You said it and I prove it wrong, done deal case closed.
You in no way proved it wrong. You merely accused me of being hypocritical.
My CMS is not open source, never was intended to be either. I showed off the source via a tool a few times. Now being free on the other hand is another question.
Good luck making an CMS coded in PHP non-open source.
The equations can just as easily been documented, how the hell do you get a "source" for an equation? You're applying things where they don't make sense.
No, you're trying to hard (or not trying hard enough, one of the two) to find flaws in my analogy. You're taking the word "source" into a context which only applies to programming and computer science. The "source" for an equation is how the physicist arrived at the conclusion that this equation is mathematically precise and accurate.
Ah, but that wasn't the argument. Microsoft has documented recent things such as information regarding WinFS and things like their Transactional Filesystem. If you want any more there are interviews with Developers of the OS on channel9
(channel9.msdn.com)
That's not the point. My point is they don't document everything. They're not comparable to open source. They're not supposed to be.
Ask yourself, you said it.
No I didn't. You misinterpreted it.
Ignorance to the techonological world? Yea, Linux users arn't full of themselves. That's laughable. You and the other Linux users are misinterpreting what they say because you have used Linux, of course being Linux users like yourselves you like picking apart Windows at any chance you get (Which is why this thread was made, and why I cannot stand Linux users).
You don't think most Windows users are ignorant to the technological world? I suggest you do some field studies, then. Go knock on your neighbors' doors and ask them how much they know about current news in technology. I would wager not very many know much at all. Most of them don't even care. The average computer user
is ignorant, relative to a technophile. Stop with the "you Linux users," already. Just because I'm defending Linux doesn't mean I think it's the epitome of all OS'. I've defended Windows in arguments as well. Ask Newby and Ergot about that. We (TehUser and I) vs. Newby and Ergot. We won, I'd say for sure. We pick apart Windows any chance we get because there is a lot to complain about. I am not saying Linux is perfect; it's far from it.
Proof? Show me what most servers run. unless like I said of course, hackers are into little desktop users now. Cmon, there is no way around it. Linux is a target, Windows isn't even significant in a hackers eye. You know why? Exploiting windows is harder. You don't have the code nor do you have the iiner workings of the kernel. With Linux you have the full sourcecode and a community of retards willing to hug you in the name of open source.
You think all hackers target servers? In fact, I doubt very many of them do. I think we have different ideas of a hacker. By conventional terms, it's someone who steals data from another entity. It doesn't imply (by my standards) someone who gains root access to a machine. Exploiting Windows is
not harder. If I remember correctly, it wasn't too long ago that Windows was vulnerable to attacks by simply rendering an image on a website.
Windows is
definitely the main target for hackers.
You have no "power", just another method of you (Linux users) being full of yourselves.
Once and for all: I'm not a "Linux user" in a derogatory sense. I use Windows as well. I'm defending Linux in this case because your attacks against it are stupid. Your defenses for Windows are stupid. Please, show me how to do the following on a Windows server:
a) Configure/Install/Maintain a mailserver as powerful as sendmail (I'm unaware of one as powerful as sendmail for Windows)
b) Support more than a handful of filesystems.
c) Configure/Install/Maintain apache/mysql at Linux speeds (doesn't happen)
d) Configure/Install/Maintain a DHCP server that is as versatile has dhcpd
There's a few examples. Linux is powerful. Saying otherwise is literally stupid.