You buy SuSE, you get 4 manuals that describe, in detail, every function of the system, from installing to CD burning to firewall configuration to scanning/printing.
You buy Windows? You get a 12 page manual that decsribed the on button, and how to use a Mouse. Enjoy!
And that's why mom and pop will never switch to Linux. They want a simple system that only requires basic mouse skills and has a detailed online help system. They don't want to be forced to thumb through volumes of config file values and command line switches.
LUA's can already be found in Windows XP, but nobody uses them because of the onerous restrictions they place on usability.
This is absolutely incorrect. LUAs have been around since the first release of NT and have been widely used in businesses ever since (just ask any competent IT professional). Issues only arise with poorly-written software, and those issues can be easily avoided by changing ACLs. For extremely poorly-written applications, free tools such as RegMon and FileMon (which have both been around for quite a long time) make it unbelievably easy to determine what ACLs must be changed. Do you need to perform a single task with elevated permissions? Just right-click the application and choose Run As. I've been educating home users on the necessity and simplicity of running as a limited user, and subsequently now know many home users that run with limited permissions with 2000 Pro, XP Home, and XP Pro and have no issues performing typical home user tasks such as playing games, browsing the web, sending email, manipulating pictures, etc. To state that nobody uses LUAs due to their complexity or restrictions is pure FUD.
Gotta love Slashdot. The grandparent makes ridiculous claims about the indescribable complexity of the Windows security model and alleges that constant reboots are required, yet is modded Insightful. When someone presents evidence to the contrary, however, that post is modded as Flamebait. Goooooooooooooooooo fanboys!
Mac isn't just "an" answer, it is the *only* answer. You want security and not too worried about simplicity? Linux or a Mac.
Talk about fanboy CYA. First you state that a Mac (presumably you mean the OS X operating system, as you use it in the same breath as Linux) is the only solution, and then only a few words later you state that Linux is a possibility as well. Can't risk being modded down for not being a mindless Linux fanboy on Slashdot, can you?
You willing to re-work of all Microsoft's incorrect settings
Windows lets you create normal user accounts with limited privileges. The installation requires that you create one administrative account and then as many limited user accounts as you desire. The only incorrect settings are those you ignorantly apply yourself.
patch all the browser vulnerabilities
How is this different than any other browser (or any other application, for that matter)? All applications have defects, such as Firefox, Quicktime, Opera, and OS X. These defects need to be patched (or perhaps I should assume that you don't patch vulnerabilities in software you use- including those in OS X- because you feel there's no threat).
reboot your PC every few days because MS has discovered another severe vulnerability in their spaghetti code
Are you serious? Every few days? Considering "Patch Tuesday" occurs once a month, you would be required to, at most, reboot your machine once a month. The reboot is only required in certain circumstances because Windows won't let you update a file that's currently in use. *nix systems allow modifications to active files, but active processes still only are able to use the previous version, which can be a nightmare when applying patches. While it's a matter of preference, I know many administrators that would rather reboot a machine to ensure that all processes are using the updated library than being forced to make this determination manually.
Endless entertainment for puzzle solvers who don't care about their data security or computer availability
This doesn't say much for your technical abilities. I have been highly successful in educating the least knowledgeable computer users (read: home users) in basic security practices. It's quite simple- don't run as an administrator.
I was always under the impression that.NET was strictly for windows, and MS was intentionally shutting out Linux and Mac from using.NET.
Not at all. That's why Microsoft sought ECMA standardization for C# and the CLI. Mono is an open source implementation of.NET based on these standards that is available for Linux, Solaris, OS X, Windows, and Unix and includes ASP.NET and WinForms.
Perhaps we might be better off with a Linux distribution in our cars. Let's try this scenario:
Driver: "Why can't I turn right?"
Tech support: "RTFM, n00b."
Driver: "I don't even know what that means. Were there zeros in that word?"
Tech support: "(Sigh). Just drop to a shell and pipe the result from eflorp etc/turn/dir to xargs florp -bs7. Use apt-get to get version 0.78 of the xflorp library. Recompile your kernel. Reboot your machine."
Driver: "I think I'll trade this in for a Honda"
No quotes from Ballmer or any Microsoft representatives in this one. Nice try. Let's look at your next link:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2006110 3201234813
"Such talks would be a good idea, Ballmer suggested, since now only Novell's SUSE Linux customers are the only Linux vendors that have any assurance that Microsoft won't sue for patent infringement...."
This is pure FUD here- note that this isn't a quote from Ballmer; rather it's a paraphrase from some anti-Microsoft nitwit like yourself. Nothing like twisting someone else's words to suit your own tinfoil-hat-dreamed paranoia, huh? Now let's look at the direct quote from Ballmer:
"If a customer says, 'Look, do we have liability for the use of your patented work?' Essentially, If you're using non-SUSE Linux, then I'd say the answer is yes," Ballmer said.
Is he correct? Absolutely! If you are using someone else's patented work without the proper licensing, then you are entirely liable! This is true for any patented material. Does it mean the patent holder will sue? Of course not. By obtaining a patent does the patent holder implicitly threaten those who infringe? Of course not. Does Ballmer make any threats to sue? Of course not. That's more Linux-fanboy-injected nonsense to support the Slashdot groupthink.
Now on to more of your nonsense:
When proven wrong try to blame apple!
I did no such thing. You asked me to perform a Google search for "Microsoft lawsuit FAT"- which I did. The first result was an article describing how another company (in this case, Apple) sued Microsoft over alleged patent infringements. While I do appreciate the irony, I was in no way trying to shift any sort of blame (as if there is any blame to shift) onto Apple. I merely followed your instructions and reported the results.
But it did sue. It sued over FAT patents.
I can't find any evidence to support this (I've tried multiple searches). All I can find are articles that discuss how PUBPAT attempted to have the patents rejected on claims of prior art and how ultimately the patents were upheld early this year. I see where companies have licensed the technology from Microsoft, but I can't find any articles stating that Microsoft sued anyone over the use of the FAT file system.
Hell MS sued a 16 year old kid over a domain name!
Yes- that they did. Good ol' Mike Rowe knew exactly what he was doing- infringing on a trademark. Of course this does nothing to prove your original bogus claim that the research department seeks to innovate purely for the purpose of suing over patent infringement. But let's face it- trademark lawsuits and domain squatting lawsuits are extremely common. Just try these queries: trademark infringement lawsuit; domain squatting lawsuit. If you don't agree that trademark infringement and domain squatting are problems that plague all major corporations, perhaps you should try to register a domain name that's phonically or typographically similar to Yahoo, Google, eBay, Amazon, etc. and see what happens.
Ballmer said they plan on suing people who use linux because linux infrignes on their IP and that the only safe way you could use linux is by buying it from Novell.
Incorrect. Ballmer stated that the purpose of the Novell-Microsoft agreement was to protect customers against patent litigation (from any possible company). Microsoft made no such statements that they would sue Linux users. If you have a quote from Ballmer or any other Microsoft representative to support your ignorant claim, please provide it.
hey this "Microsoft lawsuit FAT" and follow the first link.
Done. Here's the first relevant link: (the first link was actually an article about how Apple (a litigious company itself) sued Microsoft over user interface issues:
"In the history of Microsoft, we haven't initiated a single patent lawsuit against an infringer of a Microsoft patent," he said. "We are very committed to licensing."
Did you actually read the article? It clearly disproves the claim that Microsoft sues over its patents.
No the real problem is that MS uses it's research dept to gain patents and then sues or threatens to sue people or companies that might want to do the same thing.
Would you mind posting some examples where Microsoft has used its research department to gain patents and then sue/threaten to sue other individuals or companies? I just performed a Google search and only found instances where Microsoft was sued by other corporations for allegedly infringing upon patents.
I can't think of any single successful product apart from Xbox 360, Windows and Office that was a success
What about the.NET framework, SQL Server, and the associated development tools (Visual Studio, Team Foundation Server, etc.)? If you take a look at job postings on Dice, Career Builder, and Monster, you'll see a plethora of.NET development positions.
In a truly free market, you'd see Office work in Linux/BSD and use well documented file formats so people could create 3rd party tools for working with the data...
By your same argument, you'd see GM parts work in Hondas. So why don't they? And why aren't hefty fines levied against GM for not producing parts to meet all possible auto specifications?
To begin, InterTrust believes that electronic commerce in copyrighted works has noticeably lagged due to the lack of a trusted and consistent environment that neutrally supports the rights of both owners and users of copyrighted works. For example, disseminating copyrighted works in digital form often makes such works vulnerable to unlawful reproduction and distribution of such unauthorized copies. On the other hand, this very character creates new opportunities for copyrighted owners to disseminate their works - such as the oft-mentioned "viral" adoption of new works and services - and opportunities for consumers to use copyrighted works in ways that are significantly more flexible than those afforded by the mere purchase of a copy.
Granted, this point was made by a software company that creates DRM solutions, but nevertheless, the original intent of DRM by artists and distribution companies is quite clearly stated as a means to prevent illegal distribution while allowing for a better means of legal distribution (electronically).
It's time for everyone to wake up and take off their tinfoil hats. (Most) musicians and their labels aren't trying to screw you- they're trying to protect themselves from being screwed. It's unfortunate that we live in a society where it's becoming socially acceptable to steal. I'm shocked at how many adults don't see a problem with burning a copy of an audio CD from a friend! If we didn't have such rampant disregard for the rights of others in this country (and others), we probably wouldn't need something such as DRM.
The point of DRM is to keep someone from making full use of some data they have
No, it's not. The point is to prevent illegal distribution of copyrighted material. The drawbacks of its implementation may include preventing a legitimate licensee from playing the audio or video files on his/her various devices, but that is most definitely not the original intent.
Or, better yet, just don't run as an administrator. It's rather unfortunate that the installer for XP creates an administrative user (in addition to "Administrator"), but it's quite easy to correct this and run as a standard user.
Slashdot Mirror
Oooooooooooooooooo. Zinged again! It's even more clever now that you posted anonymously!
Ouch! Way to sock it to me. Did you think of that all by yourself?
If you're gay, go with OS X. Otherwise, go with Vista.
Hats off to you for the good chuckle!
Gotta love Slashdot. The grandparent makes ridiculous claims about the indescribable complexity of the Windows security model and alleges that constant reboots are required, yet is modded Insightful. When someone presents evidence to the contrary, however, that post is modded as Flamebait. Goooooooooooooooooo fanboys!
Windows lets you create normal user accounts with limited privileges. The installation requires that you create one administrative account and then as many limited user accounts as you desire. The only incorrect settings are those you ignorantly apply yourself.
How is this different than any other browser (or any other application, for that matter)? All applications have defects, such as Firefox, Quicktime, Opera, and OS X. These defects need to be patched (or perhaps I should assume that you don't patch vulnerabilities in software you use- including those in OS X- because you feel there's no threat).
Are you serious? Every few days? Considering "Patch Tuesday" occurs once a month, you would be required to, at most, reboot your machine once a month. The reboot is only required in certain circumstances because Windows won't let you update a file that's currently in use. *nix systems allow modifications to active files, but active processes still only are able to use the previous version, which can be a nightmare when applying patches. While it's a matter of preference, I know many administrators that would rather reboot a machine to ensure that all processes are using the updated library than being forced to make this determination manually.
This doesn't say much for your technical abilities. I have been highly successful in educating the least knowledgeable computer users (read: home users) in basic security practices. It's quite simple- don't run as an administrator.
Perhaps we might be better off with a Linux distribution in our cars. Let's try this scenario:
Driver: "Why can't I turn right?"
Tech support: "RTFM, n00b."
Driver: "I don't even know what that means. Were there zeros in that word?"
Tech support: "(Sigh). Just drop to a shell and pipe the result from eflorp etc/turn/dir to xargs florp -bs7. Use apt-get to get version 0.78 of the xflorp library. Recompile your kernel. Reboot your machine."
Driver: "I think I'll trade this in for a Honda"
Beautifully stated!
No quotes from Ballmer or any Microsoft representatives in this one. Nice try. Let's look at your next link:
This is pure FUD here- note that this isn't a quote from Ballmer; rather it's a paraphrase from some anti-Microsoft nitwit like yourself. Nothing like twisting someone else's words to suit your own tinfoil-hat-dreamed paranoia, huh? Now let's look at the direct quote from Ballmer:
Is he correct? Absolutely! If you are using someone else's patented work without the proper licensing, then you are entirely liable! This is true for any patented material. Does it mean the patent holder will sue? Of course not. By obtaining a patent does the patent holder implicitly threaten those who infringe? Of course not. Does Ballmer make any threats to sue? Of course not. That's more Linux-fanboy-injected nonsense to support the Slashdot groupthink.
Now on to more of your nonsense:
I did no such thing. You asked me to perform a Google search for "Microsoft lawsuit FAT"- which I did. The first result was an article describing how another company (in this case, Apple) sued Microsoft over alleged patent infringements. While I do appreciate the irony, I was in no way trying to shift any sort of blame (as if there is any blame to shift) onto Apple. I merely followed your instructions and reported the results.
I can't find any evidence to support this (I've tried multiple searches). All I can find are articles that discuss how PUBPAT attempted to have the patents rejected on claims of prior art and how ultimately the patents were upheld early this year. I see where companies have licensed the technology from Microsoft, but I can't find any articles stating that Microsoft sued anyone over the use of the FAT file system.
Yes- that they did. Good ol' Mike Rowe knew exactly what he was doing- infringing on a trademark. Of course this does nothing to prove your original bogus claim that the research department seeks to innovate purely for the purpose of suing over patent infringement. But let's face it- trademark lawsuits and domain squatting lawsuits are extremely common. Just try these queries: trademark infringement lawsuit; domain squatting lawsuit. If you don't agree that trademark infringement and domain squatting are problems that plague all major corporations, perhaps you should try to register a domain name that's phonically or typographically similar to Yahoo, Google, eBay, Amazon, etc. and see what happens.
Done. Here's the first relevant link: (the first link was actually an article about how Apple (a litigious company itself) sued Microsoft over user interface issues:
Did you actually read the article? It clearly disproves the claim that Microsoft sues over its patents.
The US Supreme Court also claims that abortion is not murder. Many of us disagree, however. Legal acceptance does not translate to moral acceptance.
Here is an interesting site detailing the various Commodore prototypes created as attempts to sustain the business.
Granted, this point was made by a software company that creates DRM solutions, but nevertheless, the original intent of DRM by artists and distribution companies is quite clearly stated as a means to prevent illegal distribution while allowing for a better means of legal distribution (electronically).
It's time for everyone to wake up and take off their tinfoil hats. (Most) musicians and their labels aren't trying to screw you- they're trying to protect themselves from being screwed. It's unfortunate that we live in a society where it's becoming socially acceptable to steal. I'm shocked at how many adults don't see a problem with burning a copy of an audio CD from a friend! If we didn't have such rampant disregard for the rights of others in this country (and others), we probably wouldn't need something such as DRM.
Or, better yet, just don't run as an administrator. It's rather unfortunate that the installer for XP creates an administrative user (in addition to "Administrator"), but it's quite easy to correct this and run as a standard user.