Wow, did I call anyone names? I sure didn't! But you sure did.
"In economics, a monopoly (from the Greek monos, one + polein, to sell) is defined as a persistent market situation where there is only one provider of a kind of product or service."
Only one entity, Microsoft, has the guts to produce, sell, and advertise said product. Apple can compete using OS X, but they chose to only use it for their hardware. Linux distros sit on FTP servers and rely on word-of-mouth. Get my drift?
I wonder why I come out as the bad guy. I never said anything about Linux's user-friendliness, or made any comments like "Linux sucks" that get people modded down on Slashdot. What I am saying, stop with words and start by actually doing something about it. I will get to writing the "Is X the year of Desktop Linux" articles where X is 2007 - 2999 to save some people some trouble because that is all that is ever going to done.. more words and insults from people who weren't insulted.
Why don't they put SuSE on their computers then? Put it on a floor model for everyone to look at it. You have to get the word out.. it can't just sit on an FTP server.
I don't see anyone pushing other operatings systems for Intel-based PCs. Apple wants their own market and their own OS which can only be run on their hardware (legally) which you also have to pay a premium for. As far as i'm concerned, stockholders of MSFT have no say in what Dell or Gateway does. If MS threatens to pull their license for selling PCs with Linux... isn't that MS's and their stockholder's loss? You can't bitch about a monopoly when no one else has brought anything to the market.
Next up, is how Apple can bundle desktop search with OS X, but Microsoft can't bundle their desktop search with Vista.
I pointed out on Digg that standard users cannot delete a global shortcut. Firefox places the shortcut in the all users desktop. Did I mention standard users can't modify that desktop? Hence you need admin or an account with those privileges. Therefore a popup to do that action is legitimate.. but I find it a bit overdoing it.
Second thing: He deletes the shortcut after installing Firefox... choose not to place a shortcut on the desktop during setup!
If they were still using the patent, Eolas may expect more "compensation" later on. I don't, at the moment, regularly use IE but I loaded the update in a virtual machine to see what the changes were like. I simply can't get used it, seeing how Firefox does not hassle me when I go to a page with Flash or a video.
I never really understood why a user program (like, say, a game) needs admin privs, but they do.
You need to be able to write to the game's folder. Admin privs is *not* a prerequisite for more write privileges. You can add write privileges for other accounts without changing their group. Many games are designed like that (but not Halo PC which is published by Microsoft!). There's a secdrv.sys update that eliminates the "You must be admin" message for games in XP (2000 isn't affected).
99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% it is 3rd-parties making it a bitch to work with (however for me it is no problem-o). Then again, I wonder why I was required to run KDE 3.5.1 as root first in order to use it under my account (at first it said it couldn't find startkde under my account, but decided to try it under root and that is when it worked).
Are Linux compatible versions of my games free? Is Cedega free? (so much for free software)
I keep installing Linux. I know how to configure everything to my liking but I always find myself only hours later uninstalling the bootloader and destroying any Linux partitions. I use a so called "limited account" in XP so I don't need (or even have installed) anti-virus, anti-spyware, and have no problem using IE (not that'd I want to because of Eolas).
So tell me again how average users are supposed to figure how to install, say nvidia display driver (because the nv one is crap), if it breaks because of a new kernel version? I bother to patch the installer (which has never, ever been necessary in Windows) however, the people I am around don't have very much tolerance for these things. Oops, my distribution's provided kernel doesn't support more than 896MB of RAM or some of my hardware, gotta figure out how to compile highmem support and support for my other stuff.
to remove them in the first place. MSN Messenger definitely isn't required for Windows to operate correctly (can be uninstalled via a script). Even so, people want a "Add/Remove" option that does more than delete Messenger shortcuts. WMP isn't, but if you want to view WMP formats you need the codecs atleast. There definitely should be an option to completely remove Outlook Express. IE can be removed and Windows work fine... but forget that you won't be able to use Help and Support (you may not necessarily use it).
I would completely switch to Linux, if Cedega had 100% native support for DirectX.
"But that decreases the usability of the system. Users don't want that."
I hear that alot. The people who reject least privilege are the ones using 4-5 security apps all at once. I use an anti-virus (AVG) and the windows firewall and a limited account and i'm just fine and dandy. I don't think anyone with vast amounts of Linux knowledge can accomplish that on Windows...
Too bad the developers are still thinking like DOS programmers in that LFNs hadn't existed yet. They should take the 72 million and hire better programmers.
I was under the impression that the parent said that there were Virtual PC and VMWARE exploits; that if I come across one of these exploits while in a guest OS, then it will root the host OS. I'm confused, thinking that it was like you said.
Did any of the 45,000 pages contain FF exploit code? Availability of patch does not mean every one has it. Average Joe only patches when he buys a new computer, though he is not the one who did the patching. FF users are guilty of keeping older versions because x or y doesn't work with new versions.
Of course IE is unsafe, because it is the primary target. Is there even a secondary target? Did any of the sites contain Firefox exploit code?
It says they used an unpatched machine. No shit, you need patches. If Linux and OS X were completely immune, why is it that patches exist for them? Nothing to hide, right?
I've run as a regular User in 2000 and now in XP. If 3rd party applications break, it is because the programmer is incompetent, decided to write to Program Files or other system folders after being installed.
One in 62 Internet domains performs "drive-by download attacks" to force spyware on users who simply visit the site.
This is usually the behavior I exhibit: Site 1 is alpha site, it contains the actual exploit code. Sites A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H,... (you see where I am going) all link back to Site 1 in a 1x1 iframe or something. They do not contain their own exploit code, that is Site 1's job.
beehappyy.biz, now down, was home to 4 exploits one the same page (some really, really, really old and negated by installing patches from many moons ago) including the WMF exploit. The usual suspect sites I went to in a virtual machine all linked back to beehappyy.biz. Once beehappyy went down, it was of absolutely no consequence to browse all the "popular" crack sites in a XP SP1 VM, admin account, and no patches.
Slashdot Mirror
You, sir, are truly wise. Google can't say anything until they compete on the exact same level.
"In economics, a monopoly (from the Greek monos, one + polein, to sell) is defined as a persistent market situation where there is only one provider of a kind of product or service."
Only one entity, Microsoft, has the guts to produce, sell, and advertise said product. Apple can compete using OS X, but they chose to only use it for their hardware. Linux distros sit on FTP servers and rely on word-of-mouth. Get my drift?
I wonder why I come out as the bad guy. I never said anything about Linux's user-friendliness, or made any comments like "Linux sucks" that get people modded down on Slashdot. What I am saying, stop with words and start by actually doing something about it. I will get to writing the "Is X the year of Desktop Linux" articles where X is 2007 - 2999 to save some people some trouble because that is all that is ever going to done.. more words and insults from people who weren't insulted.
Why don't they put SuSE on their computers then? Put it on a floor model for everyone to look at it. You have to get the word out.. it can't just sit on an FTP server.
Next up, is how Apple can bundle desktop search with OS X, but Microsoft can't bundle their desktop search with Vista.
No one is twisting your arm to use Microsoft products..
No 16-bit support? Good!
Second thing: He deletes the shortcut after installing Firefox... choose not to place a shortcut on the desktop during setup!
If they were still using the patent, Eolas may expect more "compensation" later on. I don't, at the moment, regularly use IE but I loaded the update in a virtual machine to see what the changes were like. I simply can't get used it, seeing how Firefox does not hassle me when I go to a page with Flash or a video.
Japanese products. Sorry, but they do make the best from cars to cheap CD-Rs.
You need to be able to write to the game's folder. Admin privs is *not* a prerequisite for more write privileges. You can add write privileges for other accounts without changing their group. Many games are designed like that (but not Halo PC which is published by Microsoft!). There's a secdrv.sys update that eliminates the "You must be admin" message for games in XP (2000 isn't affected).
99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% it is 3rd-parties making it a bitch to work with (however for me it is no problem-o). Then again, I wonder why I was required to run KDE 3.5.1 as root first in order to use it under my account (at first it said it couldn't find startkde under my account, but decided to try it under root and that is when it worked).
I keep installing Linux. I know how to configure everything to my liking but I always find myself only hours later uninstalling the bootloader and destroying any Linux partitions. I use a so called "limited account" in XP so I don't need (or even have installed) anti-virus, anti-spyware, and have no problem using IE (not that'd I want to because of Eolas).
So tell me again how average users are supposed to figure how to install, say nvidia display driver (because the nv one is crap), if it breaks because of a new kernel version? I bother to patch the installer (which has never, ever been necessary in Windows) however, the people I am around don't have very much tolerance for these things. Oops, my distribution's provided kernel doesn't support more than 896MB of RAM or some of my hardware, gotta figure out how to compile highmem support and support for my other stuff.
$me shoves you back into your basement.
MS is held to a different standard than the rest. I think that is what you would call a double-standard.
I would completely switch to Linux, if Cedega had 100% native support for DirectX.
I hear that alot. The people who reject least privilege are the ones using 4-5 security apps all at once. I use an anti-virus (AVG) and the windows firewall and a limited account and i'm just fine and dandy. I don't think anyone with vast amounts of Linux knowledge can accomplish that on Windows...
Too bad the developers are still thinking like DOS programmers in that LFNs hadn't existed yet. They should take the 72 million and hire better programmers.
Don't run as admin (not even Power User). Don't use IE. Of course you'd probably have waited until Linux to be told to not run as root.
How does this further justify a switch to Linux?
I was under the impression that the parent said that there were Virtual PC and VMWARE exploits; that if I come across one of these exploits while in a guest OS, then it will root the host OS. I'm confused, thinking that it was like you said.
A government should have no problem getting the source code from Microsoft, and certainly isn't by means of the government forcing anyone.
They're gonna turn everyone into Japanese.
Nice try though
Did any of the 45,000 pages contain FF exploit code? Availability of patch does not mean every one has it. Average Joe only patches when he buys a new computer, though he is not the one who did the patching. FF users are guilty of keeping older versions because x or y doesn't work with new versions.
Of course IE is unsafe, because it is the primary target. Is there even a secondary target? Did any of the sites contain Firefox exploit code?
It says they used an unpatched machine. No shit, you need patches. If Linux and OS X were completely immune, why is it that patches exist for them? Nothing to hide, right?
I've run as a regular User in 2000 and now in XP. If 3rd party applications break, it is because the programmer is incompetent, decided to write to Program Files or other system folders after being installed.
This is usually the behavior I exhibit: Site 1 is alpha site, it contains the actual exploit code. Sites A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, ... (you see where I am going) all link back to Site 1 in a 1x1 iframe or something. They do not contain their own exploit code, that is Site 1's job.
beehappyy.biz, now down, was home to 4 exploits one the same page (some really, really, really old and negated by installing patches from many moons ago) including the WMF exploit. The usual suspect sites I went to in a virtual machine all linked back to beehappyy.biz. Once beehappyy went down, it was of absolutely no consequence to browse all the "popular" crack sites in a XP SP1 VM, admin account, and no patches.