 9x had native support for MS-DOS apps, but that was only a PORTION of the OS. The rest was Win32.
Wrong. MS-DOS was NOT the underlying architecture, kernel or anything. It migh have served as boot loader or kickstart. Do you really think that the MS-DOS "kernel" was Windows 9x kernel? Nope.
MS-DOS Based
1.x, 2.x (Windows/286, Windows/386), 3.x, 4.0 (95), 4.1 (98), 4.9 (Me)
Wrong. Windows 9x is not MS-DOS based. Only Windows 3.x was (it was a GUI add-on for MS DOS). Windows 9x is Win32 which was IN ADDITION able to run MS-DOS apps.
Is a filesystem not in essence a library full of catalogued files?
Heh, well the judge would tell you that the term "library" as used in the text of the law is literal (not figurative) and that therefore it means the place where you go to borrow books.
Copyright is not a right (despite its name).
Copyright surely is a right. You have a right to vote, a copyright holder has a right to license her work (among other things). The term copyright is of course correct.
In that light, I expect all photocopiers to now be removed from US libraries, as they are also making available books and a means to copy them.
Under copyright law in the US and EU, libraries and archives are exempted (just like Fair Use).
In other words, you have no arguments.
And remember son, if you merely allow something to be used legally, you do not create it. Someone else did (otherwise you'd have nothing to allow to be used).
No, you're just acting like an idiot.
Actually no, you are. If a scientist creates (as in invent) a new cure, and a senator only helps by creating a law that allows people to use the cure, do you believe that the senator created the cure? Or was it the scientist. Hmm....
So I'm assuming that you'd be equally hard on politicians who make ridiculous claims like
Of course. Have I touched a nerve there?
IMHO, if Microsoft was sure it had valid patents, it would have sued by now.
Again, that is a naive assumption. There are many possible reasons to not sue by now.
In this particular case, mere common sense would tell most practicing attorneys that if Microsoft had valid claims, it would simply start rolling out the lawsuits and collecting money.
I wonder if people really are so naive to believe that Microsoft is only bluffing. FYI, there are patents on things like GUI hyperlink, checkbox, double click, listview, you name it.
What kind of nonsense is this? I live in the EU and if I ping ANY site in Europe, the ping reports a 30 ms delay, not 150 ms (as would be the case if the packets went via the US).
He used the word creating, as in to bring about the internet as we know it now, by pushing for funding. He did NOT use the word inventing.
I'm afraid you confuse the word "create" with the term "help succeed".
Nope. If you have code under a permissive license, such as BSD, and you put the code UNDER a more restrictive license (such as the GPL) you are in fact adding additional terms to the BSD license. That is relicensing and BSD gives you no right to relicense the code.
The site is not as big as Amazon. However, it receives almost one million unique visitors a month. It is big enough to be representative ("50 or so copies" wasn't a hyperbole it was an irritating troll).
If you release the code under a different license, you are changing its license terms. The word under refers to the verbs "cover" and "govern". That is relicensing.