And UAC is a good idea for the average user, just not necessarily for the average slashdot reader.
On the contrary, I would guess that most *nix-using Slashdot-readers would normally run as unprivileged users, and only elevate their privileges with su/sudo for special tasks. Why would that be so bad for the Windows-using Slashdot crowd?
and being able to 'merge' folders in Explorer rather than just overwrite them is a nice plus as well.
If you are referring to "move files from one folder to another, ignoring any files that have namesakes in the target folder", that can also be done in XP. You move the files, and when the overwrite dialog appears, hold down Shift and click "No". This works as "No to all".
Do you know how many natural toxins are present in vegetables?
This reminds me of a young woman who claimed that marijuana can't be dangerous since it comes from a plant. She thought that only humans can create poisonous substances.
I'd just like to debunk the myth that communism works in theory, it doesn't.
On the contrary, it does work, but only in small groups where the members actually care about each other. An example of such a group is a family. In society as a whole, people don't care about each other enough for communism to work.
Their front page is a little sloppy, but it's hardly the worst I've seen.
I completely agree. The worst I have recently seen among Linux pages is this. The design feels early 90'ish, with all the blinking animated GIFs and the general unreadability.
For the uninitiated, this page is made by a Swedish attorney, distributing modified versions of a range of Linux distributions. One of the primary modifications is that the user always runs as root, and the owner has been criticized for this many times, but completely ignores it. He also uses those distributions' trademarks without having asked for permission, and completely ignores any inquiries about this matter.
Unless attacking over a network connection that allows root logins (such as SSH with PermitRootLogin yes), that is completely irrelevant. Nobody breaks into a computer by manually guessing passwords at the login prompt, so not knowing the username isn't a deterrent there.
There are some marginal benefits of using sudo, since it logs each command in the system log. But unless syslog is setup to forward log messages to a remote log host, the logs are open to become altered to hide any mischievous activities. In addition, if Ubuntu is setup like my Mac, you can sidestep any logging just by running "sudo bash".
Finally, you can compensate for having to know the username by using a longer root password. Guessing a username plus a shorter password is equal to knowing the username and guessing a longer password.
Now if you guys keep taking a hard line on this nothing will change, If you guys open up a bit and allow Microsoft to embrace open source to some extent then we all gain some more freedoms.
Sorry, but that does not compute. So if we let Microsoft devalue the GPL, we get more freedoms? But of course, you seem to hate the GPL. I guess that you'd rather go to work for Microsoft than touch GPL software with a ten-foot pole. Pretty telling how much you value freedom if you ask me.
As a developer, that is exactly the outcome I would expect. "stop();" is a method call, processing should return to the rest of the code when it finishes.
I guess you never heard of the exit() or abort() standard C library functions. Even though the normal semantics of a function is to return and continue execution when finished, those do not.
Anyone who complains about Linux problems but does not fill out bug reports is just an asshat as far as I am concerned. You are willing to leech from the efforts of others but you are not willing to make a contribution when the opportunity is right in front of you. Blah.
Especially since writing a bug report isn't exactly hard. It does not involve coding, just describing in plain text what hardware you have, what you did and what happened (and possibly how you expected it to work).
Of course, Joe Average may be too lazy to do even that, and instead ventures onto some forum to bitch and moan about how much the distro, or Linux, sucks.
The problem is that people treat their systems like SELinux wasn't there, e.g. by moving stuff around without checking that the proper SELinux contexts are applied to the new location. Then when it doesn't work, they blame SELinux for not being able to read their minds.
The difference is that a traditional group can change the permissions of files that it owns, but with SELinux roles, the permissions can only be changed by the policy administrator. This is actually a primary distinction between DAC security and MAC security.
One common problem that I have experienced is that databases like MySQL are defined in SELinux, but it's very common that the data storage is going to be relocated in a production environment. This is a cumbersome process that costs a lot of work and pain.
Is it? You only have to make sure that the new location has the same security context as the old one, which takes one simple command. Hardly a "cumbersome process".
Now if they are found liable anyway, it would still be the company that is held responsible. The individuals in question probably would not suffer from it at all
That only applies to aktiebolag (direct translation: "stock company"). For other types of companies, their owners are personally liable for any debts. Compare with the general partnership.
Libraries with equivalents under other licenses (such as glibc) are usually licensed under the LGPL. This is so that proprietary applications can use it instead of having to install a redundant library with equivalent capabilities.
Libraries with no equivalents are often licensed under the GPL. This is to give free software an edge over the proprietary alternative, in that it can use the unique GPLed library while the proprietary software can't. This is entirely deliberate.
GCC is actually a perfect example as well. Several years ago someone thought they could do better and made pgcc. The GCC people woke up and agreed with then and ended up merging much of PGCC's code.
Then this has happened multiple times, as gcc has also been forked into egcs, which later became the normal gcc.
Slashdot Mirror
IIRC, it wasn't. It had no driver problems, as it could use Win2K drivers without any issues.
On the contrary, I would guess that most *nix-using Slashdot-readers would normally run as unprivileged users, and only elevate their privileges with su/sudo for special tasks. Why would that be so bad for the Windows-using Slashdot crowd?
If you are referring to "move files from one folder to another, ignoring any files that have namesakes in the target folder", that can also be done in XP. You move the files, and when the overwrite dialog appears, hold down Shift and click "No". This works as "No to all".
This reminds me of a young woman who claimed that marijuana can't be dangerous since it comes from a plant. She thought that only humans can create poisonous substances.
On the contrary, it does work, but only in small groups where the members actually care about each other. An example of such a group is a family. In society as a whole, people don't care about each other enough for communism to work.
China isn't communist. It is a capitalistic dictatorship.
I completely agree. The worst I have recently seen among Linux pages is this. The design feels early 90'ish, with all the blinking animated GIFs and the general unreadability.
For the uninitiated, this page is made by a Swedish attorney, distributing modified versions of a range of Linux distributions. One of the primary modifications is that the user always runs as root, and the owner has been criticized for this many times, but completely ignores it. He also uses those distributions' trademarks without having asked for permission, and completely ignores any inquiries about this matter.
Where do people usually pull random statistics from? You guessed it, from their anus.
Unless attacking over a network connection that allows root logins (such as SSH with PermitRootLogin yes), that is completely irrelevant. Nobody breaks into a computer by manually guessing passwords at the login prompt, so not knowing the username isn't a deterrent there.
There are some marginal benefits of using sudo, since it logs each command in the system log. But unless syslog is setup to forward log messages to a remote log host, the logs are open to become altered to hide any mischievous activities. In addition, if Ubuntu is setup like my Mac, you can sidestep any logging just by running "sudo bash".
Finally, you can compensate for having to know the username by using a longer root password. Guessing a username plus a shorter password is equal to knowing the username and guessing a longer password.
They are usually not defined directly after install, but are easy to define using the keyboard shortcut control panel applet.
They don't want GPL around.
Now if you guys keep taking a hard line on this nothing will change, If you guys open up a bit and allow Microsoft to embrace open source to some extent then we all gain some more freedoms.
Sorry, but that does not compute. So if we let Microsoft devalue the GPL, we get more freedoms? But of course, you seem to hate the GPL. I guess that you'd rather go to work for Microsoft than touch GPL software with a ten-foot pole. Pretty telling how much you value freedom if you ask me.
I guess you never heard of the exit() or abort() standard C library functions. Even though the normal semantics of a function is to return and continue execution when finished, those do not.
Especially since writing a bug report isn't exactly hard. It does not involve coding, just describing in plain text what hardware you have, what you did and what happened (and possibly how you expected it to work).
Of course, Joe Average may be too lazy to do even that, and instead ventures onto some forum to bitch and moan about how much the distro, or Linux, sucks.
And if Red Hat follows their established pattern, Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 will be based on Fedora 9.
The problem is that people treat their systems like SELinux wasn't there, e.g. by moving stuff around without checking that the proper SELinux contexts are applied to the new location. Then when it doesn't work, they blame SELinux for not being able to read their minds.
The difference is that a traditional group can change the permissions of files that it owns, but with SELinux roles, the permissions can only be changed by the policy administrator. This is actually a primary distinction between DAC security and MAC security.
Sure there is. Try any default install of Fedora, CentOS or RHEL, and you will be able to run Firefox just fine with SELinux enabled.
Is it? You only have to make sure that the new location has the same security context as the old one, which takes one simple command. Hardly a "cumbersome process".
That only applies to aktiebolag (direct translation: "stock company"). For other types of companies, their owners are personally liable for any debts. Compare with the general partnership.
No, they would just blame it on piracy anyway.
You might be confusing Microsoft with SCO. SCO CEO Darl McBride once argued in from of the US Congress that the GPL violates the US Constitution.
Libraries with equivalents under other licenses (such as glibc) are usually licensed under the LGPL. This is so that proprietary applications can use it instead of having to install a redundant library with equivalent capabilities.
Libraries with no equivalents are often licensed under the GPL. This is to give free software an edge over the proprietary alternative, in that it can use the unique GPLed library while the proprietary software can't. This is entirely deliberate.
And they got to write the specifications.
Then this has happened multiple times, as gcc has also been forked into egcs, which later became the normal gcc.
When I think of it, I've never seen one either. The only place i've been where lots of people claim to own Zunes is on the Internet.