so basically you don't know what a firewall is but offer an opinion on apple's firewall. and you most certainly did not cut and paste the original poster. the original poster wrote 'monthly updates', you wrote 'monthly security updates'. so basically, you're lying as well as misrepresenting someone.
well the OS X firewall is afaik a statefull kernel-space firewall. someone once told me that windows XP doesn't have one of these and relies on firewalls at the level of the software accessing the network devices created by the kernel. this results in it being nigh-on impossible to write a firewall for a windows XP computer without installing a whole new networking stack. package forwarding, masquerading and other things are impossible. as a caveat i must add that i have never used a windows XP computer as a router for services offered by other computers in a network, so this may be possible.
my point about monthly updates as opposed to monthly security updates is that you deliberately misquoted the original poster to make your point.
afaik, if you don't have any services listening on network ports, you don't need a firewall. now i don't know what OSX has switched on by default, but it's quite possible this is better than the windows model. and btw, he said monthly updates, not monthly security updates. sometimes updates are made to fix bugs in a system or to add more functionality.
the difference being, linux doesn't claim to be 'totally new and revolutionary' like the hype for windows vista. the original poster was just exposing lies in advertising--par for the course for microsoft.
well, no. ssh and others on the list are critical components for me and for many other people. other worrying things include vista's inability to cope with different file system formats and certain common file formats such as ogg or odt.
as someone who has never used a windows version later than 98se (and that only because i didn't know any better), is it true that windows does not have the concept of user (or root) configurable cronjobs?
the trouble is, technology has advanced to a stage that makes tradiional ideas of ownership of digitally copyable media no more valid. you can say 'please continue to play the copyright game like it developed in the 20th century', but it isn't going to happen. it is the case, that hollywood as an industry must consider new ways of gathering revenue if it wishes to continue to make films for 250million dollars. DVD sales (and home copies of films have only existed since the mid to late 80s) as a source of money will slowly dry up and at some stage be regarded as a short term blip while the technology was good enough to play the media, but not to record it. (i can certainly understand people who copy or download things like tv series. why should i pay 50 dollars for a seaon of star trek, when i could record it straight from the tv?)
one of two things will happen, either:
the music and film industry will have to change greatly to survive, or
we will have to give up large amounts of freedom to protect the old business model
I would have thought, that anything that makes this clear to the average american (and having somebody deported from another sovereign country to face 10 years imprisonment for violating copyrights is absurd) is a good thing.
well, i think the programmers on the linux kernel are amongst the best programmers in the world, not just in the foss community.
i regard this mud-slinging as positive. if everybody just pretended to like everything else they saw, there would at some stage be very limited progress.
...as the existence of diety is currently outside the reach of science.
I find it strange to say that an all-powerful being doesn't act in a manner which would be noticeable by any measurement equipment. what you meant to write is:
...the ultimate proof of the non-existence of god is currently outside the reach of science.
well let's see what percentage of companies with between 1 and 250 computers write software for client computers running windows. maybe about 0.1% i imagine.
thank you for the argumentation.
mon dieu, life would be easy if you could have the features of a good linux distro on other operating systems. how about installation of software with a single click without needing to use disks or restarting?
now this may come as a surprise for you, but it is possible to modify existing code so it can be compiled on a different system. yes, it is a weird concept, but microsoft office did not exist when the universe was made, and neither did windows. both were written. the ability to write or adapt software has not yet died out completely.
i downloaded the bela lugosi version of dracula from google.video yesterday. why should i go to the shop and spend 10-15eur on a film which is outside of copyright and so belongs to me anyway?
what's more, when one considers how 'the industry' treated bela lugosi while he was still alive, it does have a very unpleasant aftertaste, how they are trying to make money off him after his death.
anyone want to have a go at justifying the thought that just occurred to me, that the release of a new linux kernel is probably more important than the release of vista?
oh btw, totally of topic but i've just realised that if you search for something in firefox 2.0 it doesn't give you the choice of moving to the next result in the text like in firefox 1.5. i imagine this is a simple setting in about:config. anybody know which?
you know, this is the sort of thing that makes me realise how hard the adoption of linux actually is. people have been accustomed through windows to having an operating system which can do almost nothing and having to spend money on development and software to complete the most simple tasks. what one needs to do is teach the windows world that there are operating systems out there which don't try to inhibit the user from doing the most basic things unless he/she starts spending money.
I wonder if the head of an IT department used to linux wants to hear solutions similar to the ones you present above. i imagine he would not accept a solution which doesn't require spending large amounts of money. the companies i've worked for have certainly expected to have to buy software to do simple things which could be accomplished with 2 lines of bash script. my boss was shocked and deeply suspicious when i fired up the linux box to write a short perl program to recursively search a directory and replace one tag in each xml-file it found with another.
we're not talking about individuals here, we're talking about a city council. they should be able to offer bounties/find someone to carry out the required changes. after all, they managed it to get specialist software developed for windows.
one of the problems with adoption of foss is in my opinion that people don't know how the whole mentality works. i sometimes wonder if the average worker goes into his local computer shop, doesn't find any software on shelves for linux and therefore concludes that there isn't any. it wouldn't occur to him/her, that you can download software which would for windows cost tens of thousands of dollars free of charge from the net for linux, because he/she just wouldn't look there for software.
eben moglen already said it: the world has changed from a place where behaviour was governed by law to a place where behaviour is governed by switches. earlier it was possible to commit a crime, and the law would deal with you. now, your rights determine what you can do, and law becomes less important. the question is, who decides what rights you have?
let's say you're developing software which could result in the system becoming unstable, something like a kernel module for linux (not sure what that is for windows computers). if you can virtualise the operating system, you can see more error messages and restart it quickly to try again.
you see, this sort of post is the reason some people from other countries sometimes regard americans as arrogant. it would never occur to me to bitch about other countries when called to comment about the state of my own.
i'd love to know who these people are who have difficulty with hardware under linux. i can personally say that apart from one wlan card i've never had any difficulties. every scanner i've used, every printer, every harddrive, every bluetoothadaptor etc. has just worked. and i've installed maybe 30 different flavours of linux on 20 different machines. weird.
you know what i can see happening? i can see sgi at some stage being bought for nothing by mark shuttleworth (despite his overtures to sun). the result would be another company selling linux-servers, but maybe shuttleworth and the ubuntu crowd will be able to make it profitable.
of course, one of the huge snags is, if canonical wanted to make linux servers, why don't they do so? it's not as if they need sgi's permission.
has it really got so bad with sgi that the only thing worth anything is the name and the memory of jurassic park?
Slashdot Mirror
mon dieu, this is getting ridiculous
did you or did you not write 'monthly security updates' instead of 'monthly updates' in your first post? answer--yes.
so basically you don't know what a firewall is but offer an opinion on apple's firewall. and you most certainly did not cut and paste the original poster. the original poster wrote 'monthly updates', you wrote 'monthly security updates'. so basically, you're lying as well as misrepresenting someone.
well the OS X firewall is afaik a statefull kernel-space firewall. someone once told me that windows XP doesn't have one of these and relies on firewalls at the level of the software accessing the network devices created by the kernel. this results in it being nigh-on impossible to write a firewall for a windows XP computer without installing a whole new networking stack. package forwarding, masquerading and other things are impossible. as a caveat i must add that i have never used a windows XP computer as a router for services offered by other computers in a network, so this may be possible.
my point about monthly updates as opposed to monthly security updates is that you deliberately misquoted the original poster to make your point.
afaik, if you don't have any services listening on network ports, you don't need a firewall. now i don't know what OSX has switched on by default, but it's quite possible this is better than the windows model. and btw, he said monthly updates, not monthly security updates. sometimes updates are made to fix bugs in a system or to add more functionality.
the difference being, linux doesn't claim to be 'totally new and revolutionary' like the hype for windows vista. the original poster was just exposing lies in advertising--par for the course for microsoft.
well, no. ssh and others on the list are critical components for me and for many other people. other worrying things include vista's inability to cope with different file system formats and certain common file formats such as ogg or odt.
as someone who has never used a windows version later than 98se (and that only because i didn't know any better), is it true that windows does not have the concept of user (or root) configurable cronjobs?
one of two things will happen, either:
I would have thought, that anything that makes this clear to the average american (and having somebody deported from another sovereign country to face 10 years imprisonment for violating copyrights is absurd) is a good thing.
well, i think the programmers on the linux kernel are amongst the best programmers in the world, not just in the foss community.
i regard this mud-slinging as positive. if everybody just pretended to like everything else they saw, there would at some stage be very limited progress.
howie
so instead you came with philosophy for teenagers 101 :)
well hoorah, what a stunning scientific rebuttal.
seriously, a bit of intellectual masturbation for a philosophy lesson, but absolutely pointless in science.
howey
...as the existence of diety is currently outside the reach of science.
...the ultimate proof of the non-existence of god is currently outside the reach of science.
I find it strange to say that an all-powerful being doesn't act in a manner which would be noticeable by any measurement equipment. what you meant to write is:
howey
well let's see what percentage of companies with between 1 and 250 computers write software for client computers running windows. maybe about 0.1% i imagine. thank you for the argumentation.
mon dieu, life would be easy if you could have the features of a good linux distro on other operating systems. how about installation of software with a single click without needing to use disks or restarting?
now this may come as a surprise for you, but it is possible to modify existing code so it can be compiled on a different system. yes, it is a weird concept, but microsoft office did not exist when the universe was made, and neither did windows. both were written. the ability to write or adapt software has not yet died out completely.
i was under the impression that most professional video work in large special effects companies is indeed performed under linux.
i remember reading an article recently which said that firefox now has a larger share of the german market than ie.
i downloaded the bela lugosi version of dracula from google.video yesterday. why should i go to the shop and spend 10-15eur on a film which is outside of copyright and so belongs to me anyway?
what's more, when one considers how 'the industry' treated bela lugosi while he was still alive, it does have a very unpleasant aftertaste, how they are trying to make money off him after his death.
anyone want to have a go at justifying the thought that just occurred to me, that the release of a new linux kernel is probably more important than the release of vista?
oh btw, totally of topic but i've just realised that if you search for something in firefox 2.0 it doesn't give you the choice of moving to the next result in the text like in firefox 1.5. i imagine this is a simple setting in about:config. anybody know which?
you know, this is the sort of thing that makes me realise how hard the adoption of linux actually is. people have been accustomed through windows to having an operating system which can do almost nothing and having to spend money on development and software to complete the most simple tasks. what one needs to do is teach the windows world that there are operating systems out there which don't try to inhibit the user from doing the most basic things unless he/she starts spending money.
I wonder if the head of an IT department used to linux wants to hear solutions similar to the ones you present above. i imagine he would not accept a solution which doesn't require spending large amounts of money. the companies i've worked for have certainly expected to have to buy software to do simple things which could be accomplished with 2 lines of bash script. my boss was shocked and deeply suspicious when i fired up the linux box to write a short perl program to recursively search a directory and replace one tag in each xml-file it found with another.
we're not talking about individuals here, we're talking about a city council. they should be able to offer bounties/find someone to carry out the required changes. after all, they managed it to get specialist software developed for windows.
one of the problems with adoption of foss is in my opinion that people don't know how the whole mentality works. i sometimes wonder if the average worker goes into his local computer shop, doesn't find any software on shelves for linux and therefore concludes that there isn't any. it wouldn't occur to him/her, that you can download software which would for windows cost tens of thousands of dollars free of charge from the net for linux, because he/she just wouldn't look there for software.
eben moglen already said it: the world has changed from a place where behaviour was governed by law to a place where behaviour is governed by switches. earlier it was possible to commit a crime, and the law would deal with you. now, your rights determine what you can do, and law becomes less important. the question is, who decides what rights you have?
let's say you're developing software which could result in the system becoming unstable, something like a kernel module for linux (not sure what that is for windows computers). if you can virtualise the operating system, you can see more error messages and restart it quickly to try again.
clear?
howie
you see, this sort of post is the reason some people from other countries sometimes regard americans as arrogant. it would never occur to me to bitch about other countries when called to comment about the state of my own.
i'd love to know who these people are who have difficulty with hardware under linux. i can personally say that apart from one wlan card i've never had any difficulties. every scanner i've used, every printer, every harddrive, every bluetoothadaptor etc. has just worked. and i've installed maybe 30 different flavours of linux on 20 different machines. weird.
you know what i can see happening? i can see sgi at some stage being bought for nothing by mark shuttleworth (despite his overtures to sun). the result would be another company selling linux-servers, but maybe shuttleworth and the ubuntu crowd will be able to make it profitable.
of course, one of the huge snags is, if canonical wanted to make linux servers, why don't they do so? it's not as if they need sgi's permission.
has it really got so bad with sgi that the only thing worth anything is the name and the memory of jurassic park?