Perhaps it's just me, but it seems in my world they have had those advertisments all through the battles between AMD and Intel, and it's never been an issue. No, I think I'll stick with the fact that Core 2 benchmarks and hype were starting to surface right around the time that AM2 was sliding into the market. The processor being trounced by Intel in each of the "show us what core 2 can do" reviews? Yep. AM2 AMD chips. Nobody is going to bother spending money on a processor and motherboard upgrade that is pretty much functionally equivalent to their current 939 rig, which really isn't that much different from a 754 rig (close to the diffrence between the Intel LGA 775 5xx series vs the 6xx series). If they wanted AM2 to solidify a new market, they should have waited a couple of months, shrunk the fab and added enough cache to each chip to put them in the same league with the Intel folks. The reason I stopped buying AMD? I got tired of having to dig into the specs to find the chip with more cache. There is NO WAY anybody in their right mind would choose a chip that's clocked 200 mhz higher, but with 512k of cache over one with 1024k, but clocked 200 mhz lower. Can you tell the diffrence between a chip thats 2.4 ghz and one thats 2.6? Probably not. Can you tell the diffrence between a chip with 512k cache and one with 1024k? Uh, yeah.
This package looks great, and I've got a couple of things to comment on that have been being said. Firstly, everybody seems to be talking about this like its some kind of CATOS/IOS ala Cisco replacement. They don't seem to be billing it like that at all, as far as I can tell. Of course, the dedicated "meant to do that" hardware solution from Cisco is going to be legions better than any software you can stuff on a PC.
Lets take the discussion where it probably should have gone, to the guys contracted to set up a network for a local law firm office, with 20 employees. Maybe a veterenerian's office that probably doesn't do that much business (dollar wise). It's the folks like this that might still need what a Cisco has to offer in features, but doesn't need what Cisco offers in capacity, and definatly not what they offer in cost. Considering how (it looks to be) well documented, I don't think that the contractor mentioned will have any problems supporting it. It's our bread and butter.
Ok, reading this conversation, I realised that I need to get a couple of things off my chest. I'll start with an explaination that will let you know better where I'm coming from.
I was part of a rather large group of players that insanely played Tribes 1. In it's hayday, it was a fantastic FPS game, and had quite a loyal following. During the time that we had our "Clan" in this game, we discovered several "ways to cheat" some of which you will think are quite funny, and some are just mean.
There was a map (CTF) where the forcefield was the only thing separating the flags. We had a good time exploiting the fact that if you placed an acceleration grenade behind you, the game engine couldn't create the collision fast enough and you would end up on the enemy side. Cap out the game in 60 seconds. This irritated the opposing team, until we taught them how to do it.
There was another instance, after I started dabbling with map making, where we came up with the idea to create a cave. It had not really been done before in this game, as all the outdoor areas were skies, and anything with a roof was part of a static structure. What we did was take a secondary terrain, invert it upside down and lower it over the top of the existing terrain to create a cave-like area with caverns and tunnels.
Now, heres the tricky part. Both bases are represented inside the cave, at opposite ends. On one team, (the one we all made sure we were on before hand) there was a small hole in the upper part of the terrain, which allowed players to go outside of it. After leaving out there, we noticed an interesting thing. The upper terrain, when viewed from the other side, had no back texture (it was see-through). Additionally, it didn't present a collision surface for lobbed projectiles, people or vehicles. So, I did what any borderline sociopath would do, and constructed an elaborate base, complete with ramps, turrets, generators, vehicle pads, command stations and buildings...above the ceiling of the enemy base. After spending a 45 minute match up there with a few team mates chuckling at the enemies who can't figure out where the mortar shells are coming from (they would appear to fall from the ceiling), you'll understand how fun cheating would be.
But, to my point I must go. Every single person who ever came on the server and played that map with us was always FURIOUS after about 5 minutes. Point? 90% of the time, after being shown what was actually happening, the people, who minutes before were the victims of the cheating, were thrilled- laughing and joking about how neat it was, and before you know it, they were camping up there with us waiting for more people to join the server on the other team. Moral of this story? I don't suppose there really is one. Cheating is a part of everything that humans do, in life, as a condition of being human. People lie. People steal. People cheat. There isn't a single person reading this who hasnt told at least one lie today. Face it, it's part of the human condition. Most people dont like being the victim of a cheat simply because they don't like feeling like the subject of a joke. Once you become the person meteing out the joke on others, the whole dynamic changes.
I think it's a symptom of technology, personally. We love technology as good little consumer whores. Well, just so happens, so do the greedy bastards at record labels. Just as much as we like to use technology, in increasingly grave amounts to make our lives easier, faster, dumber, cheaper, smoother, so do they. Unfortunatly, it's become far too easy for them to screw with our lives as far as consumption of entertainment goes.
Perhaps it's time for them to be taught that their product is simply not as valuable as they think it is and try to sue us into thinking it is as well.
It seems as though Microsoft is / will have it's security products built into Vista, and will most likely build them into the TCP/IP stack at some level. Here is what most people seem to be ignoring here, and it's pretty simple.
As it always has been, you can choose to use or disable any part of any feature in Windows. As it sits now with RC1, you can enable / disable features at will. Wireless networking configuration is built into Windows XP, but as everybody here knows who has a wireless network device of some sort, upon driver / software installation, that application takes over the duties of the Windows feature, usually by default. I don't know why anybody would have a reason to think that this would be any different from having a firewall in the OS, which, at the request of the user (by way of installation) gets replaced by some other product. We'll leave the discussion about inferiority for another time.
People really should stop talking about a feature of Vista as if its sure to be some set in stone incumberance, and it most likely will not be.
Oh, but it's built into TCP/IP! Anybody here ever installed the Novell client in Windows? Ever see what it does to your network protocols? Microsoft has said time and time again that it is keeping with backwards compatibility, are we naive enough to think that this won't include clients, protocols, craptastic software firewalls and anti-virus-viruses? Not so much. For those of you that need to experience a Novell client install for yourselves, go ahead. It's uninstallable. http://download.novell.com/SummaryFree.jsp?buildid =l1o2uFAj23U~/
Agreed. I work for a major pharmaceutical company here in the US, and we aren't getting WinXP as a standard image for our PC's until some time next year. I can imagine it's going to be 2010 before they give us I.S. guys Vista preview workstation images, even though the PC's were ordering and have been ordering for the last few months say "Designed for Windows XP" and below "Windows Vista Capable".
Long live the corporate technology curve riding techniques.
It's hard to convince the average user to switch to Linux, because in order to want to switch, you have to care, and unfortunatly the average user doesn't give a shit.
Haha! Oh my god! I've never heard that before! You are so original! Kudos man, it takes a genius to come up with good quality comedic gold like that. Wow. Can you teach me where you learned how to crack a joke like that?
Oh, damn, I just got off the phone with 1996. They want their wit back.
Although Vista will more likely be widespread, I hope everybody realises that IPv6 was implemented in OSX quite some time ago. Or is Vista's implementation different somehow?
I frequently see even to this day driver-related bsods on totally stable and quality hardware, on which linux runs flawlessly, some desktops, some servers, some laptops.
I like chiming in on these discussions about Windows and Linux. Guys, it's real easy to squelch the average fanboy, so sing it with me now!
1.) Find me a way to use my X-Fi in a Linux distro. I don't want to have to put the Audigy in to have sound. It's been out for over a year now, come the fuck on.
2.) Get me a proper way to use ANY of the current 3D games on the market, or..actually, scratch current, let's go with the last 2-3 years. If you say Wine, then I'll be seeing you on the server later, while you, and your 15 FPS are getting your ass handed to you by a kid with a PIII 733 and a GeForce 3. Don't even start with your "But I get 90 FPS blah blah" because for the same hardware / cost I run 150% faster then you, mkay? Thats what happens when developping support for a product means you'll be able to feed your wife and kids, or husband and kids for you lady developpers out there.
3.) Get me a "decent" productivity suite that won't mangle a spreadsheet created in Excel. Also, one that is able to save and open properly in excel would be nice too. And I don't mean your grandmother's supermarket list, I mean a good, heavy spreadsheet that has ODBC connections, graphs and miles of calculations (you know, the types that corporate america uses, like this pharmaceutical company I work at.)
4.) Spend a little more time on NTFS support. Don't cry about closed formats and Microsoft-bashing. Just fucking do it already. Banks can be hacked. School grades can be changed - one of you fanboys can't seem to get NTFS support that wont fuck my MFT if you try to write to it? Come on, it's over 10 years old now, get with the program.
So, l3v1, stop getting all worked up to the point where you can't spell, form proper sentences or use punctuation. Don't rush to be the first fanboy to puff out the chest at a Windows admin when he makes a couple of points and use that energy to make your OS more friendly. Linux, you are the underdog. I respect you. I use you for things that you are damn good at (firewall). If you want to win me over, convince your developpers to stop hanging out at Slashdot looking for Windows admins they can yell "LOLOL BSOD PWNZORED" at and get them to contribute to something that actually does some good.
Why do I get the feeling that ISP's spend way too much time finding ways to curb speeds and restrict usage, just so they can keep claiming speed ratings to sign more people up?
You want an easier time with bandwidth? Stop selling and promising your customers a perticular speed with your service. Drop it down a notch, then maybe you'll have enough to go around, rather than claim something and then spend the next 2 years trying to figure out how you can throttle my torrent traffic so that granny across the street can still download family reuinion e-mail at 5 mbit.
Many companies in India have realised that it's a total waste of time, money and effort to invest in Microsoft, Oracle and Cisco equipment and their closed-source zero-innovation ideologies for their computing needs.
Was this meant as a broad stroke slam at all the current top companies in the industry? Did you actually mean to insinuate that this town's "*nix" solution incorporates routers, switches, muxers and ATM line equipment from a company other than Cisco? Can you elaborate on that? Are there any others in the industry aside from yourself that might be able to substantiate the claims you seem to be making that the current top companies in technology are "zero-innovation"?
The Indian branch of the Free Software Foundation is located in Kerala, again because of the high literacy rates, and the forward-thinking, proud and practical people...
Oh, I see. Adjectives such as "Forward-thinking", "Proud", "Practical" apply more / only to people who choose to move away from sucsessful companies and their products? It wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that the entire town runs on a budget remarkably similar to the budget of a small school district in a rural area, would it? Also, I'm curious to see some demographic data that you are obviously privvy to that demonstrates the correlation between literacy rates and where a FOSS branch appears. Seriously. 5 Informative now, so, put your money where your mouth is and let's see some non-make beleive statistics, based in fact and non-biased by what is obviously a karma whore move by yet another FOSS crusader that uses every possibly chance they have to try and turd polish.
Don't get me wrong, I love the whole idea of FOSS, and I generally agree with most of the things you guys say, but this is just childish. Let's see some hard facts before we moderate posts like this. "that sounds pretty good and pro-foss" shouldn't cut it as being top-rated informative.
Let's see what happens to "security" if the market share ever heads north of the 80% mark. All the system needs is a couple million coders bent on stealing or propagating a virus, and they will be fucked.
The only people currently testing the security of the system are a few black hat guys, maybe some dev's from Apple, but the biggest threat to security isn't the architechture or the OS or any of that junk.
Black Hat, you have a choice. You need to code a virus / worm, or develop something to take advantage of an exploit. Your goal is: Make as much money as possible. Your choices are: 1.) attack 2% of the market. 2.) Attack 6% of the market. 3.) Attack 92% of the market.
This is the question that black hats make, subconciously. Imagine, how many exploits there would be for Mac or Linux if either of those two platforms had even 10% of the revenue possibility due to their infection rate / payoff rate?
I tend to see this not really as a "flip" to AMD processors as some people seem to insinuate, but rather "an incorporation", so it gives them a little more flexibility when selling machines. They most likely just want to capture a little more market. The part of the market they were missing out on was the AMD fans, and hardcore gamers. Seeing as how they have been toying with the idea of a Quad SLi rig, it seems only natural that they would also toy with processors that have been billed (until core 2 duo) as being better for gaming.
I wouldn't put it past other manufacturers to also try this, thinking that they can make more extra money selling both types of systems, rather than save a few bucks per CPU being exclusive, under contract.
Actually, the only sites I build lately tend to be geared more towards commerce, so when it comes right down to it, I'll code using things that I know will display on IE first, followed by a quick look in firefox / opera to make sure they can click my ads or buy my products or that nothing is horribly disfigured, and lastly, after a few drinks and I can bear to touch the fat, cold silver power button, maybe I'll test Safari, cause in the end it might mean a buck and a half in adsense revenue, and I've gotta pay for that Grey Goose and tonic I just hammered back.
I agree that standards are important, and my intention was never to indroduce any hostility. It's simply more important to me to cash checks than it is to be a martyr for the cause of standards compliance.
Yes, your method is exactly the same one I use, and as I'm coming to learn, it is actually not that restricted.
I never meant to insinuate that Microsoft products were better, or closed platforms were better, or anything of the like. Please try not to take a defeatist attitude when I simply point out that, although not better, some things are more used. I think that standards imposed that defy usage statistics are self-defeating.
And as for the TCP/IP comment, I would gladly turn it off and use netBEUI instead, if it meant that it would be less of a hassle to display 90% of the content on teh intrawebs. I don't try to bias myself to only use / preferably use some technologies based on wether or not they are open or closed standards. I really try not to let idealism get in the way of me actually getting something accomplished.
I've always wondered how the browser that over 90% of the world uses to look at the internet is fighting against standards. It would seem more logical to me if standards reflected how the most prevalent browser rendered things, and designers designed around THOSE parameters. Wait, that's kinda how we do it now isn't it? Are any of you in the habit of testing your CSS docs for strict compliance, then complain when it doesn't render properly, then change it? No..you just know what will work (unless you are a newb) and write that way.
I'm sure that both of you who currently test against standards first will probably have something to say, so go ahead. Just remember the rest of the world probably isn't with you.
That was perhaps the single silliest thing I've ever seen anybody hint to. Nevermind try to pass any of it off as fact.
I still firmly beleive that as a matter of averages, OS security is based on a few different things:
The current market share. The company with the largest slice will be the largest target for..everything.
The technical prowess of the people responsible for coding the exploits for said market leader. It is BY DESIGN that Windows has more security issues. Linux and OSX users are automatically safer for 2 reasons: Most viruses and exploits are programmed by YOUR peers, secondly why bother coding, say, a trojan horse that records keystrokes and credit card numbers if your program only has the possibility of infecting 5-10% of all computers? Well? Nobody ever seems to wonder that. I hear it all the time, "Linux has no viruses" "mac has no vulnerabilities" well, there is a reason for that. The gains to be had for creating malicious code for those platforms would really be nearly pointless. Ask sombody currently in jail why they created a worm or a password theif for microsoft products, and I'm willing to bet the answer is NOT "because it's easier" the answer is most likely going to be "because I wanted to actually like..collect some data. Besides, I didn't want that crap getting onto my Linux machine."
So, heres to you, stackoverflow or buffer overflow or underflow or stack-take-a-dump or what the fuck ever, stop spewing crap and flamebait.
Microsoft is touting "Plays for sure". Big media producers want their stuff to be labelled "Plays for sure" because they understand that if it isn't, then 90 some-odd % of people using their media in conjunction with a computer won't see the shiny badge. In an effort to grease the wheels for big media Microsoft is supporting DRM'd-out-the-ass formats more to appease the media producers. Blame the producers for DRM, not Microsoft for wanting to make sure that their shiny badge can be on as much media as possible. Microsoft likes their shiny badges. It's not their fault.
As far as the other argument, where some people seem to think that their OS should be non-descript, small and boring, that might be a good thing. But, you are just going to fire up a game that uses all your video card anyway. It's like saying "we don't want any graphics, just gameplay.". Well, I suppose that explains why Maximum PC magazine reviews a dozen MUD games in every issue right? The whole industry is better off being all GO and no SHOW.
Personally, I think anybody that MINDS their OS using their graphics hardware, WHEN IT'S NOT DOING ANYTHING AT THE MOMENT ANYWAY needs to re-examine their thinking, just a little. If I can get an OS that can light up my graphics card that I just spent 500 bucks on, and give me a little something extra to look at, then great!
Most of you fail to realise that this is the exact same argument that the indistry has been having before the release of any OS, period. Examples? We upgraded from DOS to windows 1/2/3.x why? More features, more eye candy. We upgraded from 1/2/3.x to Windows 95 why? More features, more eye candy, better support for crazy people (like me) that wanted to use the new hardware. OMFG openGL screensavers? Is Microsoft crazy? If they think I'm going to upgrade to a 2 meg PCI video card JUST so I can have openGL screensavers, they are stupid!. So then what happened? We upgraded to Windows 98 for...Uh, big shocker here, more features, more eye candy. Active desktop anybody? Who here uses Konfabulator (yahoo widgets), the Google bar, or, even for you Mac guys, Konspose? Raise your hands everybody who shit a purple twinkie in '97 because you didn't think crap on your desktop was cool enough to warrant a few CPU cycles. Thanks, Win98!
Ok, so where were we now...Ah, yes Windows 2000. Why did we upgrade? Oh, come on, you know by now! But, it was just a tad different with 2000, wasn't it? yes! By this time people had been on the internet long enough to be producing some of the biggest and baddest little spyware / adware / virus / take over your shit- that in order to stay on top, had to start playing a little harder in the security game. "Built on NT Technology", still one of the worlds largest redundancies, made us feel warm and tingly in our anuses when we booted up.
So, then we arrive at Windows XP. And, the same arguments flew around that beta too, or have we all forgotten. Still, of the visitors to the site, what percentage of Windows visitors are XP users? probably most, if not somewhere in the 95-97% range. Alot of which were the loudmouths using 98 / 2k during the XP beta and cried like little bitches at the system requirments, and eye candy. Some of you may have discovered that you can turn it off, and have since STFU about something you can turn off if you don't like it. Great! We've acertained that the original argument is moot, stupid, redundant, childish and repetitive. Let's all spend the whole day arguing over it now, cause here comes Vista, and..Lo-n-fuckin-behold, they are adding...More features! More eye candy! Higher system requirements! Better security!
And, to the suprise of absolutely nobody, Microsoft takes it to the bank, again. Everybody says the same crap about their product, again. And in the end, you all will be fucking using it. Again. Linux zealots excused, of course, as we all know, they NEVER make
I think Colbert was making a point, be it satire, it was still a point. The only way to negate the point he made would be to turn off editing of wiki entries, thus rendering wikipedia useless. His point was to make fun of something he said, and use a resource that so many of us can relate to. As it turns out, it was a perfect analogy, worked great and I'm sure made more than a few viewers laugh who may have ever used wikipedia for anything.
I'm sure it would be quite funny if Colbert hated Microsoft and submitted something to slashdot about one of Vista's new features. "Watch! I'll make it a bad thing in 5 seconds."
I'm still waiting for the day when Slashdot decides to be a truely neutral news source, rather than allowing themselves to succomb to the biased, sensationalist crap that seems to be posted as legitimate news, seemingly more and more nowadays.
When, oh when can we expect these babies to stop spewing random propeganda and negative spinning simply because they personally don't like a company, or a product. Wake the fuck up guys. Nobody gives a shit about your personal fucking opinion in your headlines, or in your "Tagging (beta)" retarded tags. Try tagging it with Microsoft, or Vista, so...I dunno, maybe so people could fucking use it to find things? The only way to find anything out about Microsoft, Windows or Vista is to look for "fud", "itsatrap" or any of the other fuckwitted, personal opinion-esque, means-absolutely-nothing tags.
We've got a VMS guy that works here that I'm sure will find this retarded healine verbage hilarious. Well done on another fine example of bringing the news to the world. Cheers.
Seconded. And, if at all possible, Zonk, please stop using the Tagging feature keywords to intraject your commentary, and maybe, use some tags that mean something? Just a suggestion. I know this is a -5 waiting to happen, but it needs to be said. The more neutral and open you are about discussion, the more people will respect you as a source of news. When you act like many of the linux zealots around here do, then it tends to seem overly defensive and at times even agressive. Don't automatically force people to loose respect for you by trying to cockpunch every mention of Microsoft or their software. It makes you look cheap, and scared.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps it's just me, but it seems in my world they have had those advertisments all through the battles between AMD and Intel, and it's never been an issue. No, I think I'll stick with the fact that Core 2 benchmarks and hype were starting to surface right around the time that AM2 was sliding into the market. The processor being trounced by Intel in each of the "show us what core 2 can do" reviews? Yep. AM2 AMD chips. Nobody is going to bother spending money on a processor and motherboard upgrade that is pretty much functionally equivalent to their current 939 rig, which really isn't that much different from a 754 rig (close to the diffrence between the Intel LGA 775 5xx series vs the 6xx series). If they wanted AM2 to solidify a new market, they should have waited a couple of months, shrunk the fab and added enough cache to each chip to put them in the same league with the Intel folks. The reason I stopped buying AMD? I got tired of having to dig into the specs to find the chip with more cache. There is NO WAY anybody in their right mind would choose a chip that's clocked 200 mhz higher, but with 512k of cache over one with 1024k, but clocked 200 mhz lower. Can you tell the diffrence between a chip thats 2.4 ghz and one thats 2.6? Probably not. Can you tell the diffrence between a chip with 512k cache and one with 1024k? Uh, yeah.
He said it best. "You can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs, meh, hehe he...hehehehe...."
This package looks great, and I've got a couple of things to comment on that have been being said. Firstly, everybody seems to be talking about this like its some kind of CATOS/IOS ala Cisco replacement. They don't seem to be billing it like that at all, as far as I can tell. Of course, the dedicated "meant to do that" hardware solution from Cisco is going to be legions better than any software you can stuff on a PC.
Lets take the discussion where it probably should have gone, to the guys contracted to set up a network for a local law firm office, with 20 employees. Maybe a veterenerian's office that probably doesn't do that much business (dollar wise). It's the folks like this that might still need what a Cisco has to offer in features, but doesn't need what Cisco offers in capacity, and definatly not what they offer in cost. Considering how (it looks to be) well documented, I don't think that the contractor mentioned will have any problems supporting it. It's our bread and butter.
LOL! I love it.
Ok, reading this conversation, I realised that I need to get a couple of things off my chest. I'll start with an explaination that will let you know better where I'm coming from.
I was part of a rather large group of players that insanely played Tribes 1. In it's hayday, it was a fantastic FPS game, and had quite a loyal following. During the time that we had our "Clan" in this game, we discovered several "ways to cheat" some of which you will think are quite funny, and some are just mean.
There was a map (CTF) where the forcefield was the only thing separating the flags. We had a good time exploiting the fact that if you placed an acceleration grenade behind you, the game engine couldn't create the collision fast enough and you would end up on the enemy side. Cap out the game in 60 seconds. This irritated the opposing team, until we taught them how to do it.
There was another instance, after I started dabbling with map making, where we came up with the idea to create a cave. It had not really been done before in this game, as all the outdoor areas were skies, and anything with a roof was part of a static structure. What we did was take a secondary terrain, invert it upside down and lower it over the top of the existing terrain to create a cave-like area with caverns and tunnels.
Now, heres the tricky part. Both bases are represented inside the cave, at opposite ends. On one team, (the one we all made sure we were on before hand) there was a small hole in the upper part of the terrain, which allowed players to go outside of it. After leaving out there, we noticed an interesting thing. The upper terrain, when viewed from the other side, had no back texture (it was see-through). Additionally, it didn't present a collision surface for lobbed projectiles, people or vehicles. So, I did what any borderline sociopath would do, and constructed an elaborate base, complete with ramps, turrets, generators, vehicle pads, command stations and buildings...above the ceiling of the enemy base. After spending a 45 minute match up there with a few team mates chuckling at the enemies who can't figure out where the mortar shells are coming from (they would appear to fall from the ceiling), you'll understand how fun cheating would be.
But, to my point I must go. Every single person who ever came on the server and played that map with us was always FURIOUS after about 5 minutes. Point? 90% of the time, after being shown what was actually happening, the people, who minutes before were the victims of the cheating, were thrilled- laughing and joking about how neat it was, and before you know it, they were camping up there with us waiting for more people to join the server on the other team. Moral of this story? I don't suppose there really is one. Cheating is a part of everything that humans do, in life, as a condition of being human. People lie. People steal. People cheat. There isn't a single person reading this who hasnt told at least one lie today. Face it, it's part of the human condition. Most people dont like being the victim of a cheat simply because they don't like feeling like the subject of a joke. Once you become the person meteing out the joke on others, the whole dynamic changes.
I have two, as well as a 15 pin D-Sub for PC connections.
m l/
http://www.flatpanelman.com/zenith-z52sz80-dlp.ht
I think it's a symptom of technology, personally. We love technology as good little consumer whores. Well, just so happens, so do the greedy bastards at record labels. Just as much as we like to use technology, in increasingly grave amounts to make our lives easier, faster, dumber, cheaper, smoother, so do they. Unfortunatly, it's become far too easy for them to screw with our lives as far as consumption of entertainment goes.
Perhaps it's time for them to be taught that their product is simply not as valuable as they think it is and try to sue us into thinking it is as well.
It seems as though Microsoft is / will have it's security products built into Vista, and will most likely build them into the TCP/IP stack at some level. Here is what most people seem to be ignoring here, and it's pretty simple.
d =l1o2uFAj23U~/
As it always has been, you can choose to use or disable any part of any feature in Windows. As it sits now with RC1, you can enable / disable features at will. Wireless networking configuration is built into Windows XP, but as everybody here knows who has a wireless network device of some sort, upon driver / software installation, that application takes over the duties of the Windows feature, usually by default. I don't know why anybody would have a reason to think that this would be any different from having a firewall in the OS, which, at the request of the user (by way of installation) gets replaced by some other product. We'll leave the discussion about inferiority for another time.
People really should stop talking about a feature of Vista as if its sure to be some set in stone incumberance, and it most likely will not be.
Oh, but it's built into TCP/IP! Anybody here ever installed the Novell client in Windows? Ever see what it does to your network protocols? Microsoft has said time and time again that it is keeping with backwards compatibility, are we naive enough to think that this won't include clients, protocols, craptastic software firewalls and anti-virus-viruses? Not so much. For those of you that need to experience a Novell client install for yourselves, go ahead. It's uninstallable. http://download.novell.com/SummaryFree.jsp?buildi
Long live the corporate technology curve riding techniques.
It's hard to convince the average user to switch to Linux, because in order to want to switch, you have to care, and unfortunatly the average user doesn't give a shit.
Oh, damn, I just got off the phone with 1996. They want their wit back.
Although Vista will more likely be widespread, I hope everybody realises that IPv6 was implemented in OSX quite some time ago. Or is Vista's implementation different somehow?
I like chiming in on these discussions about Windows and Linux. Guys, it's real easy to squelch the average fanboy, so sing it with me now!
1.) Find me a way to use my X-Fi in a Linux distro. I don't want to have to put the Audigy in to have sound. It's been out for over a year now, come the fuck on.
2.) Get me a proper way to use ANY of the current 3D games on the market, or..actually, scratch current, let's go with the last 2-3 years. If you say Wine, then I'll be seeing you on the server later, while you, and your 15 FPS are getting your ass handed to you by a kid with a PIII 733 and a GeForce 3. Don't even start with your "But I get 90 FPS blah blah" because for the same hardware / cost I run 150% faster then you, mkay? Thats what happens when developping support for a product means you'll be able to feed your wife and kids, or husband and kids for you lady developpers out there.
3.) Get me a "decent" productivity suite that won't mangle a spreadsheet created in Excel. Also, one that is able to save and open properly in excel would be nice too. And I don't mean your grandmother's supermarket list, I mean a good, heavy spreadsheet that has ODBC connections, graphs and miles of calculations (you know, the types that corporate america uses, like this pharmaceutical company I work at.)
4.) Spend a little more time on NTFS support. Don't cry about closed formats and Microsoft-bashing. Just fucking do it already. Banks can be hacked. School grades can be changed - one of you fanboys can't seem to get NTFS support that wont fuck my MFT if you try to write to it? Come on, it's over 10 years old now, get with the program.
So, l3v1, stop getting all worked up to the point where you can't spell, form proper sentences or use punctuation. Don't rush to be the first fanboy to puff out the chest at a Windows admin when he makes a couple of points and use that energy to make your OS more friendly. Linux, you are the underdog. I respect you. I use you for things that you are damn good at (firewall). If you want to win me over, convince your developpers to stop hanging out at Slashdot looking for Windows admins they can yell "LOLOL BSOD PWNZORED" at and get them to contribute to something that actually does some good.
Why do I get the feeling that ISP's spend way too much time finding ways to curb speeds and restrict usage, just so they can keep claiming speed ratings to sign more people up?
You want an easier time with bandwidth? Stop selling and promising your customers a perticular speed with your service. Drop it down a notch, then maybe you'll have enough to go around, rather than claim something and then spend the next 2 years trying to figure out how you can throttle my torrent traffic so that granny across the street can still download family reuinion e-mail at 5 mbit.
Cocksuckers.
Was this meant as a broad stroke slam at all the current top companies in the industry? Did you actually mean to insinuate that this town's "*nix" solution incorporates routers, switches, muxers and ATM line equipment from a company other than Cisco? Can you elaborate on that? Are there any others in the industry aside from yourself that might be able to substantiate the claims you seem to be making that the current top companies in technology are "zero-innovation"?
Oh, I see. Adjectives such as "Forward-thinking", "Proud", "Practical" apply more / only to people who choose to move away from sucsessful companies and their products? It wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that the entire town runs on a budget remarkably similar to the budget of a small school district in a rural area, would it? Also, I'm curious to see some demographic data that you are obviously privvy to that demonstrates the correlation between literacy rates and where a FOSS branch appears. Seriously. 5 Informative now, so, put your money where your mouth is and let's see some non-make beleive statistics, based in fact and non-biased by what is obviously a karma whore move by yet another FOSS crusader that uses every possibly chance they have to try and turd polish.
Don't get me wrong, I love the whole idea of FOSS, and I generally agree with most of the things you guys say, but this is just childish. Let's see some hard facts before we moderate posts like this. "that sounds pretty good and pro-foss" shouldn't cut it as being top-rated informative.
The only people currently testing the security of the system are a few black hat guys, maybe some dev's from Apple, but the biggest threat to security isn't the architechture or the OS or any of that junk.
Black Hat, you have a choice. You need to code a virus / worm, or develop something to take advantage of an exploit. Your goal is: Make as much money as possible. Your choices are: 1.) attack 2% of the market. 2.) Attack 6% of the market. 3.) Attack 92% of the market.
This is the question that black hats make, subconciously. Imagine, how many exploits there would be for Mac or Linux if either of those two platforms had even 10% of the revenue possibility due to their infection rate / payoff rate?
I wouldn't put it past other manufacturers to also try this, thinking that they can make more extra money selling both types of systems, rather than save a few bucks per CPU being exclusive, under contract.
I agree that standards are important, and my intention was never to indroduce any hostility. It's simply more important to me to cash checks than it is to be a martyr for the cause of standards compliance.
Yes, your method is exactly the same one I use, and as I'm coming to learn, it is actually not that restricted.
And as for the TCP/IP comment, I would gladly turn it off and use netBEUI instead, if it meant that it would be less of a hassle to display 90% of the content on teh intrawebs. I don't try to bias myself to only use / preferably use some technologies based on wether or not they are open or closed standards. I really try not to let idealism get in the way of me actually getting something accomplished.
I'm sure that both of you who currently test against standards first will probably have something to say, so go ahead. Just remember the rest of the world probably isn't with you.
I still firmly beleive that as a matter of averages, OS security is based on a few different things:
The current market share. The company with the largest slice will be the largest target for..everything. The technical prowess of the people responsible for coding the exploits for said market leader. It is BY DESIGN that Windows has more security issues. Linux and OSX users are automatically safer for 2 reasons: Most viruses and exploits are programmed by YOUR peers, secondly why bother coding, say, a trojan horse that records keystrokes and credit card numbers if your program only has the possibility of infecting 5-10% of all computers? Well? Nobody ever seems to wonder that. I hear it all the time, "Linux has no viruses" "mac has no vulnerabilities" well, there is a reason for that. The gains to be had for creating malicious code for those platforms would really be nearly pointless. Ask sombody currently in jail why they created a worm or a password theif for microsoft products, and I'm willing to bet the answer is NOT "because it's easier" the answer is most likely going to be "because I wanted to actually like..collect some data. Besides, I didn't want that crap getting onto my Linux machine."
So, heres to you, stackoverflow or buffer overflow or underflow or stack-take-a-dump or what the fuck ever, stop spewing crap and flamebait.
As far as the other argument, where some people seem to think that their OS should be non-descript, small and boring, that might be a good thing. But, you are just going to fire up a game that uses all your video card anyway. It's like saying "we don't want any graphics, just gameplay.". Well, I suppose that explains why Maximum PC magazine reviews a dozen MUD games in every issue right? The whole industry is better off being all GO and no SHOW.
Personally, I think anybody that MINDS their OS using their graphics hardware, WHEN IT'S NOT DOING ANYTHING AT THE MOMENT ANYWAY needs to re-examine their thinking, just a little. If I can get an OS that can light up my graphics card that I just spent 500 bucks on, and give me a little something extra to look at, then great!
Most of you fail to realise that this is the exact same argument that the indistry has been having before the release of any OS, period. Examples? We upgraded from DOS to windows 1/2/3.x why? More features, more eye candy. We upgraded from 1/2/3.x to Windows 95 why? More features, more eye candy, better support for crazy people (like me) that wanted to use the new hardware. OMFG openGL screensavers? Is Microsoft crazy? If they think I'm going to upgrade to a 2 meg PCI video card JUST so I can have openGL screensavers, they are stupid!. So then what happened? We upgraded to Windows 98 for...Uh, big shocker here, more features, more eye candy. Active desktop anybody? Who here uses Konfabulator (yahoo widgets), the Google bar, or, even for you Mac guys, Konspose? Raise your hands everybody who shit a purple twinkie in '97 because you didn't think crap on your desktop was cool enough to warrant a few CPU cycles. Thanks, Win98!
Ok, so where were we now...Ah, yes Windows 2000. Why did we upgrade? Oh, come on, you know by now! But, it was just a tad different with 2000, wasn't it? yes! By this time people had been on the internet long enough to be producing some of the biggest and baddest little spyware / adware / virus / take over your shit- that in order to stay on top, had to start playing a little harder in the security game. "Built on NT Technology", still one of the worlds largest redundancies, made us feel warm and tingly in our anuses when we booted up.
So, then we arrive at Windows XP. And, the same arguments flew around that beta too, or have we all forgotten. Still, of the visitors to the site, what percentage of Windows visitors are XP users? probably most, if not somewhere in the 95-97% range. Alot of which were the loudmouths using 98 / 2k during the XP beta and cried like little bitches at the system requirments, and eye candy. Some of you may have discovered that you can turn it off, and have since STFU about something you can turn off if you don't like it. Great! We've acertained that the original argument is moot, stupid, redundant, childish and repetitive. Let's all spend the whole day arguing over it now, cause here comes Vista, and ..Lo-n-fuckin-behold, they are adding...More features! More eye candy! Higher system requirements! Better security!
And, to the suprise of absolutely nobody, Microsoft takes it to the bank, again. Everybody says the same crap about their product, again. And in the end, you all will be fucking using it. Again. Linux zealots excused, of course, as we all know, they NEVER make
I'm sure it would be quite funny if Colbert hated Microsoft and submitted something to slashdot about one of Vista's new features. "Watch! I'll make it a bad thing in 5 seconds."
When, oh when can we expect these babies to stop spewing random propeganda and negative spinning simply because they personally don't like a company, or a product. Wake the fuck up guys. Nobody gives a shit about your personal fucking opinion in your headlines, or in your "Tagging (beta)" retarded tags. Try tagging it with Microsoft, or Vista, so...I dunno, maybe so people could fucking use it to find things? The only way to find anything out about Microsoft, Windows or Vista is to look for "fud", "itsatrap" or any of the other fuckwitted, personal opinion-esque, means-absolutely-nothing tags.
We've got a VMS guy that works here that I'm sure will find this retarded healine verbage hilarious. Well done on another fine example of bringing the news to the world. Cheers.
Seconded. And, if at all possible, Zonk, please stop using the Tagging feature keywords to intraject your commentary, and maybe, use some tags that mean something? Just a suggestion. I know this is a -5 waiting to happen, but it needs to be said. The more neutral and open you are about discussion, the more people will respect you as a source of news. When you act like many of the linux zealots around here do, then it tends to seem overly defensive and at times even agressive. Don't automatically force people to loose respect for you by trying to cockpunch every mention of Microsoft or their software. It makes you look cheap, and scared.