No, it proves that people who would have bought an IBM ThinkPad want the best. Since the LeNovo ThinkPad is not the IBM ThinkPad, the best is now the MacBook Pro.
This is as close to my case as could be expected.
I wanted a T61p. With Linux. Or FreeDOS. Or empty. Whatever; I just didn't want to pay for Windows. I'm not using it, I'm not paying for it. Period.
In the time it took me to collect the money, it was out of stock - mostly everywhere (in Croatia). Except for a more expensive version with Vista, and I'm not that stupid.
Then someone told me I could buy a MacBook Pro for that kind of money anyway. Oh, really?
Turned out, oh, yes, really. Comparable hardware, comparable price, available, polished, and with an OS I actually would and do use.
I'm only having some trouble installing Linux on it, but I'll get there, too.
And if I only found a way to stop my gf from trying to steal it... (I think it's because of the remote.)
Even more so, while this can be used to isolate two operating systems from each other, some software is obviously going to run under the operating system. I fail to understand how you can isolate the software from the OS, as well as the usefulness of such a feat. I mean, what's the purpose of the OS then?
Somehow, I don't think the GPL 3 was so poorly written that it could be circumvented so easily.
Wrong. The GPL v2 text says: "either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version."
It is up to the user of the software to choose between GPL v2 or a later version, not up to the author. The author may of course change the license for other versions, but that's another matter.
HTH & HAND
I'm sorry, I don't see either where I said the author chooses nor how it is relevant: if the user chooses so, the software is GPL 3 and MS distributed GPL 3 software.
To be sued for copyright infringement, I must have actually made copes of and distributed GPL'd software, not "conveyed" or "propagated" or any other such language.
Well, why don't you ask the MAFIAA what they think about it.
Making it available in any way (and why vouchers would be excluded escapes me) makes you guilty of copyright infringement. Check one of the recent articles here, for one.
What GPL copyrights is MS impinging upon? MS made a deal with a company that was distributing software with a GPL license, and then the FSF changed the license in an attempt to force MS to give away it's patents. It was a sleazy move by the FSF, and will fail in court, and is harmful to the whole open source movement.
Well, the FSF didn't change the license radically - and it only affects two kinds of software: the software initially written under GPL 3 and the software including the GPL version x or any later.
The software which was licensed under GPL x or later was so licensed even before the GPL 3. And the possibility of license change was plainly stated.
Compare that to companies that reserve the right to drastically change their licensing at any time. Microsoft included.
1. Microsoft DID come out with this "more secure" OS. Like it or not, Vista is a major improvement. But it gets SLAMMED by the average/.'er for the UAC prompts. However, the user is only shown a prompt when an application is doing things that people in this thread are saying applications should not be allowed to do. No, UAC is not an elegant solution. But the problem is that an entire ecosystem of software exists that was not written with an eye on security. These apps are doing things that apps should not be doing, often time just to make things easier on the programmer.. Microsoft needs to throw a UAC when this happens. In time, more and more apps will play by the rules and not throw prompts.
This is a tangent, but still to the point: MSFT is dammed if they do, dammed if they don't.
I haven't used Vista, and probably will not for quite a while.
However, security through annoyance, which is what UAC is by all accounts, is no security at all.
The only way of making Windows secure is, basically, breaking compatibility and starting all over again. Somebody here has a signature saying, I quote from memory: "OS X: because it was easier to make Unix user-friendly than to fix Windows". Which may sound like flamebait, but you yourself admitted the whole ecosystem of software not written with an eye on security. Even more so, I'd add: much of the software relies on certain "features" of Windows which allow such dreadful security.
2. Linux/OSX/Whatever isn't perfect. BY FAR. Right now, the reward is SO GREAT for hacking on windows boxes. You only have to scale a 6 foot fence to gain access to multi-millions of users. In, say, linux, or OSX you have to scale a 9 foot fence to gain access to a fraction of that. Right now, cracking Windows just makes sense for crackers. But you (and others) seem to think that botnets would just go away forever if only Microsoft gets their act together. That's insane. People are getting RICH off botnets. You think they're just going to stop because the game got a bit tougher? No way... As the reward factor of Windows diffuses down to the level of the other mainstream OS's, you'll see they'll get attacked more, too.
I'm sorry, were you telling me something about
"Terrorism won't be a problem once everyone switches to Christianity."
By FSM, praised be His Noodly Appendage, you were. Pot, meet kettle. Kettle, pot.
First, we have yet to see the reward factor of Windows diminishing. And I'm sorry, but I'm skeptical: Windows is defective by design. It is designed to keep compatibility with fundamentally insecure software. It is designed without a way to be really certain the software you're installing is secure. It is designed with a certain userbase in mind, and said userbase is used to working with such insecure software. And to top it all off, it's the most widespread OS - not really going away any time soon, and from what I see, not really improving its security either.
3. Microsoft isn't going anywhere. This is the nature of the game, people! So sitting around here talking about "When everyone switches" or whatever is just silly. It's childish. You think you're part of the solution b/c you run an alternative OS? You're not. If you want to be part of the solution, start thinking about how to defeat these people in a way that doesn't involve bashing Windows.
Well, I did allow for MS to build a fundamentally more secure OS, but it isn't happening.
UAC would be a fairly usable and tolerable thing if Windows users were generally educated, or at least English-speaking. However, since I've experienced non-English-speaking people disabling firewalls and anti-virus programs because the messages they couldn't understand annoyed them, I can tell that more prompts only produce more annoyance to non-expert users. And to expert users as well, for the most time. And you do not want to be annoye
But hey, here's a question: Let's say the airline makes a bunch of modifications to the GPL software they're using. I understand that they do not need to release those modifications unless they distribute the software. Does making Linux-machines available to their customers count as distribution?
I shouldn't think so.
The software stays in one place - the airplane's computers. The passengers do not download the binaries, they just use the software while flying.
Minimum spec to run any other OS will be equally poor, does linux still run on a 386 with 2mb?
Sure, as long as you use a kernel optimized for so little memory by today's standards, probably might want to stick to 2.4 or earlier. Forget about a GUI tho. But there's no reason it wouldn't feel as snappy at the command prompt as it would under DOS. There might be an ultra-lightweight GUI out there somewhere, but bear in mind you're talking about a machine that's barely adequate for Windows 3.1.
I'd think Blackbox, Fluxbox, Window Maker or even Enlightenment would work.
If not, there's always wmii, ratpoison and the like.
Not nice, but probably doable. Unlike a 386 with 4 MB of RAM, onto which I once had to install Win95. Floppy disk install.
The damned thing used to boot for so long that my mother, who used the machine for work, would come in in the morning, turn it on and go grab some coffee. By the time she got back, the computer would be just about ready.
Now, admittedly, I wouldn't really bother experimenting with it, but I'm fairly certain this is still doable - and usable. I don't know the specs of one of my friend's old computers, but it was quite old (maybe a 486?) and we installed Damn Small Linux on it. GUI worked, though he didn't need it - it's just a lynx/nethack machine for the times he's too lazy to get up.
They just said a 90% performance hit to an unrelated system is normal? So where's the "defective by design" tag? Well, the article summary does state that
Microsoft states that 'some of what we are seeing is expected behavior, and some of it is not'
All in all, the performance hit is obviously expected behaviour. I guess it's just the severity of the hit that's unexpected.
They'd probably planned just a 70% performance hit, but we can see their software performs better than expected.
Well, one point in favour of Linux security is the central software repository for each and every distro.
Linux users typically will not - even when the popularity of Linux rises - install random cursors, free smilies and whatnot - simply because they'll be used to installing things from the repository.
And it's quite simple to hammer that into people's heads: the software from the repository is safe. Other software is not.
There is still nothing similar in the Windows world.
I am really bloody sick of Microsoft's shoddy work.
Agreed, but the other thing about this problem that really seems to burn all the sysadmins and network admins and IT geeks out here is that with all the amazing knowledge and problem solving abilities, no one has been able to devise an elegant solution to this problem.
Well, to use the GP's analogy, while the houses are still being built out of gasoline-soaked balsa wood, what can we do to stop fires? Disallow high temperatures?
Microsoft's operating systems are currently the main problem. Until Microsoft deploys a fundamentally more secure OS or people simply stop using Windows to any great extent, there is nothing we can do. Especially nothing elegant.
The only elegant solution that comes to mind, really, is OS X. But that's more of an elegant OS than an elegant solution.
Most Linux users seem to understand that it is unwise to surf while logged in as root, but at the same time they setup the Windows systems at their friends homes to do so, because "it would be too much of a hassle to use separate accounts for admin and working
You mean it is the evil linux haxors that deliberately sabotage poor Microsoft?
That is hilarious.
Even worse: it's the good-natured Linux users who try to find a balance between Joe User's wants and needs on the one hand, and their own patience and free time on the other.
I tried. I really tried securing my ex-gf's family computer. I opened accounts for everyone. I only left admin privileges on one account. Set everything up.
Everybody just used the admin account again. Not even the fact that each could have their own desktop didn't entice them to use their own accounts; instead, they had one desktop full of five people's crud.
Even when I was a kid, I knew where my parents kept their porn. (Living in a one-room apartment doesn't leave many places for hiding stuff anyway.)
My parents, as far as I can tell, knew I was looking at it when I was home alone.
They never raised the issue, and neither did I.
Funnily enough, I can't say it's had a severely detrimental effect on my IQ, grades, social life or anything else. But it did help me relax at times of trouble;)
Similarly, my parents tell me about former Yugoslavia - you could leave your house or car unlocked and nothing would ever happen.
However, in these post-Yugoslavian countries (I live in Croatia), the situation is completely different - though unless something is actually stolen, you can still be quite sure to get it back. The number of thieves has increased dramatically, but common decency is not dead yet.
For instance, I have both returned and heard of people returning lost mobile phones, though I've had mine stolen once. And it's a matter-of-fact thing.
I'm confused. You state you bought a Macbook, and you're installing Gentoo. And then later state that you aren't paying for an OS you won't use. You paid for OS X when you bought that Macbook, even though you're doing the right thing and nuking it from orbit.
There is this concept of dual-booting that I'm sure you must have heard of...
Slashdot Mirror
This is as close to my case as could be expected.
I wanted a T61p. With Linux. Or FreeDOS. Or empty. Whatever; I just didn't want to pay for Windows. I'm not using it, I'm not paying for it. Period.
In the time it took me to collect the money, it was out of stock - mostly everywhere (in Croatia). Except for a more expensive version with Vista, and I'm not that stupid.
Then someone told me I could buy a MacBook Pro for that kind of money anyway. Oh, really?
Turned out, oh, yes, really. Comparable hardware, comparable price, available, polished, and with an OS I actually would and do use.
I'm only having some trouble installing Linux on it, but I'll get there, too.
And if I only found a way to stop my gf from trying to steal it... (I think it's because of the remote.)
Bull.
The GPL does not restrict usage. It restricts distribution - and in a manner completely opposite to DRM.
Ah-HA! So that's what it's all about!
Ah, well... then it'll just be cracked - like any other copy protection.
Even more so, while this can be used to isolate two operating systems from each other, some software is obviously going to run under the operating system. I fail to understand how you can isolate the software from the OS, as well as the usefulness of such a feat. I mean, what's the purpose of the OS then?
Somehow, I don't think the GPL 3 was so poorly written that it could be circumvented so easily.
OK. So does that mean that Novell will be forced to distribute the software under GPL 2 (if possible)?
It is up to the user of the software to choose between GPL v2 or a later version, not up to the author. The author may of course change the license for other versions, but that's another matter.
HTH & HAND
I'm sorry, I don't see either where I said the author chooses nor how it is relevant: if the user chooses so, the software is GPL 3 and MS distributed GPL 3 software.
Or am I getting something wrong?
Well, why don't you ask the MAFIAA what they think about it.
Making it available in any way (and why vouchers would be excluded escapes me) makes you guilty of copyright infringement. Check one of the recent articles here, for one.
Well, the FSF didn't change the license radically - and it only affects two kinds of software: the software initially written under GPL 3 and the software including the GPL version x or any later.
The software which was licensed under GPL x or later was so licensed even before the GPL 3. And the possibility of license change was plainly stated.
Compare that to companies that reserve the right to drastically change their licensing at any time. Microsoft included.
Just wait. Soon enough, they'll be modifying the Moon to look like the Death Star.
At least they'll want us to believe they're only modifying it to look like the Death Star, while actual"#$//" NO CARRIER.
1. Microsoft DID come out with this "more secure" OS. Like it or not, Vista is a major improvement. But it gets SLAMMED by the average /.'er for the UAC prompts. However, the user is only shown a prompt when an application is doing things that people in this thread are saying applications should not be allowed to do. No, UAC is not an elegant solution. But the problem is that an entire ecosystem of software exists that was not written with an eye on security. These apps are doing things that apps should not be doing, often time just to make things easier on the programmer.. Microsoft needs to throw a UAC when this happens. In time, more and more apps will play by the rules and not throw prompts.
This is a tangent, but still to the point: MSFT is dammed if they do, dammed if they don't.
I haven't used Vista, and probably will not for quite a while.
However, security through annoyance, which is what UAC is by all accounts, is no security at all.
The only way of making Windows secure is, basically, breaking compatibility and starting all over again. Somebody here has a signature saying, I quote from memory: "OS X: because it was easier to make Unix user-friendly than to fix Windows". Which may sound like flamebait, but you yourself admitted the whole ecosystem of software not written with an eye on security. Even more so, I'd add: much of the software relies on certain "features" of Windows which allow such dreadful security.
2. Linux/OSX/Whatever isn't perfect. BY FAR. Right now, the reward is SO GREAT for hacking on windows boxes. You only have to scale a 6 foot fence to gain access to multi-millions of users. In, say, linux, or OSX you have to scale a 9 foot fence to gain access to a fraction of that. Right now, cracking Windows just makes sense for crackers. But you (and others) seem to think that botnets would just go away forever if only Microsoft gets their act together. That's insane. People are getting RICH off botnets. You think they're just going to stop because the game got a bit tougher? No way... As the reward factor of Windows diffuses down to the level of the other mainstream OS's, you'll see they'll get attacked more, too.
I'm sorry, were you telling me something about
"Terrorism won't be a problem once everyone switches to Christianity."
By FSM, praised be His Noodly Appendage, you were. Pot, meet kettle. Kettle, pot.
First, we have yet to see the reward factor of Windows diminishing. And I'm sorry, but I'm skeptical: Windows is defective by design. It is designed to keep compatibility with fundamentally insecure software. It is designed without a way to be really certain the software you're installing is secure. It is designed with a certain userbase in mind, and said userbase is used to working with such insecure software. And to top it all off, it's the most widespread OS - not really going away any time soon, and from what I see, not really improving its security either.
3. Microsoft isn't going anywhere. This is the nature of the game, people! So sitting around here talking about "When everyone switches" or whatever is just silly. It's childish. You think you're part of the solution b/c you run an alternative OS? You're not. If you want to be part of the solution, start thinking about how to defeat these people in a way that doesn't involve bashing Windows.
Well, I did allow for MS to build a fundamentally more secure OS, but it isn't happening.
UAC would be a fairly usable and tolerable thing if Windows users were generally educated, or at least English-speaking. However, since I've experienced non-English-speaking people disabling firewalls and anti-virus programs because the messages they couldn't understand annoyed them, I can tell that more prompts only produce more annoyance to non-expert users. And to expert users as well, for the most time. And you do not want to be annoye
True, I believe that 2.x kernels require 4 MB of RAM.
I do think, though, that upgrading the RAM to at least 4 MB shouldn't be too much of a trouble.
But hey, here's a question: Let's say the airline makes a bunch of modifications to the GPL software they're using. I understand that they do not need to release those modifications unless they distribute the software. Does making Linux-machines available to their customers count as distribution?
I shouldn't think so.
The software stays in one place - the airplane's computers. The passengers do not download the binaries, they just use the software while flying.
Sure, as long as you use a kernel optimized for so little memory by today's standards, probably might want to stick to 2.4 or earlier. Forget about a GUI tho. But there's no reason it wouldn't feel as snappy at the command prompt as it would under DOS. There might be an ultra-lightweight GUI out there somewhere, but bear in mind you're talking about a machine that's barely adequate for Windows 3.1.
I'd think Blackbox, Fluxbox, Window Maker or even Enlightenment would work.
If not, there's always wmii, ratpoison and the like.
Not nice, but probably doable. Unlike a 386 with 4 MB of RAM, onto which I once had to install Win95. Floppy disk install.
The damned thing used to boot for so long that my mother, who used the machine for work, would come in in the morning, turn it on and go grab some coffee. By the time she got back, the computer would be just about ready.
Now, admittedly, I wouldn't really bother experimenting with it, but I'm fairly certain this is still doable - and usable. I don't know the specs of one of my friend's old computers, but it was quite old (maybe a 486?) and we installed Damn Small Linux on it. GUI worked, though he didn't need it - it's just a lynx/nethack machine for the times he's too lazy to get up.
Sure they can.
They just cannot run Vista at the same time.
All in all, the performance hit is obviously expected behaviour. I guess it's just the severity of the hit that's unexpected.
They'd probably planned just a 70% performance hit, but we can see their software performs better than expected.
Well, one point in favour of Linux security is the central software repository for each and every distro.
Linux users typically will not - even when the popularity of Linux rises - install random cursors, free smilies and whatnot - simply because they'll be used to installing things from the repository.
And it's quite simple to hammer that into people's heads: the software from the repository is safe. Other software is not.
There is still nothing similar in the Windows world.
Agreed, but the other thing about this problem that really seems to burn all the sysadmins and network admins and IT geeks out here is that with all the amazing knowledge and problem solving abilities, no one has been able to devise an elegant solution to this problem.
Well, to use the GP's analogy, while the houses are still being built out of gasoline-soaked balsa wood, what can we do to stop fires? Disallow high temperatures?
Microsoft's operating systems are currently the main problem. Until Microsoft deploys a fundamentally more secure OS or people simply stop using Windows to any great extent, there is nothing we can do. Especially nothing elegant.
The only elegant solution that comes to mind, really, is OS X. But that's more of an elegant OS than an elegant solution.
You mean it is the evil linux haxors that deliberately sabotage poor Microsoft?
That is hilarious.
Even worse: it's the good-natured Linux users who try to find a balance between Joe User's wants and needs on the one hand, and their own patience and free time on the other.
I tried. I really tried securing my ex-gf's family computer. I opened accounts for everyone. I only left admin privileges on one account. Set everything up.
Everybody just used the admin account again. Not even the fact that each could have their own desktop didn't entice them to use their own accounts; instead, they had one desktop full of five people's crud.
Oh, well... I guess I was raised by freaks.
Even when I was a kid, I knew where my parents kept their porn. (Living in a one-room apartment doesn't leave many places for hiding stuff anyway.)
My parents, as far as I can tell, knew I was looking at it when I was home alone.
They never raised the issue, and neither did I.
Funnily enough, I can't say it's had a severely detrimental effect on my IQ, grades, social life or anything else. But it did help me relax at times of trouble ;)
I wonder, is that a part of space the speed of gravity could be measured?
No, they are comparing Windows to Red Hat Linux.
Any comparison with Apple is immaterial. We all know how much Microsoft has copied/stolen from Apple.
Similarly, my parents tell me about former Yugoslavia - you could leave your house or car unlocked and nothing would ever happen.
However, in these post-Yugoslavian countries (I live in Croatia), the situation is completely different - though unless something is actually stolen, you can still be quite sure to get it back. The number of thieves has increased dramatically, but common decency is not dead yet.
For instance, I have both returned and heard of people returning lost mobile phones, though I've had mine stolen once. And it's a matter-of-fact thing.
There is this concept of dual-booting that I'm sure you must have heard of...
You are obviosly missing the point of sending politicians.
Oh, wait. I found another one (same cat, different text).