Simple one: of course I accept that Windows and Linux are a priori equally vulnerable - C programmers make mistakes. The question is which model is most likely to deliver a fix fastest.
Dr. Thompson
Businesses demanded that Microsoft set a schedule when releasing patches. So now everyone using Windows has to wait until the second Tuesday of each month to get the latest patches. So yeah, I agree Linux et al may be faster, not because many people are hacking at the code, but because businesses made these demands with their wallets to purposely slow Microsoft. If someone discovers a new vulnerability after that Tuesday, we still blame Microsoft even though they were listening to their customers. It should be the customer's (some company) fault.
Re:What was wrong with Azureus?
on
GCC 4.1 Released
·
· Score: 0
No one is, because their name isn't "Microsoft." No matter how big they become and their goal to dominate the world, Google will never be seen as evil. I don't hate Google, but I thought i'd point that obvious fact out.
So in other words, Mozilla's support is really no better than Microsoft? It is open source so anyone can fix it, but apparently not in the 2 1/2 year window.
Will not work correctly on any OS if you install it as root/administrator to a folder where non-admin/non-root users don't have write access to.
You have to run it as root/admin first to avoid this error message: Firefox could not install this item because of a failure in Chrome Registration. Please contact the author about this problem.
Sure I could run it as admin first, but that is completely unacceptable. No better than what most Windows devs pull off.
I can't believe people sympathize with Google when they infringed someone else's trademark, or infringed copyright, and they are innocent. Yet when it only comes to Microsoft, they are evil.
Boom. Problem solved. The firewall is already enabled by default, but that is useless if they run something that easily adds itself. (Even Apple adds iTunes as an exception during install)
Those who say Microsoft should make a secure operating system... well you've been living under a rock.
Microsoft nor Linux have anything to do with it. This XCP company willingly chose ActiveX. They could have easily decided on making a cleaner that doesn't run in the browser. My, how people jump to conclusions.
Because most Windows users run as admin, else they'd bitch that they can't run Sober (well, they wouldn't actually know it is a mass mailing program). If they wanted to run it so bad because it said "hot-teen-sex.exe" and they knew the ropes of running as non-admin, they'd launch it as admin anyway. Or it need not be launched as admin just to run. Thunderbird is capable of sending e-mail. Is Thunderbird a malicious application?
PROBLEM EXISTS BETWEEN KEYBOARD AND CHAIR WHILE HEAD IN ASS (PEBKACWHIA).
Re:Children, grow up and admit that OSS isn't perf
on
OpenOffice Bloated?
·
· Score: 0
Excellent post, especially about skewing your standards when they make your favorite thing look better.
I have noticed another inconsistency that the same users you describe will deny a broken application being caused by Linux itself. But if any app breaks in Windows they are quick to judge Windows itself as being the problem, instead of their incompetence or something caused by another 3rd party app (or even faulty vendor device drivers), or maybe it is just the app is broken. EX: "OpenOffice is soooo slow F%(&%king Windows! All Bill Gates' fault!!11111oneone"
True, people will want to write a simple script that deletes all of the user's data, combine it with social engineering, and that is your so-called virus.
People if your going to use linux! you need to RTFM!
All that for a lousy wireless card? Not everyone wants to be an ub3r-l33t h4x0r. My sig may say otherwise, but we're talking about people who even have a hard time using Windows (and that includes a lot of Linux users too:-P)
Windows (2000/XP) has a security model that works really well and XP has even a better one than 2000. The main reason is because most people run as admin because that is default because alot of 3rd party programmers do not follow the same guidelines a linux programmer would (i.e. for Windows: program files are static, place user's data in their profile folder for writing; HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE is static, use HKEY_CURRENT_USER to write). Therefore many programs are broken as a result of the disservice 3rd party programmers brought upon their users when run as non admin (mind you, by default because those are curable by adjusting permissions but that should never have to be done in the first place). Running as a limited user in IE does completely stop alot of exploits, the exploit isn't even there and it doesn't matter where your user can write to on the file system.
Second, viruses/spyware are executed like any program. Even if you have the securest model, some users are gonna defeat it in order to run annakornikova.exe or hotcum.exe.
Third, there are ALOT of Windows users. ALOT of Windows users DO NOT patch. Therefore, ALOT of people get affected. Do you sh*t on Linus because he is making you patch your kernel? If you don't and you get rooted, do you blame Linus or the other programmers? No, but you do blame Microsoft for getting rooted in Windows for not patching. My point is, users do not know of patching. They get affected by exploits fixed years after the fact. These users only patch when they buy a new copy of XP with the latest service pack or a new computer with the latest service pack. Some people when I fix their prblems, I tell them that is imperative that you patch and show them how they do that.
Riddle me this: Why are Linux users hypocrites on the third reason, and why are they such jackasses?
The reason there is no security in XP or 2000 is because most people run as admin. This is one area Microsoft screwed up and that is where 3rd-party equally screwed up. You can't have security if you have full f**king control over the system.
Then there's *nix for those that just can't handle Windows. Idiot users clearly shouldn't be using Windows.
Slashdot Mirror
Dr. Thompson
Businesses demanded that Microsoft set a schedule when releasing patches. So now everyone using Windows has to wait until the second Tuesday of each month to get the latest patches. So yeah, I agree Linux et al may be faster, not because many people are hacking at the code, but because businesses made these demands with their wallets to purposely slow Microsoft. If someone discovers a new vulnerability after that Tuesday, we still blame Microsoft even though they were listening to their customers. It should be the customer's (some company) fault.
Sun's JRE and JDK were free last I checked.
No one is, because their name isn't "Microsoft." No matter how big they become and their goal to dominate the world, Google will never be seen as evil. I don't hate Google, but I thought i'd point that obvious fact out.
That's funny. You people seem to think everything is related. Oh, because they did this, now they are doing this...
Most Slashdaughters have their heads up their ass most of the time too.
I apologize... the truth hurts.
So in other words, Mozilla's support is really no better than Microsoft? It is open source so anyone can fix it, but apparently not in the 2 1/2 year window.
You have to run it as root/admin first to avoid this error message: Firefox could not install this item because of a failure in Chrome Registration. Please contact the author about this problem.
Sure I could run it as admin first, but that is completely unacceptable. No better than what most Windows devs pull off.
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=31148 0
Not present in 1.0.7 and lower.
You already can make Windows do whatever you want. That is, if you can program, and are not ignorant of API documentation.
Also, Windows is open source. No one said it was free (well, I heard if you wantto develop something for Server you can get it for free).
4, Profit!!
Banning the ability to install other IM clients is anti-competitive, not merely bundling.
Let's sue Apple for bundling their programs into their OS.
Jesus christ people, at least be consistent.
* Open source apps
* Anything not Microsoft
Biased news items are posted for:
* Anything Microsoft
Hypocrites.
Those who say Microsoft should make a secure operating system... well you've been living under a rock.
We'd have dependency problems and bloat like those found in most Linux distros.
Absolutely not!
Microsoft = Bad
Other companies trying to be like Microsoft = Good
... what adware and spyware companies do. Starting to lose respect for Google.
Microsoft nor Linux have anything to do with it. This XCP company willingly chose ActiveX. They could have easily decided on making a cleaner that doesn't run in the browser. My, how people jump to conclusions.
Because most Windows users run as admin, else they'd bitch that they can't run Sober (well, they wouldn't actually know it is a mass mailing program). If they wanted to run it so bad because it said "hot-teen-sex.exe" and they knew the ropes of running as non-admin, they'd launch it as admin anyway. Or it need not be launched as admin just to run. Thunderbird is capable of sending e-mail. Is Thunderbird a malicious application?
PROBLEM EXISTS BETWEEN KEYBOARD AND CHAIR WHILE HEAD IN ASS (PEBKACWHIA).
I have noticed another inconsistency that the same users you describe will deny a broken application being caused by Linux itself. But if any app breaks in Windows they are quick to judge Windows itself as being the problem, instead of their incompetence or something caused by another 3rd party app (or even faulty vendor device drivers), or maybe it is just the app is broken. EX: "OpenOffice is soooo slow F%(&%king Windows! All Bill Gates' fault!!11111oneone"
True, people will want to write a simple script that deletes all of the user's data, combine it with social engineering, and that is your so-called virus.
All that for a lousy wireless card? Not everyone wants to be an ub3r-l33t h4x0r. My sig may say otherwise, but we're talking about people who even have a hard time using Windows (and that includes a lot of Linux users too :-P)
Second, viruses/spyware are executed like any program. Even if you have the securest model, some users are gonna defeat it in order to run annakornikova.exe or hotcum.exe.
Third, there are ALOT of Windows users. ALOT of Windows users DO NOT patch. Therefore, ALOT of people get affected. Do you sh*t on Linus because he is making you patch your kernel? If you don't and you get rooted, do you blame Linus or the other programmers? No, but you do blame Microsoft for getting rooted in Windows for not patching. My point is, users do not know of patching. They get affected by exploits fixed years after the fact. These users only patch when they buy a new copy of XP with the latest service pack or a new computer with the latest service pack. Some people when I fix their prblems, I tell them that is imperative that you patch and show them how they do that.
Riddle me this: Why are Linux users hypocrites on the third reason, and why are they such jackasses?
Then there's *nix for those that just can't handle Windows. Idiot users clearly shouldn't be using Windows.
Microsoft.