Correlation does not imply causation. For all this study appears to show, it could be that drinking hot water is the reason for the relationship. I'd like to see a study conducted where group A drinks coffee and group B takes a supplement that contains the components of the coffee bean which are present in brewed coffee.
Yet another interesting obscure registry key to target for spyware-malware...
the registry database is source of all evil on Windows since his creation....
The Windows registry is essentially indistinguishable from/etc/ on a Linux system. "Oh no! A hierarchical database you can only edit in real time!" Yes, it does operate just like a file system.
There is an irrational fear around the Windows registry. Spend some time learning about the structure. It's not that scary or unusual if you approach is as just another hierarchical database containing configuration information. Hell, it could be easily transferred to an XML schema and the only thing that would change is the performance would go to shit.
It's essentially a combination of/etc and/dev (with some additional metadata on installed libraries and the boot procedure) and is in reality no more complex than either. There is clear logic about it's layout, and although you may not be aware of every possible configuration, I doubt anybody is aware of every possible configuration option in/etc either. You can just as easily break your system in the Windows registry as you can in/etc.
Lastly, while documentation for open source projects can definitely be a weakness, (although programs on windows aren't completely immune to this criticism) getting the wrong version of the docs is a pebkac issue. If the man pages don't have the info you need, the distro should have the docs available for your version, or the project's website should have the docs for your version. Checking the docs' version should always be the first step.
I've run into the doc-version problem on Windows, too. I'll be searching for a solution and run across a MS KB article that applies to Windows 2000/XP/2003 when I'm using 2008 or 7. Sometimes they're identical, sometimes there's minor differences, sometimes it's been completely changed. It wasn't a problem when MS was essentially 100% NT 5, but doc versioning is a problem now.
That said, I still believe that, when operating a desktop OS, if I have to go into regedit or into/etc, then the OS is failing to be a proper desktop OS. I also believe that, when operating a server OS, if I ever need to do something and cannot use a command line then the OS is failing to be a proper server OS. Text commands are far easier to replicate across a group of servers. PowerShell fixes about 95% of the possible complaints about this issue on Windows, although I still feel it's not quite where it needs to be. WinRM needs to operate more like sshd and less like "omg telnetd == security issue panix". There are some System COM objects not exposed in.NET that really need to be, and System.IO in general needs to be completely overhauled and improved... there's no justifiable reason that limitations imposed by Windows 3 still need to be in place.
More to the point, so does Canonical when you run apt-get update. Indeed, they probably actually analyze the logs "in order to catch abusive clients". See, I can make repository maintainers look scary by putting their perfectly valid reasoning in quotes.
People have been conditioned to blindly reject anything that might even hint of a conspiracy theory.
I think that's called "healthy skepticism," "logic," and "reason." Requiring sufficient facts in order to believe an argument is not a weakness. Look at the fiction section of a library; any fool can fabricate a story that's reasonably convincing. SlashDot posters routinely denigrate religions on precisely this issue. Coming up with a theory of events doesn't mean squat. You have to get proof, not simply ask questions that raise suspicions. "This is suspicious" only means you need to investigate more to find proof. It never means you should start accepting something as true in the absence of evidence, and "I'm right" should never be your Null Hypothesis.
The reality is that people need to say "I don't know" a hell of a lot more than "I think."
I agree that it's a serious problem, but it's not a new problem. I think people have always gravitated towards listening to the voices they agree with and ignoring those they don't. I'm not sure the mere fact that you can set it up to not even see that opinions you ignore exist would alter anything substantially.
Many people (most?) are exceedingly biased. Much like all the patent nonsense, adding "... on a computer" to the end of that statement really doesn't create a new idea.
Why are computer systems that control critical infrastructure accessible from the Internet? And even if it has access to the Internet, why is someone using it to go to web pages that are not on the company Intranet?
Because they're installed an configured by electronics engineers and computer programmers, not sysadmins. They bitch and moan and piss and whine and call one VP after another until the sysadmins say, "Fine, it's on the network and has unfiltered access to the Internet and automatically logs in to an Admin account. We're not fixing it when it breaks so you're getting the call at 3am when the custodian accidentally unplugs it for the 30th time. It's not backed up unless you do it (and we know you won't). It's not patched or maintained unless you do it (and we know you won't). It's a ticking time bomb that will cause you to lose your job when it goes off, but it's no longer our problem. Have a nice day."
Maybe because it's the best tool for your job? Politics isn't the only reason to pick your software. Or maybe someone has to deal with files from *gasp* someone else!
Call me paranoid, but after the warrantless wireless scandal, I'm not at all inclined to trust the government when it comes to our communications network.
You're paranoid, and this is pure FUD.
I'm not saying it's not possible. I'm saying wait until you have some evidence or you'll have the credibility of Glen Beck or Nancy Grace.
I mean what could possibly be dangerous about allowing random websites to run hardware level code?
The same thing that's dangerous about allowing anyone to run random code on your system. This is not a new security problem. It's the same old security problem in a flashy new suit. Any access higher than no access risks infection.
Personally, I'm curious about what, if any, protections WDDM provides against this type of attack (by design or by accident).
As I understand it the Lithium Iron Phosphate batteries pretty much solve the major issues with EV cars.They're fast charging ( 10 min or so ) , long lifespan ( 10+ years ), can output a tremendous amount of power, and have a wide operating temperature range. The issue at the moment seems to be that the price is too steep for them to be economically used in cars.
So, they solve all the issues, except the issue of price. And the issue of weight (and it has a lower power density, currently, ~14% according to Wikipedia).
I tell people it's like going back to Cat3 on a 10/100 hub. Or, if they're not technical, it's like having one teacher for 30 students versus 1 tutor for every child.
It's also important to remember that wireless is a brand new technology. We act like it isn't, but really it is. 802.11 was ratified in 1997. The technology is only 14 years old. For reference, this is what a cell phone looked like in 1997. Cell technology was about 20 years older then. Remember how bad cell phones were in the 90's? That's where wireless LAN is today.
Your NetFlix comment makes me think you're being sarcastic, but let's take the comments seriously:
I look around at the Fortune 100 company where I work, and I note that every single executive is carrying an iPad.
Again, you need to find someone doing real work on an iPad. Executives don't do real work on a computer. They pay other people to do that. They do their real work on the telephone and face-to-face.
I regularly see them pulling down enormous PowerPoint presentations, spreadsheets, and watching Netflix.
They're viewing. Viewing is not working on the device. Creating is doing working on the device. In this case the iPad is little better than a printed document or a DVD player.
"If you want to understand Anonymous you need to watch the Ghost in the Shell anime. Anonymous is a seeded attempt at the "Laughing Man" of the series."
And you need to re-watch it. The name "Stand-Alone Complex" comes from the fact that there was no Laughing Man. All the "Laughing Man" attacks were all actually inside jobs, corporate attempts at scamming insurers and securing government bailouts. They were all "copycats" for which there never really was an original.
Anonymous isn't trying to recreate "Laughing Man" here, Sony is, and for the same reasons.
To my knowledge the imagining of "Stand-Alone Complex" was to use the same plot as that present in the OAV, but this time the mystery hacker was never caught and never truly identified like he was in the movie (although there he merged with the Major rather than being "caught" in a strict sense). The team only ever found copycats of the Laughing Man, but there was an actual true Laughing Man -- which is why they talk about the Original Laughing Man Incident so much. He (it?) was real. He just got away. Didn't you notice how similar the one known a Aoi in the series was to the shell the program inhabited in the movie? Same character different outcome.
And remember, it's Ghost in the Shell. You're never given the whole story.
What rights are you quibbling about, right to an Internet domain name? Sorry, not buying it. Name one right being oppressed, and who grants it if applicable.
Rights are not granted. Rights are inherent and sovereign. There are no laws which grant rights. There are only laws which recognize and protect rights. Privileges are granted. It is your right to own property, including an automobile (or a domain name). It is a privilege to drive your automobile on state-owned and state-maintained roads, which is why a license to operate is required. Thus, it is the right of the maintainers of the website MAFIAAFire to own the domain they have paid for. It is also the right of Mozilla Foundation to post whatever they wish on the site they own. It is up to the government to prove -- in a court of law -- that a law has been broken. When a law has been broken and it has been proven in a court of law, only then should the rights of a person be truncated. Your rights end where another's rights begin, but the government has to prove that before your rights can be denied.
This is a gross oversimplification, of course, but it is the general jist of the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. The Constitution, OTOH, is largely a functional document. The philosophy of the nation resides in the Declaration, the Bill of Rights, and to a lesser extent the remaining Amendments.
There are some special exceptions to ownership rights, which the founders did recognize. When you publish or sell items, you lose control of them and effectively lose much of the extent of ownership. To protect and foster growth, and to allow industry and artistry to be a profitable and lucrative way of life -- and thus an economic force -- the government chose to restrict the natural right of possession being total ownership. They do this through the use of patents to foster industry, and copyright to foster artistry. They provide a limited monopoly, and -- crucially -- they are an artificial not a natural right.
Of course, corporations, copyright holders, and patent holders have tried to extend their artificial right to a perpetual one. This will eventually cause significant harm to industry and artistry, as it is creating an aristocracy of IP owners. Students of Europe in the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries can tell you all about how well aristocracies work out in the end.
You'll notice that one area is [largely] not covered by copyright and patent law is food production. The recipe for Coca-Cola, or McDonald's french fries, or Cheetos isn't protected at all. It must be kept secret. If the recipe is lost, there is no real legal recourse. You'll notice this hasn't stopped the popularity of certain brands or the ability to monetize certain foods. Of course, it also hasn't protected new small businesses entering the field from competitors, but one might argue that market competition is more worthwhile than patent and copyright litigation.
This has nothing to do with wages, is my guess. This has to do with understanding where your area of expertise ends.
This is the equivalent of asking a heart surgeon to do nuclear medicine, or asking a plumber to run the electrical wires for a house. It's got nothing to do with intelligence or understanding the ideas of basic underlying systems. It's about understand that being completely untrained in this area means you will not obey best practice, you will severely screw things up, and when you get fired for screwing things up so badly you can't fix it when something goes wrong you will make the job of the next guy 100 times harder because of the poor decisions you've made. You will make mistakes that experienced professionals will not, and you will make mistakes that a business of this size should not have to endure.
I would say that every network admin and systems admin I've met or worked with has encountered the network or system which was designed, configured, or maintained by a computer programmer. They are an absolute nightmare and a source of endless grief. Yes, the system probably works. But it's also undocumented, not secure, none of the software outside the has been main. And the general response from a programmer will be "who cares? the system works doesn't it?". Why do I have such a hard time convincing some programmers why there needs to be a difference between dev, test, and prod?
If you're a business in need of a network admin to redesign the network, you hire a Sr Net Admin. Know your business needs.
If you're a computer programmer in need of work, take a job as a programmer. Know your limitations.
This is not to say there are not equally crappy admins out there. There certainly are. But being a computer programmer, software engineer, or enterprise solutions architect doesn't grant you an understanding of systems and network administration. How can I tell? Because I have to maintain your systems that break every convention of the OS security and application model, cannot be deployed without hours of repackaging, and require runtimes and libraries that are ridiculously out of date and suffer severe security vulnerabilities.
I would expect it's more a personnel issue. "Most staff" have been laid off, so presumably the rest will at the end of the hibernation state when the money to maintain the hibernation runs out.
The registry is no worse and no more complex than/boot/,/dev/,/etc/, and parts of/lib/ combined. That's all the registry is, with a little/home/ thrown in for HKCU. If you honestly believe otherwise, you've honestly never dealt with either system for any extended period with any applications of consequence. It takes maybe one or two hours of serious study to understand how the registry is laid out and what each bit does for the system. It's not hard. People are just intimidated. They think that editing a live hierarchal database is somehow more scary than editing a live filesystem, without realizing it's essentially the same thing.
Windows itself has not had memory leaks since prior to Windows 2000, and making this argument dates your experiences towards obsolescence. Complaints about other software being shoddy should be directed at those particular vendors. Or should we start blaming kernel.org because we found a bug in a binary driver? FOSS political followers love that.
Rebooting servers to apply patches takes about 1 hour a month for the entire network for about 50 servers. Honestly, if your systems cannot handle the server being inaccessible for the time it takes a system to restart, you've built an amazing fault-intolerant system. It does not take significantly longer than it does to stop and start services on Linux servers, which needs to be done when that software is updated. The idea of never rebooting servers is outdated and unwise, as if you never reboot servers and suddenly you have to due to an emergency restart, hardware failure, or hardware update and discover a problem at boot, you will never know if your system isn't booting because of the hardware failure or because you updated the software this month. Or the month before that. Or the month before that. Or the month before that. Or changed the configuration six months ago. Or twelve months ago. Wait, did Bob do a change nine months ago? Or was that reverting a change from last year? You're suddenly stuck in a position of having no idea why your server is broken and only knowing that the last known good state was three years ago and you probably haven't even got the grandfather backup any longer. Good job. Have a nice weekend with that. Hope your resume is polished and ready.
I've said it before: If you are so poor at systems administration that you cannot adequately harden and secure Windows Server and keep it running smoothly, you do not deserve to be a systems administrator of any operating system. Turn in your badge and keyboard.
Slashdot Mirror
My relatives certainly seem to think they do.
Correlation does not imply causation. For all this study appears to show, it could be that drinking hot water is the reason for the relationship. I'd like to see a study conducted where group A drinks coffee and group B takes a supplement that contains the components of the coffee bean which are present in brewed coffee.
Yet another interesting obscure registry key to target for spyware-malware...
the registry database is source of all evil on Windows since his creation....
The Windows registry is essentially indistinguishable from /etc/ on a Linux system. "Oh no! A hierarchical database you can only edit in real time!" Yes, it does operate just like a file system.
There is an irrational fear around the Windows registry. Spend some time learning about the structure. It's not that scary or unusual if you approach is as just another hierarchical database containing configuration information. Hell, it could be easily transferred to an XML schema and the only thing that would change is the performance would go to shit.
It's essentially a combination of /etc and /dev (with some additional metadata on installed libraries and the boot procedure) and is in reality no more complex than either. There is clear logic about it's layout, and although you may not be aware of every possible configuration, I doubt anybody is aware of every possible configuration option in /etc either. You can just as easily break your system in the Windows registry as you can in /etc.
Lastly, while documentation for open source projects can definitely be a weakness, (although programs on windows aren't completely immune to this criticism) getting the wrong version of the docs is a pebkac issue. If the man pages don't have the info you need, the distro should have the docs available for your version, or the project's website should have the docs for your version. Checking the docs' version should always be the first step.
I've run into the doc-version problem on Windows, too. I'll be searching for a solution and run across a MS KB article that applies to Windows 2000/XP/2003 when I'm using 2008 or 7. Sometimes they're identical, sometimes there's minor differences, sometimes it's been completely changed. It wasn't a problem when MS was essentially 100% NT 5, but doc versioning is a problem now.
That said, I still believe that, when operating a desktop OS, if I have to go into regedit or into /etc, then the OS is failing to be a proper desktop OS. I also believe that, when operating a server OS, if I ever need to do something and cannot use a command line then the OS is failing to be a proper server OS. Text commands are far easier to replicate across a group of servers. PowerShell fixes about 95% of the possible complaints about this issue on Windows, although I still feel it's not quite where it needs to be. WinRM needs to operate more like sshd and less like "omg telnetd == security issue panix". There are some System COM objects not exposed in .NET that really need to be, and System.IO in general needs to be completely overhauled and improved... there's no justifiable reason that limitations imposed by Windows 3 still need to be in place.
More to the point, so does Canonical when you run apt-get update. Indeed, they probably actually analyze the logs "in order to catch abusive clients". See, I can make repository maintainers look scary by putting their perfectly valid reasoning in quotes.
People have been conditioned to blindly reject anything that might even hint of a conspiracy theory.
I think that's called "healthy skepticism," "logic," and "reason." Requiring sufficient facts in order to believe an argument is not a weakness. Look at the fiction section of a library; any fool can fabricate a story that's reasonably convincing. SlashDot posters routinely denigrate religions on precisely this issue. Coming up with a theory of events doesn't mean squat. You have to get proof, not simply ask questions that raise suspicions. "This is suspicious" only means you need to investigate more to find proof. It never means you should start accepting something as true in the absence of evidence, and "I'm right" should never be your Null Hypothesis.
The reality is that people need to say "I don't know" a hell of a lot more than "I think."
I agree that it's a serious problem, but it's not a new problem. I think people have always gravitated towards listening to the voices they agree with and ignoring those they don't. I'm not sure the mere fact that you can set it up to not even see that opinions you ignore exist would alter anything substantially.
Many people (most?) are exceedingly biased. Much like all the patent nonsense, adding "... on a computer" to the end of that statement really doesn't create a new idea.
Why are computer systems that control critical infrastructure accessible from the Internet? And even if it has access to the Internet, why is someone using it to go to web pages that are not on the company Intranet?
Because they're installed an configured by electronics engineers and computer programmers, not sysadmins. They bitch and moan and piss and whine and call one VP after another until the sysadmins say, "Fine, it's on the network and has unfiltered access to the Internet and automatically logs in to an Admin account. We're not fixing it when it breaks so you're getting the call at 3am when the custodian accidentally unplugs it for the 30th time. It's not backed up unless you do it (and we know you won't). It's not patched or maintained unless you do it (and we know you won't). It's a ticking time bomb that will cause you to lose your job when it goes off, but it's no longer our problem. Have a nice day."
Maybe because it's the best tool for your job? Politics isn't the only reason to pick your software. Or maybe someone has to deal with files from *gasp* someone else!
An EULA isn't an end-run around the law. If an EULA contradicts what the law says, then the EULA is invalid.
Call me paranoid, but after the warrantless wireless scandal, I'm not at all inclined to trust the government when it comes to our communications network.
You're paranoid, and this is pure FUD.
I'm not saying it's not possible. I'm saying wait until you have some evidence or you'll have the credibility of Glen Beck or Nancy Grace.
I mean what could possibly be dangerous about allowing random websites to run hardware level code?
The same thing that's dangerous about allowing anyone to run random code on your system. This is not a new security problem. It's the same old security problem in a flashy new suit. Any access higher than no access risks infection.
Personally, I'm curious about what, if any, protections WDDM provides against this type of attack (by design or by accident).
I'm currently working a Help Desk so I'm aoih wari aoweifuo iaueoainfoawirubauwhetuhisg.
I don't know, given the gas prices of today and level of unemployment in the West it might be cheaper to hire 1,265 humans to pull my car.
As I understand it the Lithium Iron Phosphate batteries pretty much solve the major issues with EV cars.They're fast charging ( 10 min or so ) , long lifespan ( 10+ years ), can output a tremendous amount of power, and have a wide operating temperature range. The issue at the moment seems to be that the price is too steep for them to be economically used in cars.
So, they solve all the issues, except the issue of price. And the issue of weight (and it has a lower power density, currently, ~14% according to Wikipedia).
That's really not "all the issues" then, is it?
Sorry, that should read "Cell technology was about 20 years old then."
I tell people it's like going back to Cat3 on a 10/100 hub. Or, if they're not technical, it's like having one teacher for 30 students versus 1 tutor for every child.
It's also important to remember that wireless is a brand new technology. We act like it isn't, but really it is. 802.11 was ratified in 1997. The technology is only 14 years old. For reference, this is what a cell phone looked like in 1997. Cell technology was about 20 years older then. Remember how bad cell phones were in the 90's? That's where wireless LAN is today.
Your NetFlix comment makes me think you're being sarcastic, but let's take the comments seriously:
I look around at the Fortune 100 company where I work, and I note that every single executive is carrying an iPad.
Again, you need to find someone doing real work on an iPad. Executives don't do real work on a computer. They pay other people to do that. They do their real work on the telephone and face-to-face.
I regularly see them pulling down enormous PowerPoint presentations, spreadsheets, and watching Netflix.
They're viewing. Viewing is not working on the device. Creating is doing working on the device. In this case the iPad is little better than a printed document or a DVD player.
"If you want to understand Anonymous you need to watch the Ghost in the Shell anime. Anonymous is a seeded attempt at the "Laughing Man" of the series."
And you need to re-watch it. The name "Stand-Alone Complex" comes from the fact that there was no Laughing Man. All the "Laughing Man" attacks were all actually inside jobs, corporate attempts at scamming insurers and securing government bailouts. They were all "copycats" for which there never really was an original.
Anonymous isn't trying to recreate "Laughing Man" here, Sony is, and for the same reasons.
To my knowledge the imagining of "Stand-Alone Complex" was to use the same plot as that present in the OAV, but this time the mystery hacker was never caught and never truly identified like he was in the movie (although there he merged with the Major rather than being "caught" in a strict sense). The team only ever found copycats of the Laughing Man, but there was an actual true Laughing Man -- which is why they talk about the Original Laughing Man Incident so much. He (it?) was real. He just got away. Didn't you notice how similar the one known a Aoi in the series was to the shell the program inhabited in the movie? Same character different outcome.
And remember, it's Ghost in the Shell. You're never given the whole story.
What rights are you quibbling about, right to an Internet domain name? Sorry, not buying it. Name one right being oppressed, and who grants it if applicable.
Rights are not granted. Rights are inherent and sovereign. There are no laws which grant rights. There are only laws which recognize and protect rights. Privileges are granted. It is your right to own property, including an automobile (or a domain name). It is a privilege to drive your automobile on state-owned and state-maintained roads, which is why a license to operate is required. Thus, it is the right of the maintainers of the website MAFIAAFire to own the domain they have paid for. It is also the right of Mozilla Foundation to post whatever they wish on the site they own. It is up to the government to prove -- in a court of law -- that a law has been broken. When a law has been broken and it has been proven in a court of law, only then should the rights of a person be truncated. Your rights end where another's rights begin, but the government has to prove that before your rights can be denied.
This is a gross oversimplification, of course, but it is the general jist of the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. The Constitution, OTOH, is largely a functional document. The philosophy of the nation resides in the Declaration, the Bill of Rights, and to a lesser extent the remaining Amendments.
There are some special exceptions to ownership rights, which the founders did recognize. When you publish or sell items, you lose control of them and effectively lose much of the extent of ownership. To protect and foster growth, and to allow industry and artistry to be a profitable and lucrative way of life -- and thus an economic force -- the government chose to restrict the natural right of possession being total ownership. They do this through the use of patents to foster industry, and copyright to foster artistry. They provide a limited monopoly, and -- crucially -- they are an artificial not a natural right.
Of course, corporations, copyright holders, and patent holders have tried to extend their artificial right to a perpetual one. This will eventually cause significant harm to industry and artistry, as it is creating an aristocracy of IP owners. Students of Europe in the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries can tell you all about how well aristocracies work out in the end.
You'll notice that one area is [largely] not covered by copyright and patent law is food production. The recipe for Coca-Cola, or McDonald's french fries, or Cheetos isn't protected at all. It must be kept secret. If the recipe is lost, there is no real legal recourse. You'll notice this hasn't stopped the popularity of certain brands or the ability to monetize certain foods. Of course, it also hasn't protected new small businesses entering the field from competitors, but one might argue that market competition is more worthwhile than patent and copyright litigation.
This has nothing to do with wages, is my guess. This has to do with understanding where your area of expertise ends.
This is the equivalent of asking a heart surgeon to do nuclear medicine, or asking a plumber to run the electrical wires for a house. It's got nothing to do with intelligence or understanding the ideas of basic underlying systems. It's about understand that being completely untrained in this area means you will not obey best practice, you will severely screw things up, and when you get fired for screwing things up so badly you can't fix it when something goes wrong you will make the job of the next guy 100 times harder because of the poor decisions you've made. You will make mistakes that experienced professionals will not, and you will make mistakes that a business of this size should not have to endure.
I would say that every network admin and systems admin I've met or worked with has encountered the network or system which was designed, configured, or maintained by a computer programmer. They are an absolute nightmare and a source of endless grief. Yes, the system probably works. But it's also undocumented, not secure, none of the software outside the has been main. And the general response from a programmer will be "who cares? the system works doesn't it?". Why do I have such a hard time convincing some programmers why there needs to be a difference between dev, test, and prod?
If you're a business in need of a network admin to redesign the network, you hire a Sr Net Admin. Know your business needs.
If you're a computer programmer in need of work, take a job as a programmer. Know your limitations.
This is not to say there are not equally crappy admins out there. There certainly are. But being a computer programmer, software engineer, or enterprise solutions architect doesn't grant you an understanding of systems and network administration. How can I tell? Because I have to maintain your systems that break every convention of the OS security and application model, cannot be deployed without hours of repackaging, and require runtimes and libraries that are ridiculously out of date and suffer severe security vulnerabilities.
I would expect it's more a personnel issue. "Most staff" have been laid off, so presumably the rest will at the end of the hibernation state when the money to maintain the hibernation runs out.
Yes, these courtroom proceedings have some awfully innovative arguments in them.
What's that? It was supposed to be market innovation? Ooooops....
The registry is no worse and no more complex than /boot/, /dev/, /etc/, and parts of /lib/ combined. That's all the registry is, with a little /home/ thrown in for HKCU. If you honestly believe otherwise, you've honestly never dealt with either system for any extended period with any applications of consequence. It takes maybe one or two hours of serious study to understand how the registry is laid out and what each bit does for the system. It's not hard. People are just intimidated. They think that editing a live hierarchal database is somehow more scary than editing a live filesystem, without realizing it's essentially the same thing.
Windows itself has not had memory leaks since prior to Windows 2000, and making this argument dates your experiences towards obsolescence. Complaints about other software being shoddy should be directed at those particular vendors. Or should we start blaming kernel.org because we found a bug in a binary driver? FOSS political followers love that.
Rebooting servers to apply patches takes about 1 hour a month for the entire network for about 50 servers. Honestly, if your systems cannot handle the server being inaccessible for the time it takes a system to restart, you've built an amazing fault-intolerant system. It does not take significantly longer than it does to stop and start services on Linux servers, which needs to be done when that software is updated. The idea of never rebooting servers is outdated and unwise, as if you never reboot servers and suddenly you have to due to an emergency restart, hardware failure, or hardware update and discover a problem at boot, you will never know if your system isn't booting because of the hardware failure or because you updated the software this month. Or the month before that. Or the month before that. Or the month before that. Or changed the configuration six months ago. Or twelve months ago. Wait, did Bob do a change nine months ago? Or was that reverting a change from last year? You're suddenly stuck in a position of having no idea why your server is broken and only knowing that the last known good state was three years ago and you probably haven't even got the grandfather backup any longer. Good job. Have a nice weekend with that. Hope your resume is polished and ready.
I've said it before: If you are so poor at systems administration that you cannot adequately harden and secure Windows Server and keep it running smoothly, you do not deserve to be a systems administrator of any operating system. Turn in your badge and keyboard.
Of course I was online before 1997. I just try not to remember it!