I think it was a CNET comparison I read of 19 products. Microsoft Security Essentials was something like 2nd out of 19 products in detection, it was the only free product at the top, and it has the smallest footprint out of all 19 tested.
You'd be hard pressed to argue there is a better free product right now.
John Carpenter's The Thing is a much beloved film. And yet it is a remake. Shakespeare borrowed most if not all of his plots from others. Musicians have covered other musicians throughout the entirety of written history.
Not all remakes/revisions/reboots/etc. are inherently terrible. Hollywood has had a string lately of unnecessary and piss-poor remakes.
But what I'm proposing is that Richard Garriott update his own work, better presenting his own vision with hindsight and better technology at his disposal.
But this guy is largely famous for creating the Ultima franchise, which is basically all but dead, because EA sank their fangs into Origin Systems and killed the company.
EA owns the Ultima IP. They also own Bioware, perhaps the number 1 Computer RPG shop on the planet.
Richard Garriott isn't doing anything these days, and I imagine most gamers have never played a single player Ultima these days.
The original Ultima games are barely playable today. The original trilogy is a little too straight forward, full of continuity holes, etc. He wasn't planning a lengthy franchise at that point.
They need to remake the Ultima franchise from the beginning. Arguably they could just use the Dragon Age engine and toolset that Bioware just developed, though I would hope a proper Ultima game would have one seamless world as opposed to maps like Dragon Age. Someone needs to make this happen, like yesterday.
Apparently you missed the part of your own definition where it says "agreed upon by a number of persons or sects".
I'm a huge stickler for semantics. I don't miss parts of definitions. Other postulates (such as mathematical postulates) are widely accepted in academic circles.
I could expand to countless examples of widely accepted beliefs that we can't test, but I don't see the need.
You are, in effect, asking how come everything from the earth doesn't get sucked into space, since space is a vacuum
No, I'm not. I'm saying there is a dilemma with finite space having a boundary that we can't explain. Furthermore, the current conventional belief is that the universe has a "skin" akin to a balloon since we believe the universe both expands and contracts. We we have no way to explain or test these theories. In fact, they fly in the face of other basic precepts of physics we also assume to be true.
You've done nothing but make ad hominem attacks while demonstrating that you don't understand basic concepts. Apparently I need to quote you again. You said:
all such postulates must be testable and falsifiable
This boils down to you getting upset at my statement that God is a postulate. Your reaction seems to step from the fact that you don't know what a postulate is.
You paste a definition now which entirely refutes your entire previous statements.
I did not say all atheists share the exact same beliefs. I said we all have our religions, that is, we all subscribe to subsets of larger cultural beliefs that can not be proven, nor tested.
Wrong. At best, you could argue that Atheists have one specific belief in common
No, we all have a variety of beliefs about a number of things that can not be proven.
Suction requires a pressure differential.
That is precisely the problem. You have a finite amount of mass. What happens just beyond the boundary where there is no mass? You'd literally have absolutely nothing and a pressure differential. What would stop constant expansion? And is there a finite barrier? These wholes in physics where brought up to me by an atheist with a Master's in physics.
Sheer nonsense. Mathematics, pretty much by definition, consists of postulates which have been proven.
You have no idea what you're talking about. Open a dictionary and look up the definition of postulate. A postulate can not be proven. Nor can they be tested. A postulate is something we simply accept because it can not be tested, hence my statement that God is a postulate.
If you had even the most rudimentary understanding of math or science, you would understand this. Instead you're being contrarian about concepts you don't understand.
Furthermore, while there are "proofs" in math, the scientific principle can only disprove, not prove.
A religion is defined as a "specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects"
Even atheists have a fundamental set of beliefs.
Next, look up the definition of postulate: something taken as self-evident or assumed without proof as a basis for reasoning.
I have a friend who is an atheist. He believes in all kinds of things that aren't proven. In the field of physics, it is generally taught that all matter in the universe is finite, even though it breaks all understandings of physics to suggest that at the barrier/edge of all mass, nothing exists beyond that, but the mass isn't sucked into the resulting vacuum. Yet conversely, the concept that mass is infinite breaks most understandings of physics as well.
We don't have proof of reason to operate under the assumption that mass is fine, but we accept it without reason.
Dark matter and dark energy are largely postulates at this point.
A good chunk of math and science is heavily dependent on believing in things that can't be tested or proven.
In most any field you will find postulates. We all have things we simply believe. To suggest the one person has the right to believe in something that can't be proven, where as another doesn't is discrimination.
Except SBS can not have a backup domain controller. If you're willing to have one box with a live backup that your entire business depends on, you're fine.
If you want a backup DC, the pricing structure blows up pretty quick.
Windows 1 Windows 2 Windows 3 Windows NT 3.1 Windows 3.11 for Workgroups Windows NT 3.5 Windows 95 Windows NT 4 Windows 98 Windows 98SE Windows ME Windows 2000 (with Pro, Advanced, etc. etc.) Windows XP Windows XP x64 Windows Media Center 2005 Windows Tablet Windows Vista Windows Media Center 2008 Windows Media Center 2008 R2 Windows 7
I can honestly say I've used everything from Windows 3.1 on, except the Tablet edition. Windows CE, Server, and Mobile editions were left out.
Software should gain new features with each version. The addditional functionality of the OS should be a given over the years.
I'll give you that they aren't jacking the price of the Home version given the price in 1985, but have you seen their Enterprise Server pricing model?
Let's say you're a small business that needs 25 seats.
You pay for a server license for your domain controller, and a server license for a backup domain controller. Since you're a small shop, that is also the box you run Exchange off of. For both Windows Server and Exchange, you need CALs in addition to the server licenses.
Then each end user basically needs a SEPERATE client license from the CAL, since their individual desktop OSes need a license, and for email, they need Outlook licenses.
Shouldn't the server CAL effectively be the same thing as the client software license? They're double-dipping on what is already a very expensive license.
Home users pirate Windows en-masse, or get it pre-installed with their computer via a cheap OEM license bundled in. Microsoft makes their money on enterprise licensing, where they do jack their prices.
Gates saw demonstrations from Xerox and wanted to copy what they were doing. He was also stealing some concepts from Apple. He asked IBM to bank-roll him, promising to develop OS/2 for IBM as the operating system to end all operating systems.
Secretly, they were working on Windows, while also semi-sabotaging OS/2. So they were basically defrauding IBM of money to fund Windows production, which didn't really turn into much of a real product until Windows 3.1.
Is there some other secrets to the origin story I'm missing?
You just, but RMS apparently does something similar to this. We fires up page requests from the command line, and has the results return in a mail client as pure text.
Firefox has an intentional feature where they keep fully rendered pages in memory so they can reload faster when you hit back. They also keep full tab sessions in memory after you close tabs. You can turn these features off if you don't like them.
That being said, I leave Firefox open for days, if not weeks. I run tons of tabs, Greasemonkey scripts, extensions, etc. I haven't seen memory leaks since the Firefox 2.0 days.
I keep considered switching to Chrome, but Greasemonkey scripts still don't work properly, and I can't stop ads from loading. (Chrome adblock solutions render the ad even there is malicious code, but hides it from showing)
1. Everything a user would want needs to work out of the box, even if that means bundling proprietary video drivers, Flash, etc. 2. They need a major retail presence. Red Hat had boxed copies in stores ages ago, but most users aren't comfortable replacing an OS. You need to be able to purchase a computer with Linux preinstalled from major retailers. There have been very minor experiments with this, but most retailers seemed to push customers away from the Linux models. This may change a bit with Chrome on netbooks, but Chrome is largely just a browser. 3. Linux names marketing. With fragmentation, this is difficult. Google will add some name recognition, but until the average person develops some trust with the Linux "brand", you won't see massive acceptance. 4. Migration needs to be simple. An installer should help you migrate your documents and settings over without too much pain or grief.
These goals can be accomplished partially by the community (word-of-mouth advertising, perhaps running a community GetLinux.com site akin to the GetFirefox campaign, etc), but part of this needs to come from major Linux companies like Canonical.
Until those four points are addressed, don't ever expect Linux on the desktop to be anything but a niche product.
He may not be aware of quality issues, but they certainly exist.
He is right that it is a byproduct of size. Ubuntu has massive repositories, and plenty of users to discover bugs. However, I doubt Ubuntu has the engineering experience or staff of Red Hat or Novell.
I know that choice is a good thing, but distro fragmentation has gone too far. I think the Linux community needs a few leaders to organize the fractured community and consolidate/coordinate efforts to improving quality overall.
Instead of X number of package maintainers working on Arch, and X working on Sabayon, and X working on Mandriva, and X working on Mint, and X working on Slackware, and X working on PCLinuxOS, etc. I really think the major distros need to bring the community to them.
Instead of 10 Fedora forks, why not try to integrate those community efforts into improving Fedora? And the same for Ubuntu.
If you've regularly read him, he certainly isn't the biggest fan of Microsoft. His supposed "Open Road" column isn't about being open so much as it is about getting away from Microsoft.
I'm not a zealot who insists on 100% FOSS, and I have no problems mixing open with proprietary personally. When I asked Matt about it above, I suspected I knew how he'd answer. I figured it was a question however that others would want answered given his new role.
I assume he will have no qualms mixing proprietary products in his releases, and even offering closed products and services. (As a non-Ubuntu user, I believe Ubuntu One is currently closed-source, but I don't know for sure). However, I seriously doubt he will bend Ubuntu to Microsoft's whims. That doesn't seem to be his m.o.
Slashdot Mirror
I always recommend using a dedicated anti-spyware scanner alongside a dedicated anti-virus scanner.
Malwarebytes is decent, but it isn't 100% free. It is a free trial. It does harass you upgrade.
I recommend Spybot Search and Destroy because it is 100%, and the Immunize feature helps protect you from getting infections in the first place.
The stack I recommend for most users is:
Firefox + Adblock Plus (+ Noscript if you know what you're doing, but it doesn't pass the Grandma test)
HOSTS file
Spybot Search and Destroy
MSE
I don't run the Spybot real time protection, so the above stack uses very little in the way of resources yet provides very good security.
I think it was a CNET comparison I read of 19 products. Microsoft Security Essentials was something like 2nd out of 19 products in detection, it was the only free product at the top, and it has the smallest footprint out of all 19 tested.
You'd be hard pressed to argue there is a better free product right now.
John Carpenter's The Thing is a much beloved film. And yet it is a remake. Shakespeare borrowed most if not all of his plots from others. Musicians have covered other musicians throughout the entirety of written history.
Not all remakes/revisions/reboots/etc. are inherently terrible. Hollywood has had a string lately of unnecessary and piss-poor remakes.
But what I'm proposing is that Richard Garriott update his own work, better presenting his own vision with hindsight and better technology at his disposal.
Yes, and it is very much worth linking to.
http://www.u5lazarus.com/
Many of the same people have been working on an Ultima VI remake, and a generic platform for Ultima remakes continuing the U5-Lazarus code.
http://u6project.com/
But this guy is largely famous for creating the Ultima franchise, which is basically all but dead, because EA sank their fangs into Origin Systems and killed the company.
EA owns the Ultima IP. They also own Bioware, perhaps the number 1 Computer RPG shop on the planet.
Richard Garriott isn't doing anything these days, and I imagine most gamers have never played a single player Ultima these days.
The original Ultima games are barely playable today. The original trilogy is a little too straight forward, full of continuity holes, etc. He wasn't planning a lengthy franchise at that point.
They need to remake the Ultima franchise from the beginning. Arguably they could just use the Dragon Age engine and toolset that Bioware just developed, though I would hope a proper Ultima game would have one seamless world as opposed to maps like Dragon Age. Someone needs to make this happen, like yesterday.
Apparently you missed the part of your own definition where it says "agreed upon by a number of persons or sects".
I'm a huge stickler for semantics. I don't miss parts of definitions. Other postulates (such as mathematical postulates) are widely accepted in academic circles.
I could expand to countless examples of widely accepted beliefs that we can't test, but I don't see the need.
You are, in effect, asking how come everything from the earth doesn't get sucked into space, since space is a vacuum
No, I'm not. I'm saying there is a dilemma with finite space having a boundary that we can't explain. Furthermore, the current conventional belief is that the universe has a "skin" akin to a balloon since we believe the universe both expands and contracts. We we have no way to explain or test these theories. In fact, they fly in the face of other basic precepts of physics we also assume to be true.
You've done nothing but make ad hominem attacks while demonstrating that you don't understand basic concepts. Apparently I need to quote you again. You said:
all such postulates must be testable and falsifiable
This boils down to you getting upset at my statement that God is a postulate. Your reaction seems to step from the fact that you don't know what a postulate is.
You paste a definition now which entirely refutes your entire previous statements.
There is a very simple flow of logic here.
I did not say all atheists share the exact same beliefs. I said we all have our religions, that is, we all subscribe to subsets of larger cultural beliefs that can not be proven, nor tested.
Wrong. At best, you could argue that Atheists have one specific belief in common
No, we all have a variety of beliefs about a number of things that can not be proven.
Suction requires a pressure differential.
That is precisely the problem. You have a finite amount of mass. What happens just beyond the boundary where there is no mass? You'd literally have absolutely nothing and a pressure differential. What would stop constant expansion? And is there a finite barrier? These wholes in physics where brought up to me by an atheist with a Master's in physics.
Sheer nonsense. Mathematics, pretty much by definition, consists of postulates which have been proven.
You have no idea what you're talking about. Open a dictionary and look up the definition of postulate. A postulate can not be proven. Nor can they be tested. A postulate is something we simply accept because it can not be tested, hence my statement that God is a postulate.
If you had even the most rudimentary understanding of math or science, you would understand this. Instead you're being contrarian about concepts you don't understand.
Furthermore, while there are "proofs" in math, the scientific principle can only disprove, not prove.
A religion is defined as a "specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects"
Even atheists have a fundamental set of beliefs.
Next, look up the definition of postulate: something taken as self-evident or assumed without proof as a basis for reasoning.
I have a friend who is an atheist. He believes in all kinds of things that aren't proven. In the field of physics, it is generally taught that all matter in the universe is finite, even though it breaks all understandings of physics to suggest that at the barrier/edge of all mass, nothing exists beyond that, but the mass isn't sucked into the resulting vacuum. Yet conversely, the concept that mass is infinite breaks most understandings of physics as well.
We don't have proof of reason to operate under the assumption that mass is fine, but we accept it without reason.
Dark matter and dark energy are largely postulates at this point.
A good chunk of math and science is heavily dependent on believing in things that can't be tested or proven.
In most any field you will find postulates. We all have things we simply believe. To suggest the one person has the right to believe in something that can't be proven, where as another doesn't is discrimination.
God is a postulate and we all have our own religions.
Except SBS can not have a backup domain controller. If you're willing to have one box with a live backup that your entire business depends on, you're fine.
If you want a backup DC, the pricing structure blows up pretty quick.
Windows CE, Server, and Mobile editions were left out.
Windows 1
Windows 2
Windows 3
Windows NT 3.1
Windows 3.11 for Workgroups
Windows NT 3.5
Windows 95
Windows NT 4
Windows 98
Windows 98SE
Windows ME
Windows 2000 (with Pro, Advanced, etc. etc.)
Windows XP
Windows XP x64
Windows Media Center 2005
Windows Tablet
Windows Vista
Windows Media Center 2008
Windows Media Center 2008 R2
Windows 7
I can honestly say I've used everything from Windows 3.1 on, except the Tablet edition. Windows CE, Server, and Mobile editions were left out.
I think I was using TDOS and Norton Commander, but maybe my memory is hazy, but I can't find much on Google about TDOS.
Software should gain new features with each version. The addditional functionality of the OS should be a given over the years.
I'll give you that they aren't jacking the price of the Home version given the price in 1985, but have you seen their Enterprise Server pricing model?
Let's say you're a small business that needs 25 seats.
You pay for a server license for your domain controller, and a server license for a backup domain controller. Since you're a small shop, that is also the box you run Exchange off of. For both Windows Server and Exchange, you need CALs in addition to the server licenses.
Then each end user basically needs a SEPERATE client license from the CAL, since their individual desktop OSes need a license, and for email, they need Outlook licenses.
Shouldn't the server CAL effectively be the same thing as the client software license? They're double-dipping on what is already a very expensive license.
Home users pirate Windows en-masse, or get it pre-installed with their computer via a cheap OEM license bundled in. Microsoft makes their money on enterprise licensing, where they do jack their prices.
I thought the story was something like this:
Gates saw demonstrations from Xerox and wanted to copy what they were doing. He was also stealing some concepts from Apple. He asked IBM to bank-roll him, promising to develop OS/2 for IBM as the operating system to end all operating systems.
Secretly, they were working on Windows, while also semi-sabotaging OS/2. So they were basically defrauding IBM of money to fund Windows production, which didn't really turn into much of a real product until Windows 3.1.
Is there some other secrets to the origin story I'm missing?
I generally only really run with Adblock Plus, Greasemonkey, and Nightly Tester Tools. The only GM scripts I run with are for Facebook.
If I hazard a guess as to your situation, I'd guess it is likely a single GM script.
Windows XP with no apps is a little lightweight compared to KDE bundled with countless KDE apps in total disc space.
But there are 64-bit builds of Putty.
You just, but RMS apparently does something similar to this. We fires up page requests from the command line, and has the results return in a mail client as pure text.
Firefox has an intentional feature where they keep fully rendered pages in memory so they can reload faster when you hit back. They also keep full tab sessions in memory after you close tabs. You can turn these features off if you don't like them.
That being said, I leave Firefox open for days, if not weeks. I run tons of tabs, Greasemonkey scripts, extensions, etc. I haven't seen memory leaks since the Firefox 2.0 days.
I keep considered switching to Chrome, but Greasemonkey scripts still don't work properly, and I can't stop ads from loading. (Chrome adblock solutions render the ad even there is malicious code, but hides it from showing)
I've heard that Ubuntu was developing such a tool. I'm curious to check it out.
As for typos, above I typed Linux names marketing when I was thinking Linux needs marketing.
1. Everything a user would want needs to work out of the box, even if that means bundling proprietary video drivers, Flash, etc.
2. They need a major retail presence. Red Hat had boxed copies in stores ages ago, but most users aren't comfortable replacing an OS. You need to be able to purchase a computer with Linux preinstalled from major retailers. There have been very minor experiments with this, but most retailers seemed to push customers away from the Linux models. This may change a bit with Chrome on netbooks, but Chrome is largely just a browser.
3. Linux names marketing. With fragmentation, this is difficult. Google will add some name recognition, but until the average person develops some trust with the Linux "brand", you won't see massive acceptance.
4. Migration needs to be simple. An installer should help you migrate your documents and settings over without too much pain or grief.
These goals can be accomplished partially by the community (word-of-mouth advertising, perhaps running a community GetLinux.com site akin to the GetFirefox campaign, etc), but part of this needs to come from major Linux companies like Canonical.
Until those four points are addressed, don't ever expect Linux on the desktop to be anything but a niche product.
He may not be aware of quality issues, but they certainly exist.
He is right that it is a byproduct of size. Ubuntu has massive repositories, and plenty of users to discover bugs. However, I doubt Ubuntu has the engineering experience or staff of Red Hat or Novell.
I know that choice is a good thing, but distro fragmentation has gone too far. I think the Linux community needs a few leaders to organize the fractured community and consolidate/coordinate efforts to improving quality overall.
Instead of X number of package maintainers working on Arch, and X working on Sabayon, and X working on Mandriva, and X working on Mint, and X working on Slackware, and X working on PCLinuxOS, etc. I really think the major distros need to bring the community to them.
Instead of 10 Fedora forks, why not try to integrate those community efforts into improving Fedora? And the same for Ubuntu.
If you've regularly read him, he certainly isn't the biggest fan of Microsoft. His supposed "Open Road" column isn't about being open so much as it is about getting away from Microsoft.
I'm not a zealot who insists on 100% FOSS, and I have no problems mixing open with proprietary personally. When I asked Matt about it above, I suspected I knew how he'd answer. I figured it was a question however that others would want answered given his new role.
I assume he will have no qualms mixing proprietary products in his releases, and even offering closed products and services. (As a non-Ubuntu user, I believe Ubuntu One is currently closed-source, but I don't know for sure). However, I seriously doubt he will bend Ubuntu to Microsoft's whims. That doesn't seem to be his m.o.