I've had two fun situations like this - the first one with O2 UK (a mobile phone company) doing just what the article says, except they didn't send the warning letter until a month AFTER i was cut off (with valid bank details on file). That one went to OfCom (the man).
The other was with CVV number (the three extra digits they have on the back of a visa). My last card had the CVV number of 000, and several systems (Endsleigh Insurance for one) refused to take my card as i had to enter a number for the CVV number.
I used the Connexions by Boeing service on a JAL flight recently. It was very good, $26 for 24 hours use on any boeing plane, and was fast enough to allow skype usage, and was much cheaper than the inflight phone:)
I can't sleep on planes, so it was great to check my e-mail and get holiday photos ready on the plane on the way back too instead of losing time.
Also there was an important notice that no ad-hoc connections were allowed for safety reasons, although how valid those were (I suspect: not very) I don't know.
I think low megapixel CMOS chips are quite cheap (to produce and/or run), so are fitted to cheap mobile phone and no name cameras. CMOS chips can suffer from problems with noise and so without compensation will produce poorer results.
However, this seems to have been achieved, and high quality ones are also fitted to more expensive cameras, for example this Sony.
This article says it a lot better than I ever could do:):Shutterbug article.
However, you are probably still be right, there are hundreds of thousands of cheapo CMOS cameras about, so the majority are probably junk. Be aware that there are also great, expensive ones for pros, too
Indeed! the W800i is a K750i (identical hardware/interchangeable parts) with better walkman software, better headphones and a bigger stick and a white case. The W810i is nearly the same phone as the W800i with a slightly different button arrangement and a (IMHO nicer) black case.
The W800i costs a bit more usually, but if you want to spend more, get the W800 over the K750 every time! (You can also flash the W800i firmware onto a K750i and get a W800i, but the memory stick+headphones are worth more than the price difference!).
The K800i that is going to come out looks to be a W800i (it has the walkman stuff) with a 3.2 MP Camera and slightly updated firmware.
Don't know about the middle two, but I've owned a T610, V600i and K750i (I'm assuming you mean a Sony Ericsson V600i here). I'd say (for GSM reception) T610 K750 V600. The new K800 (combined features of V600/K750) looks amazing though, if you can wait and afford it...
The V600i has the best reception by a long way, and is also a world phone - it'll even work in Japan. It will use a 3G network where one is available, which gives it far superior quality than the GSM handsets. I always get very clear reception if I'm using mine in the city.
Hell yes, I agree. (Also, you have +10 experience points, so would win even if I didn't:D). If I found a bug no user had experienced I would put the fix in along with the public fixes in the same area (once it had been tested to ensure that it didn't affect any public APIs) and not disclose it.
I was talking about this article, though. In this case, Microsoft have said they've fixed an issue and been vague about it. This implies (to me at least) that they either haven't tested this well enough and are unsure what exactly this fixes, or they don't want to disclose that this fixes something (in which case they probably shouldn't say they've fixed the issue vaguely as a sub point...).
My point was (I mean; I meant to say) - if this patch properly fixes a bug a previous patch was meant to fix, they should state this in the release notes and if it fixes a critical public flaw, they should mark it as this.
I'm not kidding at all. Also, I work as a Telecoms software engineer and so I would say I have a fair experience of working with software development.
We test our patches before they go out. When an application is patched, the entire functionality of the application is re-tested and particular attention is paid to issues which have recently been fixed in the same code, and are outstanding in the code.
This way, when we write the release notes for the patch, we can provide a list of any known bugs that the patch fixed. We publicly acknowledge the publicly known bugs that we know are fixed, so we never have the situation where we are unsure what a patch fixes.
Do you work in software development? If you do, I bet you work for a company that doesn't test its patches properly
To me this looks like MS have patched the flaw they say they have, and maybe seen some other bugs that were in there whilst they were there.
This is not necessarily a good thing though, as vagueness in what a patch fix implies vagueness in testing that the patch works properly. Microsoft should post exactly what it fixes, so people know what they are putting on their system. For instance, what if the patch breaks third party software? As the third party won't know what was changed, they can't fix it.
Don't know if he has but I use it for debugging all the time - it has a few bugs, but none are too bad.
I recommend the non sourceforge version for portability. Take a look for nc110.tgz (Google that and you'll get it - It's under the bsd license).
I've installed this on HP-UX (PA 2 and Itanium), Solaris 9, Tru64 versions 4 and 5, MacOS X 10.4 and Interix under Windows. It compiles with gcc and aCC on HP-UX. Can't say I've tried AIX though. Usually it compiles with no extra flags or options.
It is great for low level TCP/IP debugging, and also for very simple, quick mimicry of network systems and replaying of captured data. Also, you can pipe it to a file and capture network data with it!
I've used it on customer sites (take my Powerbook, plug it in - it works) and use it a lot at work. If you pipe a shell script through it you can model a lot of servers.
Anyway - if you need a hand getting it going on HP-UX I have the exact command in my history at work somewhere - drop me a msg/reply and I'll look it up.
I think you'll find that the very large majority of illegal MP3 releases nowadays are at either 192 kbps or Maximum quality VBR. People do not re-encode these to put them on peer to peer, so a typical p2p MP3 download would be 192 kbps or more.
Yup, at the moment I have a nearly top of the G4 range (1.5 Ghz) Powerbook, running any more than sourcesafe and a few telecoms apps we use at work is painfully slow in Virtual PC 7. Even AutoRoute 2006 takes about a minute to get anywhere.
Apple apparently patented something hypervisor like for these systems - hopefully they will release this, maybe it'll be a feature of 10.5? If this had official Apple support I'd buy one tomorrow, as it is, I'll save it for a few months to see how it goes (wait for a release of XP graphics drivers, etc).
Yeah, my musical training comes to being able to strum some blues out on my guitar. I'm generally open to most music, I love music & also noise (of almost all kinds). Some stuff is annoying though.
Most of the definitions I saw on the web just then seemed very wide to me (as a non expert). I saw that I could use my car engine as an instrument. If I'm creating noise expressing myself through it (my need to get to work (joy usually, fear sometimes (when it's nearer noon)), maybe go faster (joy usually), slow down cos I see the road might be unsafe (fear) ), does this make it music before I think of the engine as an instrument?
If this is music, then would it follow that any noise a person makes whilst expressing an emotion, would walking happily down the street count (my footsteps would sound different I'm sure)?
Please note I'm not trying to start an argument/flame here, I'm genuinely interested.
Is any info on the sponge-instrument available on the web? That sounds like a fun idea.
Well, Samuel Johnson said that music was "the only sensual pleasure without vice". Tracks 7 & 9 make me want to smash my speakers apart, so it can't be music, right?:)
As you can tell by now, I just googled "define:music" - here come some more!
I'm going to compare this to the sound of my car engine on the journey to work.
Seriously though, if you widen your definition of music wide enough, you can include anything. If you say music is "any organised noise", then my car engine must be music too, as this is noise organised by the rotation of the cylinders, etc (to me, some car engines are better than music. A nice V8...). I enjoy the noise of the car engine and there is no vice there, so, thats 2-0 there to the car engine.
Alternatively, you could say "The organization of sounds with some degree of rhythm, melody, and harmony." Most of the Track 3 sample, and tracks 7 & 9 fail this.
I could beep the horn on my car in time with the engine, so the car engine would be music, no? 3-1 to the car engine.
We could also say: "Broadly speaking, sounds organized to express a wide variety of human emotions." - it meets this one, but so does revving the engine on my car cos it's a sunny day and I'm happy and want to go fast!
So: There's two definitions that do fail it. Happily, the car engine noise scores 4 out of 4. The Ford Symphony should come out next week:).
Yeah, I'm not a music expert (except obscure indie bands), but I have heard a bit of glass, and liked it. It was the first name that came into my head so I typed it!
As I was writing it, I imagined something like his work (again I'm not an expert, it was something about the Amazon), but influenced by these data streams (using either fast or slow variations). I bet he could make something cool out of this.
The first one sounds kind of like Pyramid Song by radiohead, but really this data doesn't make great music. You can make disjointed noise easily enough, and I'd guess no-one has any pressing need to listen to the stock market.
Maybe Philip Glass could make a symphony out of this stuff, but these guys unfortunately can't (from the samples). It isn't musical enough to not be background noise.
Experimental: yes, music: no.
Interesting idea, though. I think this could make a great backing noise to a Godspeed You Black Emperor! song or something.
In my lonely midnight darkness I agree, I drain my heart in a blog there for free, The entries are often midnight black, but not melancholy as if they were hack ed by a nefarious script kiddie from afar, with satanic heart and dark workings of java.
In my lonely wanderings never do I espy, a blog so dark and gothic like that of I, I howl at night with terror at his, and knowing this poem just takes the piss.
10 years is far too long for the desktop software industry.
I would not expect any software I bought now to work on Windows 95, or Mac OS 8. Probably software would not work on a 10 year old version of Linux either.
I work w/ Telecoms software - a lot of the hardware we program for is getting near this age - the software principles certainly are. We still actively design and release software specifically for obsoleted Compaq Alpha/Tru64 systems which are 8 years old. The support contracts are longer than a few years! In some cases, operating system support is nearly over.
If I was designing software for aerospace applications, I would (hopefully - for your sake!) be using proven chips, which may be 10 years old, or even 20 if needs be. If a bug was found after 10 years - I'd kind of expect to have to fix it too!
> Ok, Mr Troll. Here's some food:-)
Yeah, Me am troll. Actually I hate Windows - but the guy before is trolling at windows. So flamebait is fair, i suppose.
> And if I do a search of my linux box for files with +x,
>Strange, on my box there are no files named *.+x:-)
No, I wasn't trolling - I was pointing out that the original post was unfair.
If you search the executable files (files *with +x* (with the EXECUTE BIT set), not files *named +x*, i hope you were taking the mick there:D).
> (... and if you know and care what +x is you probably
are just making some fun in your next comments)
Yeah, I was - the parent's comparison of a windows search and a linux menu are very unfair.
>> I find a whole load, many with the same name which do
>> different things (grep versions...)
> Which is bad because of what ?
It's not bad at all, but will be overwhelming to a beginner. The parent wasn't fair to windows in his choice though.
> You probably just don't know or care about the differences,
> but others might to.
I certainly do know the EXACT differences - thats why I was pointing it out. I do a lot of porting in my job, so i hopefully know them as well, or better than you do!
>... and many that only
> work if i launch them from a set directory.
> You are right.
> Think of the dangerous "rm" which does completely
> different things depending on your set directory.
You are really trying to feed a troll here (I'm not one).
Lots of linux programs (mainly maintenance scripts) will only
execute in the directory that they live.
>>.. Also many
>> components of applications and scripts that if I just
>> run em, will break stuff.
> Like "rm", "fdisk" or "shutdown" ?
No, not what I meant. I mean ones that'll break stuff (stop services etc) If you just run em. Can't think of them off-hand, but they are around. They are around on Windows too, so I guess I was being a little unfair.
> Now. lets take a look at the install mechanisms.
> You usually install windows programs from a CD,
> which autoruns if you are a beginner,... or install a nice rootkit or trojan phone home
spyware ?
Yeah, which you deserve for buying from Sony:) - but usually, it will start the Install for the Program you want to install. That program puts the trojans on for you:D
>> or download them from a website. Both make pretty
>> icons with sensible names.
> Like "setup.exe"? or "fb32005.msi"?
> Some of us prefer "OpenOffice-2.0.1.rpm" or "Firefox.deb":-)
Yes. Setup.exe or install.exe are what most install programs are called. I think you'll find most Windows software has instructions on what to do when installing it (and it's usually about 3 or 4 clicks from the website to install your new software). Hey - you don't even have to click to install the trojans:P
I prefer to build firefox from source - the branding is a bit broken on the kubuntu version:D
> For windows components,
> you download them from the MS website, which has
> in-depth descriptions.
> Like this?
> ------
> Q304229: Recommended Update
> This update addresses the "16-Bit OLE Servers Started from 16-Bit Programs Create Extra VDMs in Terminal Server Sessions" issue in Windows 2000.
> ------
Yep - it even has a link for a better description for beginners. Adept/apt don't have this.
>> Linux is written by computer programmers,
>> not computer end users, and it still suffers for it.
> Funny, i always thought that it might be a clever idea
> to have computer programs written by computer programmers.
(snip joke, although, sometimes I do wonder if windows IS written by plumbers in their spare time)
Yeah, and then moderated by UI designers, who make sure all the progs have (some kind of) consistency. In naming and presentation! No OS is perfect for this, but Linux is easily the worst at the moment. I sincerely hope it improves, it certainly has the zealots, and the programming skill behind it.
Cool. Linux definitely usually works once you've installed stuff, which is more than you can say for Windows (mmm nice driver model guys, for one). It's just the searching - a lot of the packages have obscure names, and poor descriptions, which annoyed me. Particularly add-ons.
If I take a look at my home system now (admittedly, now I'm using finkCommander [an apt frontend] on my Mac), I get entries like "amarok - placeholder for upgrading Amarok" - the different versions (amarok-kde-gstreamer, amarok-kde-gstreamer-xine, amarok-kde-xine) all say "KDE - music player" - how am I meant to know what to install without looking things up on the web. Check out joe, too "Joes Own Editor" - wow. Useful, I'll go edit anything with it. It isn't like I can google Joe to find it either:P. Also, a lot of packages (see: abs) decide that we must know they are opensource before they are installed. And, (see: atk "Accessability toolkit"), why not use a spell checker? I'm never going to find that!
I found these in about 3 minutes by randomly scrolling in finkcommander on my mac
Slashdot Mirror
I've had two fun situations like this - the first one with O2 UK (a mobile phone company) doing just what the article says, except they didn't send the warning letter until a month AFTER i was cut off (with valid bank details on file). That one went to OfCom (the man).
The other was with CVV number (the three extra digits they have on the back of a visa). My last card had the CVV number of 000, and several systems (Endsleigh Insurance for one) refused to take my card as i had to enter a number for the CVV number.
I used the Connexions by Boeing service on a JAL flight recently. It was very good, $26 for 24 hours use on any boeing plane, and was fast enough to allow skype usage, and was much cheaper than the inflight phone :)
I can't sleep on planes, so it was great to check my e-mail and get holiday photos ready on the plane on the way back too instead of losing time.
Also there was an important notice that no ad-hoc connections were allowed for safety reasons, although how valid those were (I suspect: not very) I don't know.
I am not an expert, but...
I think low megapixel CMOS chips are quite cheap (to produce and/or run), so are fitted to cheap mobile phone and no name cameras. CMOS chips can suffer from problems with noise and so without compensation will produce poorer results.
However, this seems to have been achieved, and high quality ones are also fitted to more expensive cameras, for example this Sony.
This article says it a lot better than I ever could do :) :Shutterbug article.
However, you are probably still be right, there are hundreds of thousands of cheapo CMOS cameras about, so the majority are probably junk. Be aware that there are also great, expensive ones for pros, too
Indeed! the W800i is a K750i (identical hardware/interchangeable parts) with better walkman software, better headphones and a bigger stick and a white case. The W810i is nearly the same phone as the W800i with a slightly different button arrangement and a (IMHO nicer) black case.
The W800i costs a bit more usually, but if you want to spend more, get the W800 over the K750 every time! (You can also flash the W800i firmware onto a K750i and get a W800i, but the memory stick+headphones are worth more than the price difference!).
The K800i that is going to come out looks to be a W800i (it has the walkman stuff) with a 3.2 MP Camera and slightly updated firmware.
Don't know about the middle two, but I've owned a T610, V600i and K750i (I'm assuming you mean a Sony Ericsson V600i here). I'd say (for GSM reception) T610 K750 V600. The new K800 (combined features of V600/K750) looks amazing though, if you can wait and afford it...
The V600i has the best reception by a long way, and is also a world phone - it'll even work in Japan. It will use a 3G network where one is available, which gives it far superior quality than the GSM handsets. I always get very clear reception if I'm using mine in the city.
Hell yes, I agree. (Also, you have +10 experience points, so would win even if I didn't :D). If I found a bug no user had experienced I would put the fix in along with the public fixes in the same area (once it had been tested to ensure that it didn't affect any public APIs) and not disclose it.
I was talking about this article, though. In this case, Microsoft have said they've fixed an issue and been vague about it. This implies (to me at least) that they either haven't tested this well enough and are unsure what exactly this fixes, or they don't want to disclose that this fixes something (in which case they probably shouldn't say they've fixed the issue vaguely as a sub point...).
My point was (I mean; I meant to say) - if this patch properly fixes a bug a previous patch was meant to fix, they should state this in the release notes and if it fixes a critical public flaw, they should mark it as this.
I'm not kidding at all. Also, I work as a Telecoms software engineer and so I would say I have a fair experience of working with software development.
We test our patches before they go out. When an application is patched, the entire functionality of the application is re-tested and particular attention is paid to issues which have recently been fixed in the same code, and are outstanding in the code.
This way, when we write the release notes for the patch, we can provide a list of any known bugs that the patch fixed. We publicly acknowledge the publicly known bugs that we know are fixed, so we never have the situation where we are unsure what a patch fixes.
Do you work in software development? If you do, I bet you work for a company that doesn't test its patches properly
To me this looks like MS have patched the flaw they say they have, and maybe seen some other bugs that were in there whilst they were there.
This is not necessarily a good thing though, as vagueness in what a patch fix implies vagueness in testing that the patch works properly. Microsoft should post exactly what it fixes, so people know what they are putting on their system. For instance, what if the patch breaks third party software? As the third party won't know what was changed, they can't fix it.
Don't know if he has but I use it for debugging all the time - it has a few bugs, but none are too bad.
I recommend the non sourceforge version for portability. Take a look for nc110.tgz (Google that and you'll get it - It's under the bsd license).
I've installed this on HP-UX (PA 2 and Itanium), Solaris 9, Tru64 versions 4 and 5, MacOS X 10.4 and Interix under Windows. It compiles with gcc and aCC on HP-UX. Can't say I've tried AIX though. Usually it compiles with no extra flags or options.
It is great for low level TCP/IP debugging, and also for very simple, quick mimicry of network systems and replaying of captured data. Also, you can pipe it to a file and capture network data with it!
I've used it on customer sites (take my Powerbook, plug it in - it works) and use it a lot at work. If you pipe a shell script through it you can model a lot of servers.
Anyway - if you need a hand getting it going on HP-UX I have the exact command in my history at work somewhere - drop me a msg/reply and I'll look it up.
Sorry, but no.
I think you'll find that the very large majority of illegal MP3 releases nowadays are at either 192 kbps or Maximum quality VBR. People do not re-encode these to put them on peer to peer, so a typical p2p MP3 download would be 192 kbps or more.
Yup, at the moment I have a nearly top of the G4 range (1.5 Ghz) Powerbook, running any more than sourcesafe and a few telecoms apps we use at work is painfully slow in Virtual PC 7. Even AutoRoute 2006 takes about a minute to get anywhere.
Apple apparently patented something hypervisor like for these systems - hopefully they will release this, maybe it'll be a feature of 10.5? If this had official Apple support I'd buy one tomorrow, as it is, I'll save it for a few months to see how it goes (wait for a release of XP graphics drivers, etc).
Yeah this is great news! I'm a mac freak, but this makes an intel mac a great proposition as all my work stuff is Windows based!
Now all we need is for someone to make a hypervisor, or allow booting XP from within mac os without emulation, and we'll have a great system!
Does this version dual boot fully with Mac OS?
I'm sooo tempted to buy a Mac Book Pro now - my poor wallet.
Apparently the pay is less than £60k a year, too, so the pilots are leaving!
link
Nope, this may be partly the case, but it's actually because we didn't bother to train the pilots....
And apparently the ones the we did train now want to leave!
Yeah, but not remotely (in mid-air, for instance).
:D
It could be that the software for the planes will stop responding if a certain signal is received.
Unless the hardware is a missile
Yeah, my musical training comes to being able to strum some blues out on my guitar. I'm generally open to most music, I love music & also noise (of almost all kinds). Some stuff is annoying though.
Most of the definitions I saw on the web just then seemed very wide to me (as a non expert). I saw that I could use my car engine as an instrument. If I'm creating noise expressing myself through it (my need to get to work (joy usually, fear sometimes (when it's nearer noon)), maybe go faster (joy usually), slow down cos I see the road might be unsafe (fear) ), does this make it music before I think of the engine as an instrument?
If this is music, then would it follow that any noise a person makes whilst expressing an emotion, would walking happily down the street count (my footsteps would sound different I'm sure)?
Please note I'm not trying to start an argument/flame here, I'm genuinely interested.
Is any info on the sponge-instrument available on the web? That sounds like a fun idea.
Well, Samuel Johnson said that music was "the only sensual pleasure without vice". Tracks 7 & 9 make me want to smash my speakers apart, so it can't be music, right? :)
:).
As you can tell by now, I just googled "define:music" - here come some more!
I'm going to compare this to the sound of my car engine on the journey to work.
Seriously though, if you widen your definition of music wide enough, you can include anything. If you say music is "any organised noise", then my car engine must be music too, as this is noise organised by the rotation of the cylinders, etc (to me, some car engines are better than music. A nice V8...). I enjoy the noise of the car engine and there is no vice there, so, thats 2-0 there to the car engine.
Alternatively, you could say "The organization of sounds with some degree of rhythm, melody, and harmony." Most of the Track 3 sample, and tracks 7 & 9 fail this.
I could beep the horn on my car in time with the engine, so the car engine would be music, no? 3-1 to the car engine.
We could also say: "Broadly speaking, sounds organized to express a wide variety of human emotions." - it meets this one, but so does revving the engine on my car cos it's a sunny day and I'm happy and want to go fast!
So: There's two definitions that do fail it. Happily, the car engine noise scores 4 out of 4. The Ford Symphony should come out next week
Yeah, I'm not a music expert (except obscure indie bands), but I have heard a bit of glass, and liked it. It was the first name that came into my head so I typed it!
As I was writing it, I imagined something like his work (again I'm not an expert, it was something about the Amazon), but influenced by these data streams (using either fast or slow variations). I bet he could make something cool out of this.
The first one sounds kind of like Pyramid Song by radiohead, but really this data doesn't make great music. You can make disjointed noise easily enough, and I'd guess no-one has any pressing need to listen to the stock market.
Maybe Philip Glass could make a symphony out of this stuff, but these guys unfortunately can't (from the samples). It isn't musical enough to not be background noise.
Experimental: yes, music: no.
Interesting idea, though. I think this could make a great backing noise to a Godspeed You Black Emperor! song or something.
In my lonely midnight darkness I agree,
I drain my heart in a blog there for free,
The entries are often midnight black,
but not melancholy as if they were hack
ed by a nefarious script kiddie from afar,
with satanic heart and dark workings of java.
In my lonely wanderings never do I espy,
a blog so dark and gothic like that of I,
I howl at night with terror at his,
and knowing this poem just takes the piss.
Please, qualify this.
10 years is far too long for the desktop software industry.
I would not expect any software I bought now to work on Windows 95, or Mac OS 8. Probably software would not work on a 10 year old version of Linux either.
I work w/ Telecoms software - a lot of the hardware we program for is getting near this age - the software principles certainly are. We still actively design and release software specifically for obsoleted Compaq Alpha/Tru64 systems which are 8 years old. The support contracts are longer than a few years! In some cases, operating system support is nearly over.
If I was designing software for aerospace applications, I would (hopefully - for your sake!) be using proven chips, which may be 10 years old, or even 20 if needs be. If a bug was found after 10 years - I'd kind of expect to have to fix it too!
Definitely - a small squabble over who gets to name their countries is nothing compared to the death of thousands.
So, I'll remember it if someone starts world war III over their country domain code.
Yeah, the December 26, 2004 Tsunami is one of the things I'll remember most about 2005 when I'm 85, along with the Janet Jackson superbowl flash! :P
> Ok, Mr Troll. Here's some food :-)
Yeah, Me am troll. Actually I hate Windows - but the guy before is trolling at windows. So flamebait is fair, i suppose.
> And if I do a search of my linux box for files with +x,
>Strange, on my box there are no files named *.+x :-)
No, I wasn't trolling - I was pointing out that the original post was unfair.
If you search the executable files (files *with +x* (with the EXECUTE BIT set), not files *named +x*, i hope you were taking the mick there :D).
> ( ... and if you know and care what +x is you probably
are just making some fun in your next comments)
Yeah, I was - the parent's comparison of a windows search and a linux menu are very unfair.
>> I find a whole load, many with the same name which do
>> different things (grep versions...)
> Which is bad because of what ?
It's not bad at all, but will be overwhelming to a beginner. The parent wasn't fair to windows in his choice though.
> You probably just don't know or care about the differences,
> but others might to.
I certainly do know the EXACT differences - thats why I was pointing it out. I do a lot of porting in my job, so i hopefully know them as well, or better than you do!
> ... and many that only
> work if i launch them from a set directory.
> You are right.
> Think of the dangerous "rm" which does completely
> different things depending on your set directory.
You are really trying to feed a troll here (I'm not one).
Lots of linux programs (mainly maintenance scripts) will only
execute in the directory that they live.
>> .. Also many
>> components of applications and scripts that if I just
>> run em, will break stuff.
> Like "rm", "fdisk" or "shutdown" ?
No, not what I meant. I mean ones that'll break stuff (stop services etc) If you just run em. Can't think of them off-hand, but they are around. They are around on Windows too, so I guess I was being a little unfair.
> Now. lets take a look at the install mechanisms.
> You usually install windows programs from a CD,
> which autoruns if you are a beginner, ... or install a nice rootkit or trojan phone home
spyware ?
Yeah, which you deserve for buying from Sony :) - but usually, it will start the Install for the Program you want to install. That program puts the trojans on for you :D
>> or download them from a website. Both make pretty
>> icons with sensible names.
> Like "setup.exe"? or "fb32005.msi"?
> Some of us prefer "OpenOffice-2.0.1.rpm" or "Firefox.deb" :-)
Yes. Setup.exe or install.exe are what most install programs are called. I think you'll find most Windows software has instructions on what to do when installing it (and it's usually about 3 or 4 clicks from the website to install your new software). Hey - you don't even have to click to install the trojans :P
I prefer to build firefox from source - the branding is a bit broken on the kubuntu version :D
> For windows components,
> you download them from the MS website, which has
> in-depth descriptions.
> Like this?
> ------
> Q304229: Recommended Update
> This update addresses the "16-Bit OLE Servers Started from 16-Bit Programs Create Extra VDMs in Terminal Server Sessions" issue in Windows 2000.
> ------
Yep - it even has a link for a better description for beginners. Adept/apt don't have this.
>> Linux is written by computer programmers,
>> not computer end users, and it still suffers for it.
> Funny, i always thought that it might be a clever idea
> to have computer programs written by computer programmers.
(snip joke, although, sometimes I do wonder if windows IS written by plumbers in their spare time)
Yeah, and then moderated by UI designers, who make sure all the progs have (some kind of) consistency. In naming and presentation! No OS is perfect for this, but Linux is easily the worst at the moment. I sincerely hope it improves, it certainly has the zealots, and the programming skill behind it.
Cool. Linux definitely usually works once you've installed stuff, which is more than you can say for Windows (mmm nice driver model guys, for one). It's just the searching - a lot of the packages have obscure names, and poor descriptions, which annoyed me. Particularly add-ons.
If I take a look at my home system now (admittedly, now I'm using finkCommander [an apt frontend] on my Mac), I get entries like "amarok - placeholder for upgrading Amarok" - the different versions (amarok-kde-gstreamer, amarok-kde-gstreamer-xine, amarok-kde-xine) all say "KDE - music player" - how am I meant to know what to install without looking things up on the web. Check out joe, too "Joes Own Editor" - wow. Useful, I'll go edit anything with it. It isn't like I can google Joe to find it either :P. Also, a lot of packages (see: abs) decide that we must know they are opensource before they are installed. And, (see: atk "Accessability toolkit"), why not use a spell checker? I'm never going to find that!
I found these in about 3 minutes by randomly scrolling in finkcommander on my mac