It's easy to take your position to an absurd degree: "I made this child pornography; I own it, not the government! Who are they to tell me what to do with it?"
I don't agree with your arguement, but what I'd really like to address is how poor this analogy is. It IS easy to take his argument to an absurd degree; you just did.
What people don't seem to realise is that large companies like Microsoft actually gain, overall, from regulation of industry. With regulation, what you're really doing is stifling small companies, and this just stops companies forming who wouuld increase the level of competition.
I know this sounds counter-intuitive, but it's not. In the US, there are anti-trust issues with MS, which would probably would be solved by the market if the DMCA was removed. Being able to reverse-engineer MS products would help reduce the monopoly far more than fines and more rules do.
What's also missing is the "zero-user" configurability that Windows has, allowing any user to load and install any application or hardware accessory without needing to be a hardware tech. Linux need to be engineereed to be "smarter" for the casual office user.
Gark. I see this raised again and again here. GNU/Linux isn't aimed at Windows Users specifically! A surprising ammount of people seem to think that this the whole point of GNU/Linux! It's not! Simply trying to beat Windows isn't the point. The point is to write a good Operating System, and we're sustaining ourselves fine as it is. FOSS doesn't have much to gain from attracting "casual" users who have no interest in learning how _we_ do things.
The Free Unixes really aren't competing with anyone. It's getting done because it should be done, not to beat anyone else.
Yeah, but between Aug 2004 and what will presumably be a late 2007 release there's a three year gap.
A three year gap during which everyone has to put up with IE not fully implementing something that became a W3C recomendation in 1999. Does everything on the internet take 8 years to change? No.
You know, other stuff happens between Windows releases.
I don't understand this attitude, where people think that they are fucking entitled to pirate music, movies, software, or whatever. They actually get offended when you tell them that it's immoral!>
Christ. It's fairly simple. We simply do not believe it is fair for other people to limit our use of electrons (software) in our possession.
It's not hard to understand. If you disagree, say so; don't try and make out that this arguement is not understandable - it's simpler than yours.
If you're still not getting it, look at the GNU reasoning behind why all software should be free. You're free to disagree, but please don't pretend like this belief is unreasonable.
I'm sure that OSX, being a Unix gives you a cron daemon. Learn to use it. Shell scripts are far more powerful than any GUI-based system Vista will have.
Grub labels drives as (hdX,Y). X being the drive number (starting from 0) and Y being the partition number (starting from 0). This ends up making my/boot dir (hd0,0).
Orange book (and also later assurence evaluations) have very much focus on process to develop software, not for actual outcome. This is not so easy to do on OSS.
This is very similar to ISO 9000 certification: you can be ISO 9000 certified and still your products can be total crap. You just has to document how you produce this crap. I daily eat on cafeteria that is ISO 9000 certified. The food is probably safe, but if I want to enjoy my meal, I visit some other place.
Agreed. The point I'm making is that Orange book ratings are a useless way of rating an Operating System.
If you have any idea what you were talking about, you'd know the second reading is taken in the House of Commons. Further, the Lords not only don't hear the 2nd reading, they don't hear until after the 3rd.
For your infomation, the system works something like this:
House of Commons: 1st Reading
House of Commons: 2nd Reading
House of Commons: Committee Stage
House of Commons: Report Stage
House of Commons: 3rd Reading
House of Lords: Reading (if they don't pass it, the whole thing starts again)
Royal Assent: The Queen signs it.
Get a fucking clue before you start spouting off shit you clearly don't understand.
I think this was my first computer too. I've been trying to work out what my old Apple was. I remember not being able to play System Shock, because I wasn't on the PPC arch (which I think means I was on a m68k), but I do remember having a desktop enviroment. I'm sure someone will see this post and tell me. Go on, you know you want to.
Most of my "average consumer" friends are similar. In fact, having seen HDTV in the local Sony Centre, I wasn't brilliantly impressed. I mean, it was good, but not good-rebuy-your-home-electronics good. I'm not planning to buy anything as part of a boycott, but now I know I'm not missing anything anyway.
"The author is completely wrong when he says that Windows did not have any security until 2000. Windows NT was designed from the outset to obtain Orange book B2 certification. It would take a huge amount of work to get Linux to meet that criteria. It is generally considered to be 'B2 equivalent' but thats like saying that being ABD is the same thing as having a Phd, the only people who say that are ABD grad students.
Meh. The whole "certification" theory seems to not tally with practice. Why does NT seem to have more security issues than Linux, even though Linux is, by the Orange Book, a less well designed system.
Seems to me like there is something important that the Orange Book fails to take into account.
I don't want to hear any psychology bullshit claiming it's not their fault--that it's society's fault for making them desire more money.
Not many people would challenge that it is indeed the students fault; he should be punished. Some people would say that a better way of fixing this problem is to change society (they'd argee that it was the students fault too).
I'm glad you're already aware of what I pointed out. You likely read one of my other posts in which I've pointed out such facts, and thus were already in the know.
Unlikely. He probably just knows a thing or two about the computing field.
I can't believe how arrogant you are. You're not the one source of world knowledge; you're simply relating a piece of common knowledge (in the computing field). Even worse, you're portraying it as some kind of new development or insight.
I've seen you use this example over and over again: OpenBSD is secure, Windows is not. Do you ever offer any insight at all?
Everyone knows this. You are just repeating facts that you probably don't entirely understand. It's not just because they audit code, there's far more to it than that. Checking for errors doesn't help is the system is poor by design! OpenBSD have made a number of design choices as they have created their OS (some of which have been made by the projects they have forked from); for example, they have everything organised in a logical and orderly way.
Many GNU/Linux distributions do not have this (including the one I use, in fact). Generally, this is less common on the GNU sections (with the exclusion of Gnome, which breaks every rule in the book) and is very common on sections written by others. Some distributions have tried to work at this, with varying degrees of success (Debian has a very standardised set of interfaces).
On some areas, there are sections that actually specific to the kernel that do not fit with Unix in general (eg; why the hell is it "hda1"? I would make more sense to use numbers, and to start from 0; like grub now does - hd(0,0)).
Overall, GNU/Linux is my prefered OS for workstation computers, for other reasons, but as an OS, BSD is currently far more advanced than we are. We should listen to what many of the BSD projects are saying: Linux is broken, and in some areas, very badly.
"Yes it's called not forcing people to use your products even though they resent them because they have to in order to be able to do business. Apple, like most other companies isn't compelled to do harm to their own customers by locking them into their own products at every turn."
Why is it that Apple keeps their hardware closed from everyone then? Apple do use vendor lock in all the time: the iPod/iTunes is a prime example. They'd locked their customers in at every step of the way. You clearly are spouting shit, and have no idea what you are talking about. Back in the day, Apple was more closed than Windows/IBMPC, which is the main reason Wintel is king today.
Slashdot Mirror
"MS Connects Office and Back-Orifice Apps".
I think they may have some difficulty complying with the GPL.
It's easy to take your position to an absurd degree: "I made this child pornography; I own it, not the government! Who are they to tell me what to do with it?"
I don't agree with your arguement, but what I'd really like to address is how poor this analogy is. It IS easy to take his argument to an absurd degree; you just did.
What people don't seem to realise is that large companies like Microsoft actually gain, overall, from regulation of industry. With regulation, what you're really doing is stifling small companies, and this just stops companies forming who wouuld increase the level of competition.
I know this sounds counter-intuitive, but it's not. In the US, there are anti-trust issues with MS, which would probably would be solved by the market if the DMCA was removed. Being able to reverse-engineer MS products would help reduce the monopoly far more than fines and more rules do.
What's also missing is the "zero-user" configurability that Windows has, allowing any user to load and install any application or hardware accessory without needing to be a hardware tech. Linux need to be engineereed to be "smarter" for the casual office user.
Gark. I see this raised again and again here. GNU/Linux isn't aimed at Windows Users specifically! A surprising ammount of people seem to think that this the whole point of GNU/Linux! It's not! Simply trying to beat Windows isn't the point. The point is to write a good Operating System, and we're sustaining ourselves fine as it is. FOSS doesn't have much to gain from attracting "casual" users who have no interest in learning how _we_ do things.
The Free Unixes really aren't competing with anyone. It's getting done because it should be done, not to beat anyone else.
Yeah, but between Aug 2004 and what will presumably be a late 2007 release there's a three year gap.
A three year gap during which everyone has to put up with IE not fully implementing something that became a W3C recomendation in 1999. Does everything on the internet take 8 years to change? No.
You know, other stuff happens between Windows releases.
Wrong.
IE 7 supports new XMLHttpRequest();
IE 7 supports PNG alpha transparency.
Right. Good point. So 2007 sometime, but why the fuck doesn't it do it NOW?
I don't understand this attitude, where people think that they are fucking entitled to pirate music, movies, software, or whatever. They actually get offended when you tell them that it's immoral!>
Christ. It's fairly simple. We simply do not believe it is fair for other people to limit our use of electrons (software) in our possession.
It's not hard to understand. If you disagree, say so; don't try and make out that this arguement is not understandable - it's simpler than yours.
If you're still not getting it, look at the GNU reasoning behind why all software should be free. You're free to disagree, but please don't pretend like this belief is unreasonable.
I'm sure that OSX, being a Unix gives you a cron daemon. Learn to use it. Shell scripts are far more powerful than any GUI-based system Vista will have.
Some don't: see Doom/Epic games.
Grub labels drives as (hdX,Y). X being the drive number (starting from 0) and Y being the partition number (starting from 0). This ends up making my /boot dir (hd0,0).
Orange book (and also later assurence evaluations) have very much focus on process to develop software, not for actual outcome. This is not so easy to do on OSS.
This is very similar to ISO 9000 certification: you can be ISO 9000 certified and still your products can be total crap. You just has to document how you produce this crap. I daily eat on cafeteria that is ISO 9000 certified. The food is probably safe, but if I want to enjoy my meal, I visit some other place.
Agreed. The point I'm making is that Orange book ratings are a useless way of rating an Operating System.
That's probably due to the original assumption that no sane person would ever need more than one soundcard.
These kind of assumptions are part of the problem. Don't make them. Start from 0, and don't use letters.
If any record of this exists, it's hard to find. Would you mind linking?
Um, because the French ID card is completely different. Also: the British ID card is pretty much just a stepping stone on to more draconian things.
If you have any idea what you were talking about, you'd know the second reading is taken in the House of Commons. Further, the Lords not only don't hear the 2nd reading, they don't hear until after the 3rd.
For your infomation, the system works something like this:
House of Commons: 1st Reading
House of Commons: 2nd Reading
House of Commons: Committee Stage
House of Commons: Report Stage
House of Commons: 3rd Reading
House of Lords: Reading (if they don't pass it, the whole thing starts again)
Royal Assent: The Queen signs it.
Get a fucking clue before you start spouting off shit you clearly don't understand.
Erm, no. The Commons is the elected house. The Lords in appointed.
Would be funnier if Conservatives didn't favour the rights of the individual.
I think this was my first computer too. I've been trying to work out what my old Apple was. I remember not being able to play System Shock, because I wasn't on the PPC arch (which I think means I was on a m68k), but I do remember having a desktop enviroment. I'm sure someone will see this post and tell me. Go on, you know you want to.
Most of my "average consumer" friends are similar. In fact, having seen HDTV in the local Sony Centre, I wasn't brilliantly impressed. I mean, it was good, but not good-rebuy-your-home-electronics good. I'm not planning to buy anything as part of a boycott, but now I know I'm not missing anything anyway.
So we should be afraid of the free press? What's your point, that the media should be controlled by the government? If so: you are full of shit.
"The author is completely wrong when he says that Windows did not have any security until 2000. Windows NT was designed from the outset to obtain Orange book B2 certification. It would take a huge amount of work to get Linux to meet that criteria. It is generally considered to be 'B2 equivalent' but thats like saying that being ABD is the same thing as having a Phd, the only people who say that are ABD grad students.
Meh. The whole "certification" theory seems to not tally with practice. Why does NT seem to have more security issues than Linux, even though Linux is, by the Orange Book, a less well designed system.
Seems to me like there is something important that the Orange Book fails to take into account.
I don't want to hear any psychology bullshit claiming it's not their fault--that it's society's fault for making them desire more money.
Not many people would challenge that it is indeed the students fault; he should be punished. Some people would say that a better way of fixing this problem is to change society (they'd argee that it was the students fault too).
I'm glad you're already aware of what I pointed out. You likely read one of my other posts in which I've pointed out such facts, and thus were already in the know.
Unlikely. He probably just knows a thing or two about the computing field.
I can't believe how arrogant you are. You're not the one source of world knowledge; you're simply relating a piece of common knowledge (in the computing field). Even worse, you're portraying it as some kind of new development or insight.
I've seen you use this example over and over again: OpenBSD is secure, Windows is not. Do you ever offer any insight at all?
Everyone knows this. You are just repeating facts that you probably don't entirely understand. It's not just because they audit code, there's far more to it than that. Checking for errors doesn't help is the system is poor by design! OpenBSD have made a number of design choices as they have created their OS (some of which have been made by the projects they have forked from); for example, they have everything organised in a logical and orderly way.
Many GNU/Linux distributions do not have this (including the one I use, in fact). Generally, this is less common on the GNU sections (with the exclusion of Gnome, which breaks every rule in the book) and is very common on sections written by others. Some distributions have tried to work at this, with varying degrees of success (Debian has a very standardised set of interfaces).
On some areas, there are sections that actually specific to the kernel that do not fit with Unix in general (eg; why the hell is it "hda1"? I would make more sense to use numbers, and to start from 0; like grub now does - hd(0,0)).
Overall, GNU/Linux is my prefered OS for workstation computers, for other reasons, but as an OS, BSD is currently far more advanced than we are. We should listen to what many of the BSD projects are saying: Linux is broken, and in some areas, very badly.
"Yes it's called not forcing people to use your products even though they resent them because they have to in order to be able to do business. Apple, like most other companies isn't compelled to do harm to their own customers by locking them into their own products at every turn."
Why is it that Apple keeps their hardware closed from everyone then? Apple do use vendor lock in all the time: the iPod/iTunes is a prime example. They'd locked their customers in at every step of the way. You clearly are spouting shit, and have no idea what you are talking about. Back in the day, Apple was more closed than Windows/IBMPC, which is the main reason Wintel is king today.