Yes, sorry, I demand true freedom and good quality, google chrome has given me neither so far.
Google open sources Chrome.
Not. Chromium is open source, chrome isn't. Sorry. But for google, open source seems to be all about free developers and nothing about user freedom, which is a shame.
Google ports Chrome to Linux.
No, they haven't. They have some sort of webkit browser that isn't even close to what chrome does, I am sorry but we already had generic webkit browsers in Linux. They may one day have something close in functionality to windows' chrome but it seems far from their priority list. They may be right, but I am entitled not to support a windows-only project, as I decide what platforms to run, not google.
So, your bash is based on two lame assumptions that show you did no research whatsoever, could you please give me those two minutes of my life back?
I can't think of a mature way to report what seems like either an immature attempt at blocking competition or a very good example of not testing your software at all.
Just that autorun was created shows a terrible design, they have fixed it just recently but it was not until infections broke havoc everywhere for that to happen.
It is fixed now... But I just wouldn't trust MS when adding new 'features' for easy of use anymore.
And BTW, very few people get that: in windows XP there was absolutely no way to disable autorun (you could only disable 'autoplay'), until a recent update. And when you were prompted, you could click "just open the folder" and still get infected. Because the autorun.inf file supported many different entries for special commands and one got considered regardless of the user's choice!
this used to include a great description of all the sorts of crazy stuff that autorun could do, unfortunately the page doesn't seem to be working anymore:( you can google for that page and see that it did exist, will look for other pages with examples of that Shell\Ex thingy (at least I remember that's how it looked like).
Not to say OS/X's security is much better, but really, seeing the windows fanboys singing victory on this social engineering case was kind of funny.
So, you can infect OS/X computers after manipulating a program and tricking an user into voluntarily installing the malware!
I am surprised! Although of course, it would be more impressive if it was like in windows 98 in which connecting to the internet rendered you vulnerable. Or how about a more recent example in which you just had to plug a USB drive? Sorry but it still sounds very easy to fill a windows computer with viruses in comparison with this.
Hmnn +5 insightful grats. However, that misses a point, no vulnerability in the OS was exploited. The hackers didn't just installed the root kit by sending code to the some port. They fooled the users into giving the virus root access and installing it. Even the most secure and correctly designed OS would fail against this. The only 'vulnerability' here is that the user is able to install software in the computer...
MS has ordered thousands (rhetoric) of reports on how migration to other, non-MS products are very expensive because of the 'lack of interoperability' caused by MS' lock-in. I find it amusing MS is so happy to say things like the hidden cost of apple computers when MS' business' model is all about hidden costs. I.e: you buy a windows netbook and since it is 2009 there's quite the subvention on them. But when we'll buy them in 2013 and due to the new monopoly on them, they will charge us all they didn't charge today. The same happens with all OEMs, hidden windows tax everywhere. And hardware makers having to go through 'windows certified' programs. All my country paying thousands of windows licenses because the tax office created a 'free'.net, sql-server intensive client for their tax system (which is impossible to run in WINE or Mono). Or SUSE users paying extra for MS' protection. Or tomtom customers now have to pay more just so they can use FAT-32, one of the simplest filesystems with an implementation you would guess after any good OS course... Etc, etc, etc. Hidden MS costs everywhere.
If there are many W2K users willing to keep running W2K AND firefox 3.5 (which is the one that's not going to support it, firefox 3.1 will still support it during its whole life cycle) then the W2K users may just... port and support it themselves, it is all FLOSS, really. And if such thing does not happen, it just means one thing: That there really weren't so many such users.
Hey, it is supposed to 'support' windows 95 in the sense that they say it will probably run on it, it is not supposed to really "work" on it, ouch?
To be honest, I am not ever going to understand people that a) Want to keep their old computers while b) Want to run windows on them. They are already getting all the apps incompatible with their windows versions. There are modern Linux distros out there that will run on their old computers, much faster than windows 95, and accept it, they are really much better than windows 95 (Yes, we are talking about 14 years of a gap here)... While the app support is actually better for these distros than for windows 95, as in firefox 3.5 will run on them without problem... But ok, since that's what you want, stick to your proprietary 14 years old OS and run your proprietary browser that allegedly runs in it (They probably just bother compiling it and do no tests whatsoever (who would really spend that much on 14 years old tech?) ) and be "happy"...
It is still open source, this means that if there are enough people interested in it working on windows XP, it will get to work. If mozilla doesn't want to support it officially, other people can support it, and make patches if necessary.
Mac, Windows (95 and NT 3.51 and up), Linux, BeOS, OS/2, Solaris, and more!
95 was not supported anymore officially for some time ago, and you claim to like to run firefox on it, so that's likely how it is going to be for windows XP. I think many of the platforms firefox currently runs are not really supported by mozilla.
And this is the whole real selling point with Open source software, and the reason It adds weight to me when picking software. The main company/foundation behind it does not have to support/maintain it. If they decide to stop supporting your platform, or if they suddenly die, your software of choice is safe.
Opera
Yeah right. This discussion from mozilla is for the next versions of firefox, like 3.5, the other versions support XP and are far from ending their life cycle. Opera's competitor of 3.5 is likely to be in a similar situation - accept it, XP is old - the difference is that nobody will be able technically or legally to port it.
most of them come formatted with patent encumbered FAT16/32 file system. Most users would never bother formatting to something else, and expect any device or computer in which they plug it to be able to use this filesystem. Want to change the file system and reformat? Ok, you may pick NTFS, which is probably worse of a patent risk and will also fasten the death of your flash drive... You may also choose exFat, but besides of being another patent risk, it will only work in two MS OS - the latest ones -
Not all is lost, you can go FLOSS and pick a file system from outside MS, of course, those will not work anywhere else outside of a FLOSS OS/Device.
According to the report, cell phones and digital music players have been used to transfer plans related to criminal activity, and therefore presumably could be grounds for suspicion. Podcasting is also suspicious.
Does this mean channels of information can be used by criminals? Shocking.
The problem is with religion being taught on science class. The Vatican has astronomers but Catholics (and I guess this applies to all Christian churches) wouldn't love the idea of Big Bang/Evolution/Quantum physics being taught during mass...
Think about it, it is non-sense to try to portray creationism as science or scientific theory. Or to try to come up with evidence, and etc. Even if you are religious it is non-sense, it just shows that you are not relying on faith, that you noticed the lack of evidence and it is hurting you so much that have to come up with pseudo science and evidence to justify your beliefs. So, if you go ID you would not be doing that well on science, and not that well on religion either, that sounds like a good idea.
However, it is not like they need to. I think the most benefit multi core can give is the ability to run much more applications in paralel, and not that much the optimization for a single application. Both windows 7 and Linux (for a longer time) have supported multicore quite well, and there ARE tools/languages that make multi threading more friendly. However, we don't use them, perhaps because besides of the logical uses for threads, it is rarer to focus on multi-cores optimize stuff unless you are doing some really speed-critical task which is not something that home apps do that often... However at home multicore can still be alot of help even without apps using it.
Being able to burn a DVD while encoding a video and playing some game all at the same time, is something that benefits from extra cores and does not require the apps themselves to know about the cores. Of course, this is not the most common situation - Perhaps the IT world is starting to realize home/office don't really need as much power? Even since 5 years ago MS was the only force driving us to require more power upgrades, but now with even them focusing for performance in windows 7, perhaps it is going to be the "year of Moore's law no longer relevant in the desktop"
Nice try. But nope, even though you are free to ignore all the evidence supporting evolution. Creationism does not even qualify as a scientific theory, it is not even wrong.
A) Nevermind POSIX specs, wouldn't it be better if operations were made in order? Is it not a problem a rename could happen before a task the app ordered before? Nevermind the delay in actual disk update.
B) The apps should be calling fsync! Ok, here's what I don't get, if the point of this change was to improve performance by reducing disk writes, isn't it a little counter productive that we are basically asking apps to force a disk write every time they "write" something? Sounds a little counter-effective to me.
Well, It could as well be I do not understand the issue correctly.
As opposed to the shiny 'All your data are belong to us' button on EXT4?
It seems you don't understand what the problem with ext4 actually is, I recommend you to actually try reading the rest of the posts or try reading stuff before talking. First of all, ext3 is live and working, there's no reason whatsoever to move to ext4 as of now, unless you want a speed boost. Second "all your data is belong to us" seems far from what is going on, did you hear this only happens when the power is gone? Since when is it that obvious to expect all data to reliably survive a power shutdown? Even with journaling FS it is still a problem. Third, the ext4 developers are not saying "all your data belongs to us" to users. Not at all, this is more of developers vs. developers. The users will just have to wait until one side changes what was going on.
POSIX compliance is probably important if you are coding a POSIX app and want it to work correctly. Most devs are using a layer or three above the POSIX API, think of firefox which uses sqlite which correctly calls fsync. Or think of a Mono app which uses its.net imitation which calls the API. Or even the C++ guys using their fstream object... I just mean this doesn't even affect most developers... I guess you were just reading the words "data losses" in a topic that relates to Linux and wanted to prove your theory of how free software is like Microsoft, eh?
Slashdot Mirror
yay conspiracy wanker modded 3: informative in slashdot!
Let's celebrate!
I think your biggest competitor (and hater) is always the most safe place to look for tips on how to succeed.
Not. Chromium is open source, chrome isn't. Sorry. But for google, open source seems to be all about free developers and nothing about user freedom, which is a shame.
No, they haven't. They have some sort of webkit browser that isn't even close to what chrome does, I am sorry but we already had generic webkit browsers in Linux. They may one day have something close in functionality to windows' chrome but it seems far from their priority list. They may be right, but I am entitled not to support a windows-only project, as I decide what platforms to run, not google.
So, your bash is based on two lame assumptions that show you did no research whatsoever, could you please give me those two minutes of my life back?
In a world in which a misinterpreted US law applies on Sweden, of course google can be a target as well.
the name! It reminds me of silly Jerry Seinfeld commercials for some odd reason.
what? bastard hacker! don't publish my passwords!
I can't think of a mature way to report what seems like either an immature attempt at blocking competition or a very good example of not testing your software at all.
It is fixed now... But I just wouldn't trust MS when adding new 'features' for easy of use anymore.
And BTW, very few people get that: in windows XP there was absolutely no way to disable autorun (you could only disable 'autoplay'), until a recent update. And when you were prompted, you could click "just open the folder" and still get infected. Because the autorun.inf file supported many different entries for special commands and one got considered regardless of the user's choice!
this used to include a great description of all the sorts of crazy stuff that autorun could do, unfortunately the page doesn't seem to be working anymore :( you can google for that page and see that it did exist, will look for other pages with examples of that Shell\Ex thingy (at least I remember that's how it looked like).
Not to say OS/X's security is much better, but really, seeing the windows fanboys singing victory on this social engineering case was kind of funny.
I am so glad to see US' absurd copyright laws apply everywhere.
So, you can infect OS/X computers after manipulating a program and tricking an user into voluntarily installing the malware!
I am surprised! Although of course, it would be more impressive if it was like in windows 98 in which connecting to the internet rendered you vulnerable. Or how about a more recent example in which you just had to plug a USB drive? Sorry but it still sounds very easy to fill a windows computer with viruses in comparison with this.
Hmnn +5 insightful grats. However, that misses a point, no vulnerability in the OS was exploited. The hackers didn't just installed the root kit by sending code to the some port. They fooled the users into giving the virus root access and installing it. Even the most secure and correctly designed OS would fail against this. The only 'vulnerability' here is that the user is able to install software in the computer...
MS has ordered thousands (rhetoric) of reports on how migration to other, non-MS products are very expensive because of the 'lack of interoperability' caused by MS' lock-in. I find it amusing MS is so happy to say things like the hidden cost of apple computers when MS' business' model is all about hidden costs. I.e: you buy a windows netbook and since it is 2009 there's quite the subvention on them. But when we'll buy them in 2013 and due to the new monopoly on them, they will charge us all they didn't charge today. The same happens with all OEMs, hidden windows tax everywhere. And hardware makers having to go through 'windows certified' programs. All my country paying thousands of windows licenses because the tax office created a 'free' .net, sql-server intensive client for their tax system (which is impossible to run in WINE or Mono). Or SUSE users paying extra for MS' protection. Or tomtom customers now have to pay more just so they can use FAT-32, one of the simplest filesystems with an implementation you would guess after any good OS course... Etc, etc, etc. Hidden MS costs everywhere.
If there are many W2K users willing to keep running W2K AND firefox 3.5 (which is the one that's not going to support it, firefox 3.1 will still support it during its whole life cycle) then the W2K users may just... port and support it themselves, it is all FLOSS, really. And if such thing does not happen, it just means one thing: That there really weren't so many such users.
To be honest, I am not ever going to understand people that a) Want to keep their old computers while b) Want to run windows on them. They are already getting all the apps incompatible with their windows versions. There are modern Linux distros out there that will run on their old computers, much faster than windows 95, and accept it, they are really much better than windows 95 (Yes, we are talking about 14 years of a gap here)... While the app support is actually better for these distros than for windows 95, as in firefox 3.5 will run on them without problem... But ok, since that's what you want, stick to your proprietary 14 years old OS and run your proprietary browser that allegedly runs in it (They probably just bother compiling it and do no tests whatsoever (who would really spend that much on 14 years old tech?) ) and be "happy"...
It is still open source, this means that if there are enough people interested in it working on windows XP, it will get to work. If mozilla doesn't want to support it officially, other people can support it, and make patches if necessary.
95 was not supported anymore officially for some time ago, and you claim to like to run firefox on it, so that's likely how it is going to be for windows XP. I think many of the platforms firefox currently runs are not really supported by mozilla.
And this is the whole real selling point with Open source software, and the reason It adds weight to me when picking software. The main company/foundation behind it does not have to support/maintain it. If they decide to stop supporting your platform, or if they suddenly die, your software of choice is safe.
Yeah right. This discussion from mozilla is for the next versions of firefox, like 3.5, the other versions support XP and are far from ending their life cycle. Opera's competitor of 3.5 is likely to be in a similar situation - accept it, XP is old - the difference is that nobody will be able technically or legally to port it.
most of them come formatted with patent encumbered FAT16/32 file system. Most users would never bother formatting to something else, and expect any device or computer in which they plug it to be able to use this filesystem. Want to change the file system and reformat? Ok, you may pick NTFS, which is probably worse of a patent risk and will also fasten the death of your flash drive... You may also choose exFat, but besides of being another patent risk, it will only work in two MS OS - the latest ones -
Not all is lost, you can go FLOSS and pick a file system from outside MS, of course, those will not work anywhere else outside of a FLOSS OS/Device.
Does this mean channels of information can be used by criminals? Shocking.
It is not like this method wasn't proved effective by RIAA itself.
The problem is with religion being taught on science class. The Vatican has astronomers but Catholics (and I guess this applies to all Christian churches) wouldn't love the idea of Big Bang/Evolution/Quantum physics being taught during mass...
Think about it, it is non-sense to try to portray creationism as science or scientific theory. Or to try to come up with evidence, and etc. Even if you are religious it is non-sense, it just shows that you are not relying on faith, that you noticed the lack of evidence and it is hurting you so much that have to come up with pseudo science and evidence to justify your beliefs. So, if you go ID you would not be doing that well on science, and not that well on religion either, that sounds like a good idea.
Simple reason: I can't use it, [(World Population)-(US population)] people can't either.
Being able to burn a DVD while encoding a video and playing some game all at the same time, is something that benefits from extra cores and does not require the apps themselves to know about the cores. Of course, this is not the most common situation - Perhaps the IT world is starting to realize home/office don't really need as much power? Even since 5 years ago MS was the only force driving us to require more power upgrades, but now with even them focusing for performance in windows 7, perhaps it is going to be the "year of Moore's law no longer relevant in the desktop"
Nice try. But nope, even though you are free to ignore all the evidence supporting evolution. Creationism does not even qualify as a scientific theory, it is not even wrong.
A) Nevermind POSIX specs, wouldn't it be better if operations were made in order? Is it not a problem a rename could happen before a task the app ordered before? Nevermind the delay in actual disk update.
B) The apps should be calling fsync! Ok, here's what I don't get, if the point of this change was to improve performance by reducing disk writes, isn't it a little counter productive that we are basically asking apps to force a disk write every time they "write" something? Sounds a little counter-effective to me.
Well, It could as well be I do not understand the issue correctly.
It seems you don't understand what the problem with ext4 actually is, I recommend you to actually try reading the rest of the posts or try reading stuff before talking. First of all, ext3 is live and working, there's no reason whatsoever to move to ext4 as of now, unless you want a speed boost. Second "all your data is belong to us" seems far from what is going on, did you hear this only happens when the power is gone? Since when is it that obvious to expect all data to reliably survive a power shutdown? Even with journaling FS it is still a problem. Third, the ext4 developers are not saying "all your data belongs to us" to users. Not at all, this is more of developers vs. developers. The users will just have to wait until one side changes what was going on.
POSIX compliance is probably important if you are coding a POSIX app and want it to work correctly. Most devs are using a layer or three above the POSIX API, think of firefox which uses sqlite which correctly calls fsync. Or think of a Mono app which uses its .net imitation which calls the API. Or even the C++ guys using their fstream object... I just mean this doesn't even affect most developers... I guess you were just reading the words "data losses" in a topic that relates to Linux and wanted to prove your theory of how free software is like Microsoft, eh?