"Ah ok that explains it, you didn't actually watch the video, but you are making all sorts of opinions about it... got it now. I can see why we should be listening to you."
We can also add the ad hominem to your word and subject shuffle. You also failed to respond to the latter part of my comment. I take it you can't find a quote of him only refering to 'vendors'. Did he or did he not have this to say?
"Hilf argues that the majority of companies advocate open source solely so that they can drive customers to their core business, which is not open source"
"Microsoft offers developers a platform where they can make money selling their software"
"Did you notice the part in the video where he wrote 'vendors' above the circle? He didn't say 'most companies' but technology vendors. Clue in."
The quote given shows him as saying the majority of companies. What was he saying when he wote 'vendors'. At what point did he mention his 'donut economic theory'. I didn't see the show that's why I asked for a transcript.
I've seen Red Hat making money, but not 'down stream developers' and 'everybody' making money. Do you have any real examples of 'everybody' making money in the same way as Red Hat or to argue further your point, Windows developers? Give some numbers.
Subject shuffle and word shuffle at the same time. Never said 'in the same way', possible unwise use of the word 'developers'. In relation to Red Hat these companies use Open Source and make money. Amazon, AOL, BP , Cisco, Dell, Morgan Stanley, Nortel, Siemens, UBS. This URL lists a number of technology companies that partner with Novell. They must be getting some benefit out of it and making money at the same time.
Sure it's possible for Windows developers to make money. But my point is that Hilf is wrong in his assertion that companies advocate Open Source solely to get customers and that by implication, Microsoft and only Microsoft offers a platform where developers can make money. What other reading can be made from this statement?
"Microsoft offers developers a platform where they can make money selling their software" - Bill Hilf
"the expensive part of any phone system is (hold your breath) the phones" - cullenfluffyjennings
"We thought that it will be more cost effective in the long run to go with an open source solution, because of the massive amounts of licensing fees required"
"And given SHSU does not seem to have any intention to support the development of Asterix by buying a support contract from Digium, I sure hope they are doing something to make sure that Asterix get the support that they will need it to have to stay relevant." - cullenfluffyjennings
The article actually doesn't mention a support contract. Daniel actually talks about adding to Asterix and engaging with the online community. Given that the drive for the project was is cost and since the SHSU can handle its own support it wouldn make sense if you can handle your own support issues. Senior voice analyst Aaron Daniel, did have this to say in relation to adding new features to Asterix:
"The only major feature missing.. is secretarial functions.. To fix this, Daniel is looking into extensions to the SIP protocol"
He also mentions getting (and contributing I assume) support from the online community and support from Digum for the T-1 cards
.
"Daniel says he has so far been able to keep up with support issues through mailing lists and the online community that develops and supports Asterisk. Dell provides support on the server hardware, and Digium supports the T-1 cards installed in the boxes."
"Daniel has also created copious documentation on all the Asterisk configurations and changes he's made to the software. "Basically if someone were to have to come in and take over my job, they'd have a pretty quick turnaround on learning what needs to be done," he says."
I'm sure such documentation would be usefull to the support forums that would be doing something Asterix needs to stay relevant.
"too raw to use. Unending list of problems and bugs.. not that stable.. purchase very beefy hardware and hire a guy whoes job it to monitor/fix it 24/7."
"Hilf argues that the majority of companies advocate open source solely so that they can drive customers to their core business, which is not open source"
This doesn't make sense. Most companies are not in the software business. Companies advocate Open Source to get customers - yes. Very presient of you to have spotted that. Business are in the business of making money. Is such revenue somehow different that that made by selling solutions to other developers. It's interesting that you are able to divine their motives. Other reasons they advocate Open Source is to not get locked into a single vendor and the massive benefit they get in sharing development with the Open Source community.
"Microsoft offers developers a platform where they can make money selling their software"
Yet again the 'you can't make money out of Open Source' fud. Red Hat also offer developers a platform where they can make money selling their solutions. Red Hat also makes money offering support contracts. The down stream developers also makes money. Everybody makes money. Do you somehow claim that the Microsoft model is the only valid way of making money out of software. I can't comment on the rest of the interview. Is there a transcript somewhere.
"The launch of Windows Vista will create more than 50,000 technology jobs in six large European countries"
At an average salary of UK£30,000 that would mean Vista adding 1.5^52 or roughly UK£1.5 BILLION to the European economy. Thats US$2,823,734,500 DOLLARS. I don't think so.
"IDC believes that more than half of the gain in Windows-related employment will be specifically related to Windows Vista. It is growth that IDC believes would not occur were Windows Vista not in the market,"
I fail to see the logic. What will Vista bring to these companies that cannot be already done with Open Source solutions. Since when did an Operating System promote growth in an economy. For most companies its a negative on the balance sheet.
"Moreover, for every euro of revenue that Microsoft makes, companies within the IT ecosystem will, on average, make more than 13 euros, IDC found"
Does anyone really believe these numbers. Assuming a third party actually produces a big selling product. For each unit it sells it pays for another license. The revenue of which goes back up the pyramid.
Someone I know who produces drivers for medical diagnostic equipment tells me the company spends one fifth of its budget annually on software licenses alone. I asked why they don't move to Open Source. He replied that they were so tied to the one platform that it would be too disruptive to move. So here we have a company making vital strategic decisions based on what software vendor they buy from.
"what if, for example, there are many more people looking for issues in MSIE than in Firefox?"
"Firefox might seem more secure, while actually MSIE is the more secure of the two!"
"Or what if Microsoft hires some brilliant minds to find holes in Ubuntu"
"whereas the people examining Windows have a hard time because (1) they don't have source code"
IF I can rephrase that.. MSIE is more secure because people don't have access to the source and less people are looking for 'issues' in Firefox. Even if the above were true it defies logic that a browser is more/less secure because of the number of people examining it. And how do you explain the high number of bugs found in MSIE if they don't have access to the source code.
My opinion is that Firefox is more secure because unlike MSIE, it isn't welded to the OS. Firefox running as standard user under Linux is even more secure. A bug in Firefox usually leads to the users home dir being compromised. A bug in MSIE leads to the whole computer being compromised.
"monoculture is attractive because it is cheaper." - Bruce Schneier
"It's not easy to click your fingers and say, 'Windows is a liability; let's just switch.' You soon realize you have to spend even more to get specialized staff for each computing environment," - Andre Gold
You can have diversity without complexity. All your servers connected through a VPN running on embedded hardware would eliminate most of the risks of a monoculture without having to switch to multiple platforms. Running pure Java applications on top of this and the OS becomes irrevent. It would provide a secure end to end solution. The Internet is protected from bots and trojans and your network is protected from the Internet.
"Windows monopoly also ensures you can go to inner Mongolia, switch on a local computer and with 90-odd percent chance make sense of whatever pops up on screen"
"Servers.. have been seized.. during a child porn crackdown"
Where's mention of terrorism and money laundering, the other two jolt words guaranteed to elicid the politically correct response. After all who would object to going after such low life. I'm curious as to why they don't just check the credit card receipts. As if there wasn't money to be made out of this no one would do it.
Is there one experienced Linux user replying here who had a straight forward experience in getting MythTV running, just the one. You know something, with all the above experienced Linux users having difficulty getting mythtv working, having to compile the ivtv drivers, adding the correct repositories and typing apt-get.. I think I'll swim back in to safer waters and license a MS Media Center. All those big tech sounding words have scared me right off:).
was Re:MythTV could be great.
"I can't tell my neighbors MythTV is bitchin' because they're not going to have a clue how do it themselves"
Tell them where they can buy it in the high street.
"and I'm running out of support hours and don't have time to set up everyone with MythTV, let alone support it afterwards."
How would that be any different than supporting MS MCE. If you charged more you would get less 'support' calls.
"What would be really cool is if some company pulled a Red Hat, or Suse, etc., with MythTV whereby they offer their "version" of a MythTV distribution bundled with hardware and all"
What exactly are you refering to when you say pull a Red Hat. Since MythTV *is*GPL-licensed why would they even need to pull a SuSE or what ever.
"Its an article about MythTV which doesn't even really mention MS Media Center except in one small table at the very end"
Actually its titled a Detailed Comparison Chart.
"The table mentioned above compares Myth against MCE 2004.. MCE 2005.. MCE 2005 R2.. Vista.."
What information presented in the chart doesn't apply to MCE 2005/R2/Vista.
Proprietary; pay to obtain and use but not modify, Proprietary codec cannot be changed, No software decoding support for 2004, No support for DivX or MPEG2, Simple setup and configuration, Runs on Windows only, Modest system requirements, No plug-in support, Basic TCP/IP network support (single unit), Record and play locally only.
"I have been using Linux for years (so I am not a total noob) and decided to Give MythTV a try. After months of work and changing TV tuner cards 3 times I gave up."
You know something, you're the third experienced Linux enthusiast on slashdot that can't get their hardware working under nix. What make of cards and OS version? Were the support forums of any help
MythTV will never be any competition to Windows MCE until you can just put in a disk, answer a few yes or no questions and then start using it.
How difficult would the average Windows user have in installing WinCME from scratch.
According to this it relies on special processes to isolate user data. Something I would have thought was de rigur for any moderm Operating System. In the context of the quote I don't see why you need alternative OS. Couldn't something similar be added to the current OSs. Better than that is to embed such functionality directly into the hardware. It's a good idea but hardly a paradigm shift in OS design. Yet another abuse of the I word.
"Asbestos.. provides novel labeling and isolation mechanisms that help contain the effects of exploitable software flaws.. A new event process abstraction provides lightweight, isolated contexts within a single process, allowing the same process to act on behalf of multiple users while preventing it from leaking any single user's data to any other user"
In additional you could innoculate the system against exploits by uniquely scrambling the microcode table and randomly loading data into memory.
True. Which is why you need to (a) execute common sense and (b) have a good virus scanner.
The same applies to a virus scanner. The lastest virus disables it as well as the Windows 'firewall. How does the users common sense detect when a URL links to a malicious script or if an attachment is unsafe.
"Frankly, I've never had a problem with Windows security, because I use things like permissions and limited user accounts on my home computers as well as in the office"
Perhaps you'de like to impart your knowlege to the people who suffered yet another zero day exploit.
"If you're handing out admin privileges to everyone that touches your box, you're doing something wrong from the get-go. You wouldn't do that on Linux and you shouldn't do it on Windows either"
You don't need to do it on Linux. A locked down Windows is unusable.
'Microsoft defaults to that on XP Home edition and such because its too confusing for your "average" user otherwise'
Nonsence, since when is security confusing. MS defaults to that because Windows is unusable otherwise.
'For those people, disabling UAC may as well be "constructing a rocket to fly to space"'
Since when do you need the brains of a rocket scientist to safely browse and type a letter.
"I'm not sure I agree with you about Windows security system. It isn't bad...it should just have different distros for different users."
translation: Windows security isn't bad it's only because it doesn't come in different distros.
"You'd be surprised how many people don't want to mess with security at all"
You'd be suprised how many people don't want to mess with the brakes at all.
"the real problem with Windows isn't even Windows, its the software developers"
QUÉ !
"Applications should be capable of running once you copy the folders...unfortunately, few in the Windows world are that simple to deploy."
That used to be the case until his billness invented the registry to thwart piracy and prevent cloning of the Windows API keeping it a 'moving target' as he put it.
It must be me, but having 3 flavours of linux running, a Mac G4 and 3 PC's with windows XP, XP-x64 and 2003..
You're obviously a lot cleverer than most. Personally I have settled on the one OS, SuSE Linux. It's all I can handle at the one time.
"I don't understand all the flaming back and forth.. "
What flaming, the article stated that: "Vista is an overhyped, late, and pointless update to XP -- a perfectly fine operating system.'", although I wouldn't agree with the opinion regarding XP.
"I love the Linux for getting me on the internet worry free and letting me experiment with all kinds of stuff,"
Surely its also of use to the non technical public..:)
"I dig the Mac for feeding my Ipod and driving my KORG WS"
You happened to pick a keyboard that only has drivers for Mac and Windows, again.
"I just cherisch my Windows flavours for getting my Canos EOS connected"
Coincidentally the one Camera that don't have drivers for Linux. But that's maybe down to the manufacturers.
"and playing my games,"
And catching viruses. How about a games console
"I have dedictated a disc for Vista (RC1 at the moment) and I don't realy see the reason for all the big fuss."
There is no fuss, the article states that there should be no big fuss.
"Everybody is shouting about monopolies and in the same sentence is pushing there own fav OS"
But everybody is not strong arming the OEMs into keeping the other OSes off the desktop.
"I have all those PC's working in harmony and I wouldn't want to part with any of them."
Personally I just see it as a tool. Computers used to work in 'harmony' until someone decided to pollute the protocols.
"Whenever I get comments to ditch this or that it reminds me of all those fundamentalists trying to force their religion onto the world"
Personally when I see comments equating Open Source users with religous zealots from paid propagandists in the media, I get a tad unharmonious.
"I have a hard time seeing the Zealots as any different from terrorists.." - Rob Enderle Oct 20 2003
"make sure Windows firewall is turned on prior to connecting. Period. Do not muck things up with such well-intentioned but poorly-executed crap such as what is on the "personal firewall" market today.
What extra functionality does the Windows firewall provide that the others don't. A software firewall is no protection at all as once you've opened the attachment or clicked on a URL you get infected and the first thing the virus does is disable the 'firewall'
"Why not simply a hardware router/firewall for a lousy 20 bucks? - Jedi Alec
Because everything I've seen for that price is *not* a firewall, but an NAT router. NAT routers are not firewalls..
In other words don't get a hardware firewall because it mightn't be configured correctly. That fails the logic test. The last adsl modem+router I tested was by default NATed and did not allow incoming connections apart from web and email. This web site claims to scan for open ports.
Slashdot Mirror
Yea, "On the other hand .." lets not talk about bugs in IEXPlorer.
"if you want to be safe in IE, turn off ActiveX from untrusted sites"
How do you know what is or is not an untrusted site.
How in any way is that comment "insightful".
Yea, by disabling ActiveX and removing Direct Animation. But does that actually fix the defects in the controls themselves.
Slashdot has done stories on bugs in Firefox. See ..
Slashdot | 611 Defects, 71 Vulnerabilities Found In Firefox
Firefox Analyzed for Bugs by Software
Spyware Disguises Itself as Firefox Extension
I'v also noticed how the same kind of comments from the Winpologists get modded up very quickly.
was Re:Firefox 1.5.07?
"Ah ok that explains it, you didn't actually watch the video, but you are making all sorts of opinions about it... got it now. I can see why we should be listening to you."
We can also add the ad hominem to your word and subject shuffle. You also failed to respond to the latter part of my comment. I take it you can't find a quote of him only refering to 'vendors'. Did he or did he not have this to say?
"Hilf argues that the majority of companies advocate open source solely so that they can drive customers to their core business, which is not open source"
"Microsoft offers developers a platform where they can make money selling their software"
"Did you notice the part in the video where he wrote 'vendors' above the circle? He didn't say 'most companies' but technology vendors. Clue in."
The quote given shows him as saying the majority of companies. What was he saying when he wote 'vendors'. At what point did he mention his 'donut economic theory'. I didn't see the show that's why I asked for a transcript.
I've seen Red Hat making money, but not 'down stream developers' and 'everybody' making money. Do you have any real examples of 'everybody' making money in the same way as Red Hat or to argue further your point, Windows developers? Give some numbers.
Subject shuffle and word shuffle at the same time. Never said 'in the same way', possible unwise use of the word 'developers'. In relation to Red Hat these companies use Open Source and make money. Amazon, AOL, BP , Cisco, Dell, Morgan Stanley, Nortel, Siemens, UBS. This URL lists a number of technology companies that partner with Novell. They must be getting some benefit out of it and making money at the same time.
Sure it's possible for Windows developers to make money. But my point is that Hilf is wrong in his assertion that companies advocate Open Source solely to get customers and that by implication, Microsoft and only Microsoft offers a platform where developers can make money. What other reading can be made from this statement?
"Microsoft offers developers a platform where they can make money selling their software" - Bill Hilf
"the expensive part of any phone system is (hold your breath) the phones" - cullenfluffyjennings
.. is secretarial functions .. To fix this, Daniel is looking into extensions to the SIP protocol"
"We thought that it will be more cost effective in the long run to go with an open source solution, because of the massive amounts of licensing fees required"
"And given SHSU does not seem to have any intention to support the development of Asterix by buying a support contract from Digium, I sure hope they are doing something to make sure that Asterix get the support that they will need it to have to stay relevant." - cullenfluffyjennings
The article actually doesn't mention a support contract. Daniel actually talks about adding to Asterix and engaging with the online community. Given that the drive for the project was is cost and since the SHSU can handle its own support it wouldn make sense if you can handle your own support issues. Senior voice analyst Aaron Daniel, did have this to say in relation to adding new features to Asterix:
"The only major feature missing
He also mentions getting (and contributing I assume) support from the online community and support from Digum for the T-1 cards
. "Daniel says he has so far been able to keep up with support issues through mailing lists and the online community that develops and supports Asterisk. Dell provides support on the server hardware, and Digium supports the T-1 cards installed in the boxes."
"Daniel has also created copious documentation on all the Asterisk configurations and changes he's made to the software. "Basically if someone were to have to come in and take over my job, they'd have a pretty quick turnaround on learning what needs to be done," he says."
I'm sure such documentation would be usefull to the support forums that would be doing something Asterix needs to stay relevant.
was Freeloaders or open source pioneers ?
"too raw to use. Unending list of problems and bugs .. not that stable .. purchase very beefy hardware and hire a guy whoes job it to monitor/fix it 24/7."
was Re:I'd say its a huge mistake
"Hilf argues that the majority of companies advocate open source solely so that they can drive customers to their core business, which is not open source"
This doesn't make sense. Most companies are not in the software business. Companies advocate Open Source to get customers - yes. Very presient of you to have spotted that. Business are in the business of making money. Is such revenue somehow different that that made by selling solutions to other developers. It's interesting that you are able to divine their motives. Other reasons they advocate Open Source is to not get locked into a single vendor and the massive benefit they get in sharing development with the Open Source community.
"Microsoft offers developers a platform where they can make money selling their software"
Yet again the 'you can't make money out of Open Source' fud. Red Hat also offer developers a platform where they can make money selling their solutions. Red Hat also makes money offering support contracts. The down stream developers also makes money. Everybody makes money. Do you somehow claim that the Microsoft model is the only valid way of making money out of software. I can't comment on the rest of the interview. Is there a transcript somewhere.
"The launch of Windows Vista will create more than 50,000 technology jobs in six large European countries"
At an average salary of UK£30,000 that would mean Vista adding 1.5^52 or roughly UK£1.5 BILLION to the European economy. Thats US$2,823,734,500 DOLLARS. I don't think so.
"IDC believes that more than half of the gain in Windows-related employment will be specifically related to Windows Vista. It is growth that IDC believes would not occur were Windows Vista not in the market,"
I fail to see the logic. What will Vista bring to these companies that cannot be already done with Open Source solutions. Since when did an Operating System promote growth in an economy. For most companies its a negative on the balance sheet.
"Moreover, for every euro of revenue that Microsoft makes, companies within the IT ecosystem will, on average, make more than 13 euros, IDC found"
Does anyone really believe these numbers. Assuming a third party actually produces a big selling product. For each unit it sells it pays for another license. The revenue of which goes back up the pyramid.
Someone I know who produces drivers for medical diagnostic equipment tells me the company spends one fifth of its budget annually on software licenses alone. I asked why they don't move to Open Source. He replied that they were so tied to the one platform that it would be too disruptive to move. So here we have a company making vital strategic decisions based on what software vendor they buy from.
"what if, for example, there are many more people looking for issues in MSIE than in Firefox?"
.. MSIE is more secure because people don't have access to the source and less people are looking for 'issues' in Firefox. Even if the above were true it defies logic that a browser is more/less secure because of the number of people examining it. And how do you explain the high number of bugs found in MSIE if they don't have access to the source code.
"Firefox might seem more secure, while actually MSIE is the more secure of the two!"
"Or what if Microsoft hires some brilliant minds to find holes in Ubuntu"
"whereas the people examining Windows have a hard time because (1) they don't have source code"
IF I can rephrase that
My opinion is that Firefox is more secure because unlike MSIE, it isn't welded to the OS. Firefox running as standard user under Linux is even more secure. A bug in Firefox usually leads to the users home dir being compromised. A bug in MSIE leads to the whole computer being compromised.
was Re:We Need More Information
"monoculture is attractive because it is cheaper." - Bruce Schneier
"It's not easy to click your fingers and say, 'Windows is a liability; let's just switch.' You soon realize you have to spend even more to get specialized staff for each computing environment," - Andre Gold
You can have diversity without complexity. All your servers connected through a VPN running on embedded hardware would eliminate most of the risks of a monoculture without having to switch to multiple platforms. Running pure Java applications on top of this and the OS becomes irrevent. It would provide a secure end to end solution. The Internet is protected from bots and trojans and your network is protected from the Internet.
"Windows monopoly also ensures you can go to inner Mongolia, switch on a local computer and with 90-odd percent chance make sense of whatever pops up on screen"
You don't need Windows© to run a Windows Desktop Environment.
Start-> Run check!
Multiple Windows check!
Control Panel check!
Status Bar check!
Desktop Icons check!
Clock in the Status Bar check!
was Re:Windows monopoly
"Servers .. have been seized .. during a child porn crackdown"
Where's mention of terrorism and money laundering, the other two jolt words guaranteed to elicid the politically correct response. After all who would object to going after such low life. I'm curious as to why they don't just check the credit card receipts. As if there wasn't money to be made out of this no one would do it.
That was quick. You must have had that information at your fingertips. Do you have a link to a site detailing the specifications?
Is there one experienced Linux user replying here who had a straight forward experience in getting MythTV running, just the one. You know something, with all the above experienced Linux users having difficulty getting mythtv working, having to compile the ivtv drivers, adding the correct repositories and typing apt-get .. I think I'll swim back in to safer waters and license a MS Media Center. All those big tech sounding words have scared me right off:).
was Re:MythTV could be great.
"I can't tell my neighbors MythTV is bitchin' because they're not going to have a clue how do it themselves"
Tell them where they can buy it in the high street.
"and I'm running out of support hours and don't have time to set up everyone with MythTV, let alone support it afterwards."
How would that be any different than supporting MS MCE. If you charged more you would get less 'support' calls.
"What would be really cool is if some company pulled a Red Hat, or Suse, etc., with MythTV whereby they offer their "version" of a MythTV distribution bundled with hardware and all"
What exactly are you refering to when you say pull a Red Hat. Since MythTV *is* GPL-licensed why would they even need to pull a SuSE or what ever.
was Re:what would be really nice
"Its an article about MythTV which doesn't even really mention MS Media Center except in one small table at the very end"
.. MCE 2005 .. MCE 2005 R2 .. Vista .."
Actually its titled a Detailed Comparison Chart.
"The table mentioned above compares Myth against MCE 2004
What information presented in the chart doesn't apply to MCE 2005/R2/Vista.
Proprietary; pay to obtain and use but not modify, Proprietary codec cannot be changed, No software decoding support for 2004, No support for DivX or MPEG2, Simple setup and configuration, Runs on Windows only, Modest system requirements, No plug-in support, Basic TCP/IP network support (single unit), Record and play locally only.
was Re:Bad title!
"I have been using Linux for years (so I am not a total noob) and decided to Give MythTV a try. After months of work and changing TV tuner cards 3 times I gave up."
You know something, you're the third experienced Linux enthusiast on slashdot that can't get their hardware working under nix. What make of cards and OS version? Were the support forums of any help
MythTV will never be any competition to Windows MCE until you can just put in a disk, answer a few yes or no questions and then start using it.
How difficult would the average Windows user have in installing WinCME from scratch.
was Re:MythTV could be great.
According to this it relies on special processes to isolate user data. Something I would have thought was de rigur for any moderm Operating System. In the context of the quote I don't see why you need alternative OS. Couldn't something similar be added to the current OSs. Better than that is to embed such functionality directly into the hardware. It's a good idea but hardly a paradigm shift in OS design. Yet another abuse of the I word.
.. provides novel labeling and isolation mechanisms that help contain the effects of exploitable software flaws .. A new event process abstraction provides lightweight, isolated contexts within a single process, allowing the same process to act on behalf of multiple users while preventing it from leaking any single user's data to any other user"
" Asbestos
In additional you could innoculate the system against exploits by uniquely scrambling the microcode table and randomly loading data into memory.
"there is a need for a distributed information system/operating environment."
What does Ajax do that a Java application couldn't do better?
True. Which is why you need to (a) execute common sense and (b) have a good virus scanner.
The same applies to a virus scanner. The lastest virus disables it as well as the Windows 'firewall. How does the users common sense detect when a URL links to a malicious script or if an attachment is unsafe.
"Frankly, I've never had a problem with Windows security, because I use things like permissions and limited user accounts on my home computers as well as in the office"
Perhaps you'de like to impart your knowlege to the people who suffered yet another zero day exploit.
"If you're handing out admin privileges to everyone that touches your box, you're doing something wrong from the get-go. You wouldn't do that on Linux and you shouldn't do it on Windows either"
You don't need to do it on Linux. A locked down Windows is unusable.
'Microsoft defaults to that on XP Home edition and such because its too confusing for your "average" user otherwise'
Nonsence, since when is security confusing. MS defaults to that because Windows is unusable otherwise.
'For those people, disabling UAC may as well be "constructing a rocket to fly to space"'
Since when do you need the brains of a rocket scientist to safely browse and type a letter.
"I'm not sure I agree with you about Windows security system. It isn't bad...it should just have different distros for different users."
translation: Windows security isn't bad it's only because it doesn't come in different distros.
"You'd be surprised how many people don't want to mess with security at all"
You'd be suprised how many people don't want to mess with the brakes at all.
"the real problem with Windows isn't even Windows, its the software developers"
QUÉ !
"Applications should be capable of running once you copy the folders...unfortunately, few in the Windows world are that simple to deploy."
That used to be the case until his billness invented the registry to thwart piracy and prevent cloning of the Windows API keeping it a 'moving target' as he put it.
It must be me, but having 3 flavours of linux running, a Mac G4 and 3 PC's with windows XP, XP-x64 and 2003 ..
.. :)
.." - Rob Enderle Oct 20 2003
You're obviously a lot cleverer than most. Personally I have settled on the one OS, SuSE Linux. It's all I can handle at the one time.
"I don't understand all the flaming back and forth.. "
What flaming, the article stated that: "Vista is an overhyped, late, and pointless update to XP -- a perfectly fine operating system.'", although I wouldn't agree with the opinion regarding XP.
"I love the Linux for getting me on the internet worry free and letting me experiment with all kinds of stuff,"
Surely its also of use to the non technical public
"I dig the Mac for feeding my Ipod and driving my KORG WS"
You happened to pick a keyboard that only has drivers for Mac and Windows, again.
"I just cherisch my Windows flavours for getting my Canos EOS connected"
Coincidentally the one Camera that don't have drivers for Linux. But that's maybe down to the manufacturers.
"and playing my games,"
And catching viruses. How about a games console
"I have dedictated a disc for Vista (RC1 at the moment) and I don't realy see the reason for all the big fuss."
There is no fuss, the article states that there should be no big fuss.
"Everybody is shouting about monopolies and in the same sentence is pushing there own fav OS"
But everybody is not strong arming the OEMs into keeping the other OSes off the desktop.
"I have all those PC's working in harmony and I wouldn't want to part with any of them."
Personally I just see it as a tool. Computers used to work in 'harmony' until someone decided to pollute the protocols.
"Whenever I get comments to ditch this or that it reminds me of all those fundamentalists trying to force their religion onto the world"
Personally when I see comments equating Open Source users with religous zealots from paid propagandists in the media, I get a tad unharmonious.
"I have a hard time seeing the Zealots as any different from terrorists
--
was: Re:I realy don't get it
What extra functionality does the Windows firewall provide that the others don't. A software firewall is no protection at all as once you've opened the attachment or clicked on a URL you get infected and the first thing the virus does is disable the 'firewall'
"Why not simply a hardware router/firewall for a lousy 20 bucks? - Jedi Alec
In other words don't get a hardware firewall because it mightn't be configured correctly. That fails the logic test. The last adsl modem+router I tested was by default NATed and did not allow incoming connections apart from web and email. This web site claims to scan for open ports.