Bullshit. Windows IS easier. If nothing else there is one standard way to update and none of this "if you have apt-get" bollocks. On ANY supported Windows box, go to Windowsupdate and you can patch it.
I use Debian. I have one standard way to upgrade and patch EVERY PROGRAM ON MY ENTIRE SYSTEM. Do you? - No. I can also install new software the same, standard way. Can you? - No. If a non-MS program has a security problem, can you fix it using Windows Update? - No. I can.
If you're going to dis RedHat, then say RedHat. Don't lump all Linuxes together, because they are not the same. That's like me saying Win95 has no automatic security updates. You'd know this if you ever actually ran Linux, rather than going off "what you heard other people say".
Wasn't the Linux kernel just patched for a number of serious bugs that existed since 2.2? Seems to me Linux is no different than Windows in this respect
There's a difference between sitting on a *known* vulnerability, and not knowing about a vulnerability. Once one becomes known, it should be fixed *now*, not in 6 months to a year. OSS does a very good job at fixing things quickly once they are discovered. MS normally does a good job, but sits on some vulnerabilities for quite a bit longer than it should.
[Discount] Anything that must be run by the user, or that relies on problems that have been patched or have super easy workarounds
That would cover pretty much all Linux vulnerabilities too. Any service in Linux can be shut down with a command or two. And it's pretty damn rare when a Linux hacker uses an unknown vulnerability, and almost all have a patch within days of discovery.
In response to your last paragraph, take a look at beam robots. See how they can do tasks with a few components that complex digital robots cannot.
... and see all the things complex digital robots can do that beam robots cannot. I'll stop working on traditional robots when someone wins with a beam robot in RoboCup. I'm not holding my breath.
It's kind of like saying launching satellites is trivial because you can build cheap and simple model rockets. Or this: O(n^2) algoritms are usually a lot simpler conceptually than the O(n log n) ones, but the simple ones don't scale.
Btw, it's not really an acronym, its a japanese word that means "gait or step". They came up with that sad acronym when it started touring North America.
Yeh the original article is about the desktop, but this thread sure seemed to be making generalizations. If they're really just desktops, then this would still be appropriate even for slow machines. Not to mention, my P166 runs ctwm and fvwm2 just fine as a desktop thanks. Since I didn't start running Linux yesterday, I know there are alternatives to Gnome and KDE that aren't nearly so bloated (admittedly KDE is working on this, but Gnome seems to not care).
I'm running Linux 2.6 on a Pentium 166 with 64MB of RAM as a gateway/shell server. Respond below if you've successfuly installed either WinXP or MS Server 2003 on a machine with similar stats.
Wrong.
Look up what a "BSA Audit" is.
Wrong again.
You could be right here, but you've lost all credibility by this point, coward.
So is a color digital camera, so calm down and learn something. Google for "Bayer color filter". "Color" cameras simply use per-pixel filters over a grayscale CCD, rather than the larger individual filters that the MER rovers use. The larger filters are better in fact, just like 3CCD cameras they avoid edge coloration artifacts. The only problem would be if they needed to image moving things, in which case color is the least of their worries.
Probably not. The frequency response of a digital camera, CRT monitors, and the human eye really are all somewhat different. With the three channel approximation of true color, there isn't a way you can fix it after the fact either. This is just like trying to get color printers to reproduce accurate color; its never quite right.
Well, they did say "bundle like a TV" which is correct, but they did mistakenly call that one pixel. For all practical purposes Bayer filters are lying about the resolution and you might as well call the 2x2 block a single color pixel.
Foveon's sensors don't have really good color separation, and NASA wanted to have more than RGB anyway (they actually have something like 14 different filters). For science you don't want to limit yourself to just the visible spectrum. Hubble works similarly.
Using something about halfway between R and L seems to make Japanese people the happiest, but they aren't very picky about it since they don't ordinarily make the distinction. Think of how you make the two sounds, and try and its not too hard to mix them. For a speaker of a language such as English where we make the distinction between the two sounds, you try to map it to one or the other (i.e. you map sounds to what you expect), but if you listen hard enough eventually you notice its usally a mix of the two.
Only 4 months back and I already miss Japan, as well as Sapporo (the beer).
Of course, you don't need an advertising clause if you use the GPL. Since the source is released, anyone can go see what you really used to build your system.
P.S. I wonder how advertising clause people would like it if GCC insisted on adding lines to everything it compiles, including BSD: "This software made possible by the GNU Compiler". My guess is most adv-BSD people would dislike it, even though that is exactly what they are doing. P.P.S. FreeBSD has made the right choice to phase our the advertising clause.
The problem is that if you include 30 lines of XFree source code in a 3000 line project, you still need the notice. NetBSD has hundreds of such notices, for example. It's not fun to have those loads of messages when the software runs either, or in the help file.
And after all that, you really can't force someone to give you the credit you deserve anyway, they will only give credit if the want to. Windows gives "credit" to the BSD network stack (among other things) that they incorporate in Windows, but its buried so far in the installation docs that nobody would ever see it anyway. So what's the point of adding the clause? Why not just write good software, and the honest people will cite your hard work anyway.
Oh, they can can they? Or is this how it will be in the near future, you know, just after WMD has been finally found?
They decided to go with a GSM-based cell phone system, for example, even though it would please the US companies to go with the incompatible US standard. What does WMD (or lack thereof, rather) have to do with anything? This is all an argument about the "No War for Oil" BS. This has nothing to do with "No War for Kickbacks, and Phantom WMD" which incidentally I would agree with, though as usual hindsight is 20/20. You keep changing the argument, rather like SCO. What are you going to bring up next, minimum wage?
Yes, and Saddam could influence who the oil was sold to and in what currencies it was paid (euro)
I was talking about the oil companies, not Iraq. Every sale had to be approved by the UN, so ultimately it was they who were in control, not Iraq. Oil companies don't "make" oil, all they want is the cheapest supply of crude, either getting it out of the ground themselves when they can secure mineral rights, or buying crude from nations for as cheap as possible when they can't. I imagine the oil companies involved got sweet deals to reward them for going through the UN, otherwise they wouldn't bother. Half of the oil Iraq sold under the program was to US oil companies (some direct, some through intermediaries). That supplied 8% of US oil imports. So it wasn't a bad deal for them at all.
Iraq post-war with no more UN sanctions will have a lot more choices than they did under the sanctions. Do you actually think Iraqis are so stupid that they will give away long term mineral rights? They are not stupid, so there is no way that will happen, and the US will have little more influence there than it does in several other countries in the area. The fact that Iraqis have already influenced both the timeline and election plans is a good demonstration they know what they are doing.
According to most estimates, Iraq has more oil than Saudia-Arabia. Hard to tell after years of war and mismanagment.
What are you talking about? Go to the OPEC site and see for yourself. Of course it dependswhoyouask, but I have yet to see anyone say Iraq. Try to provide a link with more credibility than OPEC.
Slashdot Mirror
Bullshit. Windows IS easier. If nothing else there is one standard way to update and none of this "if you have apt-get" bollocks. On ANY supported Windows box, go to Windowsupdate and you can patch it.
I use Debian. I have one standard way to upgrade and patch EVERY PROGRAM ON MY ENTIRE SYSTEM. Do you? - No. I can also install new software the same, standard way. Can you? - No. If a non-MS program has a security problem, can you fix it using Windows Update? - No. I can.
If you're going to dis RedHat, then say RedHat. Don't lump all Linuxes together, because they are not the same. That's like me saying Win95 has no automatic security updates. You'd know this if you ever actually ran Linux, rather than going off "what you heard other people say".
Wasn't the Linux kernel just patched for a number of serious bugs that existed since 2.2? Seems to me Linux is no different than Windows in this respect
There's a difference between sitting on a *known* vulnerability, and not knowing about a vulnerability. Once one becomes known, it should be fixed *now*, not in 6 months to a year. OSS does a very good job at fixing things quickly once they are discovered. MS normally does a good job, but sits on some vulnerabilities for quite a bit longer than it should.
[Discount] Anything that must be run by the user, or that relies on problems that have been patched or have super easy workarounds
That would cover pretty much all Linux vulnerabilities too. Any service in Linux can be shut down with a command or two. And it's pretty damn rare when a Linux hacker uses an unknown vulnerability, and almost all have a patch within days of discovery.
GNU was hacked twice last year, and GNOME, Debian, and Gentoo were all hacked. What gives?
Of course, Valve got so owned its about as bad as the rest combined. I wonder how many other companies just didn't bother to report...
In response to your last paragraph, take a look at beam robots. See how they can do tasks with a few components that complex digital robots cannot.
... and see all the things complex digital robots can do that beam robots cannot. I'll stop working on traditional robots when someone wins with a beam robot in RoboCup. I'm not holding my breath.
It's kind of like saying launching satellites is trivial because you can build cheap and simple model rockets. Or this: O(n^2) algoritms are usually a lot simpler conceptually than the O(n log n) ones, but the simple ones don't scale.
Btw, it's not really an acronym, its a japanese word that means "gait or step". They came up with that sad acronym when it started touring North America.
Yeh the original article is about the desktop, but this thread sure seemed to be making generalizations. If they're really just desktops, then this would still be appropriate even for slow machines. Not to mention, my P166 runs ctwm and fvwm2 just fine as a desktop thanks. Since I didn't start running Linux yesterday, I know there are alternatives to Gnome and KDE that aren't nearly so bloated (admittedly KDE is working on this, but Gnome seems to not care).
That is such BS and you know it.
I'm running Linux 2.6 on a Pentium 166 with 64MB of RAM as a gateway/shell server. Respond below if you've successfuly installed either WinXP or MS Server 2003 on a machine with similar stats.
Wrong.
Look up what a "BSA Audit" is.
Wrong again.
You could be right here, but you've lost all credibility by this point, coward.
saving: ut2004-lnx-demo-3120.run.bz2 (199.1 MB)
:-)
percent done: 93.3
download rate: 1617.46 kB/s
upload rate: 666.04 kB/s
download total: 224.1 MiB
upload total: 123.8 MiB
Now *that* is what downloading is about. Go BitTorrent
RTFA. They're B&W with filters.
So is a color digital camera, so calm down and learn something. Google for "Bayer color filter". "Color" cameras simply use per-pixel filters over a grayscale CCD, rather than the larger individual filters that the MER rovers use. The larger filters are better in fact, just like 3CCD cameras they avoid edge coloration artifacts. The only problem would be if they needed to image moving things, in which case color is the least of their worries.
His bull might have 7 different switchable color filters for each eye, however.
Probably not. The frequency response of a digital camera, CRT monitors, and the human eye really are all somewhat different. With the three channel approximation of true color, there isn't a way you can fix it after the fact either. This is just like trying to get color printers to reproduce accurate color; its never quite right.
You're right, except one nitpick: Foveon makes color CMOS image sensors, which are not the same thing as CCDs.
Well, they did say "bundle like a TV" which is correct, but they did mistakenly call that one pixel. For all practical purposes Bayer filters are lying about the resolution and you might as well call the 2x2 block a single color pixel.
Foveon's sensors don't have really good color separation, and NASA wanted to have more than RGB anyway (they actually have something like 14 different filters). For science you don't want to limit yourself to just the visible spectrum. Hubble works similarly.
The mainstream press are ignoring Kucinich too, are you suggesting that he is an alien life form?
And it was on NASA's site almost two weeks ago:
Revealing Mars' True Colors: Part One
Revealing Mars' True Colors: Part Two
Nothing to see here, take off the tinfoil hat.
Yeah, but how does this compare to the penguin worship formations we already know are there? That "crab" looks more like a "martian booger" to me.
Using something about halfway between R and L seems to make Japanese people the happiest, but they aren't very picky about it since they don't ordinarily make the distinction. Think of how you make the two sounds, and try and its not too hard to mix them. For a speaker of a language such as English where we make the distinction between the two sounds, you try to map it to one or the other (i.e. you map sounds to what you expect), but if you listen hard enough eventually you notice its usally a mix of the two.
Only 4 months back and I already miss Japan, as well as Sapporo (the beer).
In that case we should call it "Mozilla Pro 2004" :-)
What do I care, I use calc ;)
Or XFreeAsInBeer86.
Of course, you don't need an advertising clause if you use the GPL. Since the source is released, anyone can go see what you really used to build your system.
P.S. I wonder how advertising clause people would like it if GCC insisted on adding lines to everything it compiles, including BSD: "This software made possible by the GNU Compiler". My guess is most adv-BSD people would dislike it, even though that is exactly what they are doing.
P.P.S. FreeBSD has made the right choice to phase our the advertising clause.
The problem is that if you include 30 lines of XFree source code in a 3000 line project, you still need the notice. NetBSD has hundreds of such notices, for example. It's not fun to have those loads of messages when the software runs either, or in the help file.
And after all that, you really can't force someone to give you the credit you deserve anyway, they will only give credit if the want to. Windows gives "credit" to the BSD network stack (among other things) that they incorporate in Windows, but its buried so far in the installation docs that nobody would ever see it anyway. So what's the point of adding the clause? Why not just write good software, and the honest people will cite your hard work anyway.
Oh, they can can they? Or is this how it will be in the near future, you know, just after WMD has been finally found?
They decided to go with a GSM-based cell phone system, for example, even though it would please the US companies to go with the incompatible US standard. What does WMD (or lack thereof, rather) have to do with anything? This is all an argument about the "No War for Oil" BS. This has nothing to do with "No War for Kickbacks, and Phantom WMD" which incidentally I would agree with, though as usual hindsight is 20/20. You keep changing the argument, rather like SCO. What are you going to bring up next, minimum wage?
Yes, and Saddam could influence who the oil was sold to and in what currencies it was paid (euro)
I was talking about the oil companies, not Iraq. Every sale had to be approved by the UN, so ultimately it was they who were in control, not Iraq. Oil companies don't "make" oil, all they want is the cheapest supply of crude, either getting it out of the ground themselves when they can secure mineral rights, or buying crude from nations for as cheap as possible when they can't. I imagine the oil companies involved got sweet deals to reward them for going through the UN, otherwise they wouldn't bother. Half of the oil Iraq sold under the program was to US oil companies (some direct, some through intermediaries). That supplied 8% of US oil imports. So it wasn't a bad deal for them at all.
Iraq post-war with no more UN sanctions will have a lot more choices than they did under the sanctions. Do you actually think Iraqis are so stupid that they will give away long term mineral rights? They are not stupid, so there is no way that will happen, and the US will have little more influence there than it does in several other countries in the area. The fact that Iraqis have already influenced both the timeline and election plans is a good demonstration they know what they are doing.
According to most estimates, Iraq has more oil than Saudia-Arabia. Hard to tell after years of war and mismanagment.
What are you talking about? Go to the OPEC site and see for yourself. Of course it depends who you ask, but I have yet to see anyone say Iraq. Try to provide a link with more credibility than OPEC.
err I mean Celsius.