Where I work our Windows Clients firewall settings are delivered to them via Active Directory - Domain Policies so yes I have to wonder why a corporate entity would need "insecure by default" settings in order to mitigate micro management of Windows Firewall.
Well written. Even if the "sarcastic" parent didn't need the smack with the clue stick (is there an equivalent "don't be such an ass" stick?) you make a good point about educating others.
What MS mostly has is ad-hoc, undocumented arbitrary code which the rest of the world is just supposed to accept as-is without questioning. The main notice they take of standards is when the see an opportunity to embrace-and-extend to subvert a standard (see ISO C, HTML, Java, Kerberos, etc., etc.)
I would add that they also "embrace" standards when they feel the need to do so to please requisition departments. POSIX and CS2 certification in NT4 comes to mind... POSIX in NT4 was a joke and if I remember correctly CS2 certification was only achieved by running an NT 4 server that was not plugged into a network.
Agreed. I totally concur with your points. As the IT guy at work though I'd want myself and my staff to be the ones in control of the server. The idea of my personal, or my company's, data/applications subject to one vendors online service is what makes me shudder...
I find using the printable link helps mitigate this. Of course I can't provide the link here though because they use javascript instead of html to provide the link.
You get these security implications anyway, the instant you hook a computer up to the net. Spyware. Adware.
Yes but when I store my apps and documents on my PC I control the risk involved. It may be moot when speaking of the general mass market but for me and other security conscious users the effect of taking my apps and data online is that I have to worry that the vendor/provider is as security conscious as I am.
I use both Linux and Windows. I *can* keep a Windows box secured. It takes some effort (as does Linux) and I do run the occasional heavy scans on it to give myself an extra warm-fuzzy(TM) that I'm not infected with anything but I really don't get viruses or spyware, even on Windows.
With USB as ubiquitous as it is and flash memory as cheap as it is I just don't see a need to keep my stuff online when I can just carry it around in my pocket. Besides if I'm not at work or working at home do I really need to access my apps/data? A person *needs* to be able to get away from these things once in a while.
No it *implements* the Windows API, not emulates. In a classic sense an emulator pretends to be a peice of hardware. Like WABI or DosEMU did on Unix workstations before it was cheap an easy to run a Unix like OS on x86.
Wines point is that they implement the Windows API using Unix system and c library calls thus reducing the overhead of emulating x86 hardware.
Anyway my point was that Cringley was wrong to contrast Apple's efforts to create a native implementation of the Windows API for OSX to what Wine is doing. The way he describes what Apple is doing is the same thing as Wine.
But as others have already pointed out the difference is that Apples had access to the Windows source and if they wanted it, and MS thought it was worth their while, they could get some cooperation and support from MS. I don't see that happening to the Wine project.
Wow you almost had me convinced until your post degraded into a name calling trollfest.
I won't argue with you, you're obviously convinced that you are right and us, um, whatever you called me, are wrong.
I do find it funny though that you use MS's most expensive OS to play games. Must be a pirated copy. That or you have little to no respect for your employer.
Wine is an implementation of the Windows API and yes MS does break compatibility with it's API a lot. That's why some Windows software needs to be rewritten every so often when MS comes out with the "next big thing" (tm). Sure, there's a nod toward backward compatibility but it's not guarenteed. This, and the sheer complex (obfuscated?) nature of the Windows API, is what makes it so difficult for Wine to keep up.
I like Cringley but he must have went to tea with Dvorak or something before he wrote this little piece...
F yeah. I don't care if your black, white, conservative, liberal, a digger or a slashdotter, etc (read: including *everyone*) we all do have the right to speak our minds. But not on someone elses website.
Editorial control exists for a reason and I don't mind that a lot of posts on/. get modded way down. I think it's healthy. But before someone accuses someone of being racist, sexist or insert favorite *ist here I like to see why they feel that way. As far as I'm concerned the gp might as well say "oh those digg people are so gay" or "when I found out it was run by a bunch of Klan members I stopped going".
If it is run by a bunch of Klan members I want to know and I would stop going. But not based on what one person says, based on *evidence*.
Granted, but I suspect that the average tech-savvy purchaser is not as interested in marketing blurbs as they are about exactly what's in the PC they are buying. Yes they do know the difference between a PIV and a Celeron but they also know that getting "free" trials of MacAfee and twenty other bloatware products and 256 MB of RAM instead of 512 or more is not a good fit for the PIV they opted for over the Celeron.
I'm just saying that marketing to home users based on processor specs or even brand is not really a good strategy. Conversely marketing to techie business types with smarmy "feature" lists is not the way to go either.
Yeah, um could we get some links or examples on the "racist, sexist, ethnocentric, and so on" activities of these digg folks before we start moderating such unsubstantiated accusations "Insightful".
I've been to Digg twice and both times were because it was mentioned here on/. So I don't know whether or not the pp is correct but I really dislike these type of accusations without something to back it up. Are they really racist or just not as PC as someone might like?
Exactly, I'm glad I read your post before replying to the gp. If we're tlaking about the general slashdot or tech industry public then, yes, the gp has a good point. But the home users that are a huge part of Dell's market doesn't know or care what processor they use.
On that same token though, they do know that they just spent between $500 - $2000 USD on a PC and it's kind of slower then they expected. First Dell could get rid of all the free* crapware installed and second, to get back on topic, give some more thought to picking the right processor and memory configuration for their machines. If your going to include the crap then at least bump up the RAM and processor so the user's real apps have a fighting chance of performing decently.
I tend to agree with you overall but Dell has a shitty track record of keeping their modeling and use of internal parts sane. You can crack open three different Dell's with the same model number but find different components requiring different drivers. It makes corporate imaging a nightmare. It's not nearly as bad now that drivers are a little better streamlined for generic use (E.g. USB Storage, works with 99% of external USB drives, Linux, Mac or Windows). But it's still a headache.
Sadly though HP/Compaq have definately started to follow suit and with Lenovo now selling IBM PCs I wonder how long it will be before they also ditch the stable component configuration that IBM could brag about for so long.
Building it yourself is, for me, ideal for my home boxes but I don't know that I'd want to get into that at work where a refresh of machines means 50 - 100 new PCs. Buliding a couple is great fun, especially when you can customize each one a little differently according to need. Building 50 with the exact same config gets a little numbing after the first 3 or so.
Well just going by your post and obvious affection for Gentoo, I'd say not much.
If you've already made up your mind and like a distro, quirks and all, chances are you won't really get any new, instant, where-have-you-been-all-my-life gratification from another distro, even a quality, polished distro like Ubuntu. Gentoo is also a quality and polished distro, just aimed at a techier crowd then Ubuntu.
Me, I like slackware or debian. But I recommend Ubuntu to my firends and family that don't know or care what "a linux" is. I think that's the appeal of Ubuntu. It's got some Debian in it at the bottom so when I have to support I'm comfortable. My mom likes it because it works and she doesn't have to call me as much anymore becuase her computer is "acting slow".
You are probably at "power user" status or beyond if you are running three OS's on one machine so if you have invested some time and emotion in Gentoo and it works well for you then you probably aren't really missing anything available in another distro.
People rail on and on here and elsewhere about how the Linux Community needs to come together and pick a distro, get their shit together and market Linux properly, etc... For the sake of people like you and me, I sure hope that never happens. I like choice and freedom, lot's of it!
And if I recall correctly these early keys the gp mentioned were not unique to each copy. They were general product codes that could be used on more then one copy. I know I used to just look on the sticker of a Win98 box to get a key when installing a fresh copy. And I remember some generic numbers you used to be able to use on any copy of VS.
There was definately a transition period though. I remember getting so frustrated by being asked for the Office 97 key when *removing* Office. "Sorry the key you entered did not match your copy of Office 97. Setup will now exit." Or something like that... Run setup to remove and you can't remove it because it is potentially pirated. Go figure. From the makers of "Press Start to Shutdown!"
As other posts have mentioned I beleive the "patentable" aspect of this is the fact that each media instance has it's own unique key.
Ah well said. In addition to the importance of being polite it is equally important to not say much if you really don't know about a topic.
That said, I am a Linux user and, my tongue in cheek statement about us being right aside, I would say the majority of us behave in a similar manner. My first working experience with Linux came after I spent a lot of time messing with it at home and I thought I was pretty good. The guy who ended up being my boss was a Unix guy from way back and wrote drivers for the telecomm solutions we were creating at the time. He was, in every sense of the word, a guru. But he was a nice, well mannered guy and he had a lot of patience and respect for my willingness to learn. He tought me so much about Linux and Unix in general, more in a few months then I had learned spending over a year on my own.
The best way I can repay him is to extend that same courtesy to others...
I think that what the gp meant is that if you *like* to tinker then Linux/Unix is a good fit.
If you don't then by all means use Windows or OS X or a calcualtor, pencil and paper. Whatever gets your job completed.
But it as rude as the jerks described in TFA to attack people who *do* like to tinker with Linux and expect them to make it easy for you to listen to WMA files on your Linux box.
But you just described the Linux and the WIndows communities too!
In general your statement could apply to any institution, group or loosley knit community. There are snobbish assholes among them that think they found the one true way and the only reason people don't see it their way is becasue they are stupid.
*ducks... The only difference here is that us Linux folk are actually right.:-)
Slashdot Mirror
Where I work our Windows Clients firewall settings are delivered to them via Active Directory - Domain Policies so yes I have to wonder why a corporate entity would need "insecure by default" settings in order to mitigate micro management of Windows Firewall.
Well written. Even if the "sarcastic" parent didn't need the smack with the clue stick (is there an equivalent "don't be such an ass" stick?) you make a good point about educating others.
What MS mostly has is ad-hoc, undocumented arbitrary code which the rest of the world is just supposed to accept as-is without questioning. The main notice they take of standards is when the see an opportunity to embrace-and-extend to subvert a standard (see ISO C, HTML, Java, Kerberos, etc., etc.)
I would add that they also "embrace" standards when they feel the need to do so to please requisition departments. POSIX and CS2 certification in NT4 comes to mind... POSIX in NT4 was a joke and if I remember correctly CS2 certification was only achieved by running an NT 4 server that was not plugged into a network.
Anyway, it'll be cloned it within a month and then the slashdoterati will claim they invented it. Or maybe it'll run on Mono.
--
Karma: Excellent (time to start trolling)
Somebody obviously didn't get their wheaties this morning...
Agreed. I totally concur with your points. As the IT guy at work though I'd want myself and my staff to be the ones in control of the server. The idea of my personal, or my company's, data/applications subject to one vendors online service is what makes me shudder...
I find using the printable link helps mitigate this. Of course I can't provide the link here though because they use javascript instead of html to provide the link.
You get these security implications anyway, the instant you hook a computer up to the net. Spyware. Adware.
Yes but when I store my apps and documents on my PC I control the risk involved. It may be moot when speaking of the general mass market but for me and other security conscious users the effect of taking my apps and data online is that I have to worry that the vendor/provider is as security conscious as I am.
I use both Linux and Windows. I *can* keep a Windows box secured. It takes some effort (as does Linux) and I do run the occasional heavy scans on it to give myself an extra warm-fuzzy(TM) that I'm not infected with anything but I really don't get viruses or spyware, even on Windows.
With USB as ubiquitous as it is and flash memory as cheap as it is I just don't see a need to keep my stuff online when I can just carry it around in my pocket. Besides if I'm not at work or working at home do I really need to access my apps/data? A person *needs* to be able to get away from these things once in a while.
No it *implements* the Windows API, not emulates. In a classic sense an emulator pretends to be a peice of hardware. Like WABI or DosEMU did on Unix workstations before it was cheap an easy to run a Unix like OS on x86.
Wines point is that they implement the Windows API using Unix system and c library calls thus reducing the overhead of emulating x86 hardware.
Anyway my point was that Cringley was wrong to contrast Apple's efforts to create a native implementation of the Windows API for OSX to what Wine is doing. The way he describes what Apple is doing is the same thing as Wine.
But as others have already pointed out the difference is that Apples had access to the Windows source and if they wanted it, and MS thought it was worth their while, they could get some cooperation and support from MS. I don't see that happening to the Wine project.
Yeah I find seeing too many of them in a day takes something away from them. I start ignoring them after a while...
... the output of fortune run by root in a nightly cron job. :-)
Wow you almost had me convinced until your post degraded into a name calling trollfest.
I won't argue with you, you're obviously convinced that you are right and us, um, whatever you called me, are wrong.
I do find it funny though that you use MS's most expensive OS to play games. Must be a pirated copy. That or you have little to no respect for your employer.
Then the users purchase a Mac, try OS X, realize they don't actually NEED Windows, and never use BootCamp at all.
:-)
Well they'll need it to boot Linux actually...
Wine Is Not an Emulator.
Wine is an implementation of the Windows API and yes MS does break compatibility with it's API a lot. That's why some Windows software needs to be rewritten every so often when MS comes out with the "next big thing" (tm). Sure, there's a nod toward backward compatibility but it's not guarenteed. This, and the sheer complex (obfuscated?) nature of the Windows API, is what makes it so difficult for Wine to keep up.
I like Cringley but he must have went to tea with Dvorak or something before he wrote this little piece...
Speaking as a male and a geek I read "she's an excellent creative writer" as "she has really nice boobs".
:-)
Joke alert, but by all means, please tell me what a sexist jerk I am!
If you can't find a fair site, build your own!
Yeah, I'm going to go bulid my own site! With booze... and hookers! Yeah that's it. In fact, forget the site.
John? John Dvorak? Is that you?
F yeah. I don't care if your black, white, conservative, liberal, a digger or a slashdotter, etc (read: including *everyone*) we all do have the right to speak our minds. But not on someone elses website.
/. get modded way down. I think it's healthy. But before someone accuses someone of being racist, sexist or insert favorite *ist here I like to see why they feel that way. As far as I'm concerned the gp might as well say "oh those digg people are so gay" or "when I found out it was run by a bunch of Klan members I stopped going".
Editorial control exists for a reason and I don't mind that a lot of posts on
If it is run by a bunch of Klan members I want to know and I would stop going. But not based on what one person says, based on *evidence*.
Granted, but I suspect that the average tech-savvy purchaser is not as interested in marketing blurbs as they are about exactly what's in the PC they are buying. Yes they do know the difference between a PIV and a Celeron but they also know that getting "free" trials of MacAfee and twenty other bloatware products and 256 MB of RAM instead of 512 or more is not a good fit for the PIV they opted for over the Celeron.
I'm just saying that marketing to home users based on processor specs or even brand is not really a good strategy. Conversely marketing to techie business types with smarmy "feature" lists is not the way to go either.
Yeah, um could we get some links or examples on the "racist, sexist, ethnocentric, and so on" activities of these digg folks before we start moderating such unsubstantiated accusations "Insightful".
/. So I don't know whether or not the pp is correct but I really dislike these type of accusations without something to back it up. Are they really racist or just not as PC as someone might like?
I've been to Digg twice and both times were because it was mentioned here on
Exactly, I'm glad I read your post before replying to the gp. If we're tlaking about the general slashdot or tech industry public then, yes, the gp has a good point. But the home users that are a huge part of Dell's market doesn't know or care what processor they use.
On that same token though, they do know that they just spent between $500 - $2000 USD on a PC and it's kind of slower then they expected. First Dell could get rid of all the free* crapware installed and second, to get back on topic, give some more thought to picking the right processor and memory configuration for their machines. If your going to include the crap then at least bump up the RAM and processor so the user's real apps have a fighting chance of performing decently.
* as in beer
I tend to agree with you overall but Dell has a shitty track record of keeping their modeling and use of internal parts sane. You can crack open three different Dell's with the same model number but find different components requiring different drivers. It makes corporate imaging a nightmare. It's not nearly as bad now that drivers are a little better streamlined for generic use (E.g. USB Storage, works with 99% of external USB drives, Linux, Mac or Windows). But it's still a headache.
Sadly though HP/Compaq have definately started to follow suit and with Lenovo now selling IBM PCs I wonder how long it will be before they also ditch the stable component configuration that IBM could brag about for so long.
Building it yourself is, for me, ideal for my home boxes but I don't know that I'd want to get into that at work where a refresh of machines means 50 - 100 new PCs. Buliding a couple is great fun, especially when you can customize each one a little differently according to need. Building 50 with the exact same config gets a little numbing after the first 3 or so.
Well just going by your post and obvious affection for Gentoo, I'd say not much.
If you've already made up your mind and like a distro, quirks and all, chances are you won't really get any new, instant, where-have-you-been-all-my-life gratification from another distro, even a quality, polished distro like Ubuntu. Gentoo is also a quality and polished distro, just aimed at a techier crowd then Ubuntu.
Me, I like slackware or debian. But I recommend Ubuntu to my firends and family that don't know or care what "a linux" is. I think that's the appeal of Ubuntu. It's got some Debian in it at the bottom so when I have to support I'm comfortable. My mom likes it because it works and she doesn't have to call me as much anymore becuase her computer is "acting slow".
You are probably at "power user" status or beyond if you are running three OS's on one machine so if you have invested some time and emotion in Gentoo and it works well for you then you probably aren't really missing anything available in another distro.
People rail on and on here and elsewhere about how the Linux Community needs to come together and pick a distro, get their shit together and market Linux properly, etc... For the sake of people like you and me, I sure hope that never happens. I like choice and freedom, lot's of it!
And if I recall correctly these early keys the gp mentioned were not unique to each copy. They were general product codes that could be used on more then one copy. I know I used to just look on the sticker of a Win98 box to get a key when installing a fresh copy. And I remember some generic numbers you used to be able to use on any copy of VS.
There was definately a transition period though. I remember getting so frustrated by being asked for the Office 97 key when *removing* Office. "Sorry the key you entered did not match your copy of Office 97. Setup will now exit." Or something like that... Run setup to remove and you can't remove it because it is potentially pirated. Go figure. From the makers of "Press Start to Shutdown!"
As other posts have mentioned I beleive the "patentable" aspect of this is the fact that each media instance has it's own unique key.
Ah well said. In addition to the importance of being polite it is equally important to not say much if you really don't know about a topic.
That said, I am a Linux user and, my tongue in cheek statement about us being right aside, I would say the majority of us behave in a similar manner. My first working experience with Linux came after I spent a lot of time messing with it at home and I thought I was pretty good. The guy who ended up being my boss was a Unix guy from way back and wrote drivers for the telecomm solutions we were creating at the time. He was, in every sense of the word, a guru. But he was a nice, well mannered guy and he had a lot of patience and respect for my willingness to learn. He tought me so much about Linux and Unix in general, more in a few months then I had learned spending over a year on my own.
The best way I can repay him is to extend that same courtesy to others...
I think that what the gp meant is that if you *like* to tinker then Linux/Unix is a good fit.
If you don't then by all means use Windows or OS X or a calcualtor, pencil and paper. Whatever gets your job completed.
But it as rude as the jerks described in TFA to attack people who *do* like to tinker with Linux and expect them to make it easy for you to listen to WMA files on your Linux box.
But you just described the Linux and the WIndows communities too!
:-)
In general your statement could apply to any institution, group or loosley knit community. There are snobbish assholes among them that think they found the one true way and the only reason people don't see it their way is becasue they are stupid.
*ducks...
The only difference here is that us Linux folk are actually right.