Clan x86
Off topic/Crap => Trash Can => Topic started by: Newby on February 18, 2006, 12:30:45 pm
-
http://rss.slashdot.org/Slashdot/slashdot?m=3780
Some of those reasons suck. The only one I'm interested in is the last one. 15 minute setup time? I call bullshit.
-
Hahaha. That's complete bullshit. I really doubt ANYTHING Windows installed in 15 minutes.
-
Saw that, what went through my mind was... should those features be put in OS already? Security? IE7? Seem silly that one must upgrade to Vista
;/
-
I read the section of Microsoft's site called "features", and I honestly couldn't find anything worthwhile. Everything there was done by Apple, Google, and others a long time ago.
Security? Apple/BSD.
Sidebar? Google/Apple.
File indexing? Google/Apple/Linux (to some extent).
Annoying 3d gui? Apple/Linux.
IE7? Firefox.
DRM stuff so you lose control of your computer/freedom? No thanks.
Updates integrated into Internet Explorer? Dumbest idea I've heard.
Parental Controls? No thanks.
I really don't see a good reason even for Windows users to upgrade. I am hoping that Vista flops so I can laugh.
-
My windows xp install takes 9 minutes, from after formatting the partitions -- So around 20 minutes till it's up and running...
I'm wondering what Warrior will say..
-
My windows xp install takes 9 minutes, from after formatting the partitions -- So around 20 minutes till it's up and running...
Your computer is a machine, considering the reboots probably take a minute/minute and a half...
-
I think FreeBSD took about 10 minutes for a minimal install.. of course, compiling everything else is a little annoying :)
-
I once installed my Windows 98 in less than one minute. It went from my truck to the trash. It was fun.
-
What happend to Windows Longhorn?
-
What happend to Windows Longhorn?
...
Longhorn was long ago renamed Vista.
-
Aww, and Longhorn was such a redneck type of name, too.
-
Kinda like Windows Whistler.
-
I probably won't buy Vista until the cheap Student Version comes out (I can buy XP legally at school for $30, full non-upgrade version).
Most of the features I was most interested in for Vista have been scrapped or delayed. However, I am very happy that Microsoft is learning from Linux. While iago is correct in saying that very little of Vista is ingenuitive, Its a considerable improvement and if they can speed up their development process, the postponed features will probably make it a very nice OS.
-
My windows xp install takes 9 minutes, from after formatting the partitions -- So around 20 minutes till it's up and running...
Your computer is a machine, considering the reboots probably take a minute/minute and a half...
Ugh.. 30 seconds? That isn't normal..? :-\
-
...I can't believe people don't want Windows to upgrade security because "Done by BSD/Linux". I don't care, Linux stole enough from Windows. Go get your own damn drivers/software and stop using ndis wrappers and Wine before you start crying about who did what.
15 Minute install is possible. Done by Apple.
-
I don't care, Linux stole enough from Windows.
Hahahahahah.
-
You can thank Windows for all of Linux's reversed Engineered drivers! Also for the hundreds of games now running via Cedega and Wine! No problem.
-
...I can't believe people don't want Windows to upgrade security because "Done by BSD/Linux". I don't care, Linux stole enough from Windows. Go get your own damn drivers/software and stop using ndis wrappers and Wine before you start crying about who did what.
15 Minute install is possible. Done by Apple.
I (and most people I know) don't run ndis or wine. And it's not fair to complain that Linux uses reverse-engineered Windows drivers for a lot of things because the companies who make the hardware only support Windows. I think it's more impressive that the Linux people went to all the extra work.
And it's not that I don't want Windows to upgrade security, you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. They are calling security a "new feature", which I think is stupid. They're advertising that they now have a secure operating system (which only took what, 20 years?) while every other OS beat them to it a long time ago. That should hardly count as a "feature" of an OS, don't you agree?
-
They made it secure?! What did they do, remove all networking?
-
They made it secure?! What did they do, remove all networking?
No, they turned on the firewall by default. That's LIKE security!
1. Security, security, security: Windows XP Service Pack 2 patched a lot of holes, but Vista takes security to the next level. There are literally too many changes to list here, from the bidirectional software firewall that monitors inbound and outbound traffic to Windows Services Hardening, which prevents obscure background processes from being hijacked and changing your system. There's also full-disk encryption, which prevents thieves from accessing your data, even if they steal the PC out from under your nose.
Although all that's been done by other OSes, I have a feeling that it's going to end up being more annoying than anything. They're taking away too much control from the Administrator, in my opinion. But I guess we'll see.
-
I shall buy 2 Windows Vistas. One for our desktop (finally clean that ewwy thing up) & one for my laptop
Vista is 64bit, yes?
-
There's also full-disk encryption, which prevents thieves from accessing your data, even if they steal the PC out from under your nose.
[/quote]
I want my OS not to be able to be stolen in the first place! :)
-
...I can't believe people don't want Windows to upgrade security because "Done by BSD/Linux". I don't care, Linux stole enough from Windows. Go get your own damn drivers/software and stop using ndis wrappers and Wine before you start crying about who did what.
15 Minute install is possible. Done by Apple.
I (and most people I know) don't run ndis or wine. And it's not fair to complain that Linux uses reverse-engineered Windows drivers for a lot of things because the companies who make the hardware only support Windows. I think it's more impressive that the Linux people went to all the extra work.
Well, the fact that is IS there is enough for the sake of argument which makes them hypocrites for complaining whenever we implement a feature which all other OSes have. It isn't just us implementing it, it's us implementing it and building off it.
And it's not that I don't want Windows to upgrade security, you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. They are calling security a "new feature", which I think is stupid. They're advertising that they now have a secure operating system (which only took what, 20 years?) while every other OS beat them to it a long time ago. That should hardly count as a "feature" of an OS, don't you agree?
Well XP's security suck (We can agree right?) and I'll admit Microsoft was in the wrong direction when they released XP, I think hailing it a new feature is alright since it shows they turned over a new leaf, started caring more about the customers and actually made something worth while. Let's not forget Vista isn't an improved XP, Vista is a whole new system. New network stack, code built off the Windows 2003 source, new permissions system, etc.. all of which contribute to thier "Security" feature.
I know it was unfair of me to make that comment but I just felt like pointing it out because I'm evil ;). Just so they know withought Windows they wouldn't have even basic 2D acceleration. Don't worry, no thanks necessary. (Kidding of course) :)
-
Vista is a whole new system. New network stack, code built off the Windows 2003 source, new permissions system, etc.. all of which contribute to thier "Security" feature.
The Windows "Whistler" was branched off into XP and 2003, according to what I've read and been told. So that's pretty contradictory right there.
-
Windows 2003 (The Base) originally branched from XP and evolved into it's own thing. Most of the kernel is rewritten in a more secure fashion. They sort of implemented SP2 at a lower level than a service pack and added a few fixes already noticeable after SP2. Win2k3 is considerably more stable and secure than XP.
-
I (and most people I know) don't run ndis or wine. And it's not fair to complain that Linux uses reverse-engineered Windows drivers for a lot of things because the companies who make the hardware only support Windows. I think it's more impressive that the Linux people went to all the extra work.
Well, the fact that is IS there is enough for the sake of argument which makes them hypocrites for complaining whenever we implement a feature which all other OSes have. It isn't just us implementing it, it's us implementing it and building off it.
[/quote]
So it's not a new and revolutionary feature. That's what Microsoft is selling it as. Problem?
Windows 2003 (The Base) originally branched from XP and evolved into it's own thing. Most of the kernel is rewritten in a more secure fashion. They sort of implemented SP2 at a lower level than a service pack and added a few fixes already noticeable after SP2. Win2k3 is considerably more stable and secure than XP.
XP and 2k3 suffer from most of the same flaws. MS03-026 (Blaster worm) and MS04-011 (Sasser worm) come to mind. So obviously they share a common code base.
-
I (and most people I know) don't run ndis or wine. And it's not fair to complain that Linux uses reverse-engineered Windows drivers for a lot of things because the companies who make the hardware only support Windows. I think it's more impressive that the Linux people went to all the extra work.
Well, the fact that is IS there is enough for the sake of argument which makes them hypocrites for complaining whenever we implement a feature which all other OSes have. It isn't just us implementing it, it's us implementing it and building off it.
So it's not a new and revolutionary feature. That's what Microsoft is selling it as. Problem?
[/quote]
New and revolutionary to Windows users. They shutout Linux from their thinking as much as possible.
Windows 2003 (The Base) originally branched from XP and evolved into it's own thing. Most of the kernel is rewritten in a more secure fashion. They sort of implemented SP2 at a lower level than a service pack and added a few fixes already noticeable after SP2. Win2k3 is considerably more stable and secure than XP.
XP and 2k3 suffer from most of the same flaws. MS03-026 (Blaster worm) and MS04-011 (Sasser worm) come to mind. So obviously they share a common code base.
[/quote]
Both of which were patched, they in fact share significantly different codebases and I don't know about you but I'd rather have a Windows 2k3 based OS than a Windows XP based OS. (Also do you really remember those numbers...sheesh)
-
Its cool that Microsoft is implementing things everyone likes, however, it'd be cooler if they were the trend setters
-
New and revolutionary to Windows users. They shutout Linux from their thinking as much as possible.
It's still nothing new, and I hate them selling it as something new. It bugs me. It just furthers my belief that Microsoft is full of crap.
Both of which were patched, they in fact share significantly different codebases and I don't know about you but I'd rather have a Windows 2k3 based OS than a Windows XP based OS. (Also do you really remember those numbers...sheesh)
They also share significantly similar codebases. Otherwise they wouldn't have both been vulnerable.
And yes, I remember those two numbers (as well as MS05-025) because they're all major vulnerabilities that I hear about a lot. It saves a lot of time when I don't have to go figure out what they are when I see them. And yes, they're extremely common.
-
New and revolutionary to Windows users. They shutout Linux from their thinking as much as possible.
It's still nothing new, and I hate them selling it as something new. It bugs me. It just furthers my belief that Microsoft is full of crap.
Both of which were patched, they in fact share significantly different codebases and I don't know about you but I'd rather have a Windows 2k3 based OS than a Windows XP based OS. (Also do you really remember those numbers...sheesh)
They also share significantly similar codebases. Otherwise they wouldn't have both been vulnerable.
And yes, I remember those two numbers (as well as MS05-025) because they're all major vulnerabilities that I hear about a lot. It saves a lot of time when I don't have to go figure out what they are when I see them. And yes, they're extremely common.
If it is new to MS why not sell it as new (since it is).
The idea may not be new, but physically for Win users it is
-
Crazed hit the nail on the head.
They more likely share similiar "mistakes" or bugs left in the code that they didn't anticipate, 2k3 was an entire kernel overhaul from XP. Almost no XP code is left, since they built of SP2 technology it's logical they'd share some vulnerabilities.
-
So much for their "bidirectional software firewall"
We expected Vista's firewall to address a major shortcoming in XP's built-in protection by alerting you to outgoing as well as incoming traffic. But the new firewall monitors only incoming connections by default. Microsoft contends that this is sufficient for most users. We continue to recommend that you replace it with a bidirectional product, such as Zone Labs' ZoneAlarm.
from original document, and how many current windows users would actually know how to change anything from the default setting? (clue: not enough.)
also...
Vista's BitLocker feature adds security to notebooks and other PCs by letting you encrypt the entire hard drive. If your computer (or just the hard drive) is stolen, the thief can't access your data without your 48-digit encryption key. If your computer carries the not-for-profit Trusted Computing Group's Trusted Platform Module chip, the key is retrieved automatically when you log in to Windows. Otherwise you can put the key on a USB drive, which you then use to unlock your hard drive every time you boot, or enter the key manually whenever you start your machine.
key words being letting you which I take means it's not on by default either
all these additional security features mean jack if the user doesn't understand how they work, which most don't alone with winxp "security", i think this will just confuse people (general populus) more!
Perhaps most crucial (and least sexy) is the long-overdue User Account Protection, which invokes administrator privileges as needed, such as during driver updates or software installations. UAP makes it much more convenient for users to operate Vista with limited rights (meaning the system won't let them do certain things, like load software, without clearance from an administrator). This in turn limits the ability of malware to hose your system.
This in turn will limit the ability of malware to hose your system up until a day after it's release, who are they kidding?
3. Righteous eye candy
Yay more to be disabled! And thats their #3 reason to get it! Ha, if I wanted righteous eye candy I'll play Battlefield2.
-
Crazed hit the nail on the head.
Good, because I disagree with what he said. I don't think that an idea can be "new" only to certain people and not to others. Either it's something new, or it's not. In this case, it's not. People who think it's new are wrong.
They more likely share similiar "mistakes" or bugs left in the code that they didn't anticipate, 2k3 was an entire kernel overhaul from XP. Almost no XP code is left, since they built of SP2 technology it's logical they'd share some vulnerabilities.
I'm not saying that they didn't change anything, I'm quite sure that they changed a lot. But there is also a lot of stuff that they didn't change, and that's where vulnerabilities come from. The exploit code for MS03-026 and MS04-011 are identical on Windows XP and Windows 2003. Even if they changed a single variable or even recompiled the code with different libraries/flags, that wouldn't be the case. It's the SAME code. Some of Windows 2003 shares Windows XP code.
-
Crazed hit the nail on the head.
Good, because I disagree with what he said. I don't think that an idea can be "new" only to certain people and not to others. Either it's something new, or it's not. In this case, it's not. People who think it's new are wrong.
You're missing the concept.
It isn't a new idea, but it is new to Windows users.
e.g. You buy a used car. Around here most people would say "I bought a new car". It isn't new to the previous owner, but its new to the current operator of the car.
-
so are you saying that Microsoft has stated in the past that it's operating systems were NOT secure? If not, then it's not a new concept, just slapped a "new" label on it. Kinda like when they put "0grams of fat!" on things like gum packs, of course theres no fat it's just used to catch ppl (usually not very intelligent).
-
So much for their "bidirectional software firewall"
We expected Vista's firewall to address a major shortcoming in XP's built-in protection by alerting you to outgoing as well as incoming traffic. But the new firewall monitors only incoming connections by default. Microsoft contends that this is sufficient for most users. We continue to recommend that you replace it with a bidirectional product, such as Zone Labs' ZoneAlarm.
from original document, and how many current windows users would actually know how to change anything from the default setting? (clue: not enough.)
also...
Funny, Microsoft bundles software with their OS and get slammed for Antitrust in EU and when they don't they get slammed by you. Amazing.
In addition to using these built-in Windows Vista features, you should help keep your computer healthy by using antivirus software such as Windows OneCare or an antivirus solution from one of Microsoft's partners. Whichever option you choose, remember to update your antivirus software regularly. These updates are generally available through a subscription from your antivirus vendor.
Together, these tools can help you protect your PC from malicious software.
Vista's BitLocker feature adds security to notebooks and other PCs by letting you encrypt the entire hard drive. If your computer (or just the hard drive) is stolen, the thief can't access your data without your 48-digit encryption key. If your computer carries the not-for-profit Trusted Computing Group's Trusted Platform Module chip, the key is retrieved automatically when you log in to Windows. Otherwise you can put the key on a USB drive, which you then use to unlock your hard drive every time you boot, or enter the key manually whenever you start your machine.
key words being letting you which I take means it's not on by default either
all these additional security features mean jack if the user doesn't understand how they work, which most don't alone with winxp "security", i think this will just confuse people (general populus) more!
Don't know what you're getting at, of course it'd be enabled by default. I'd also like to note how much time has been put into the User Experience. This makes it easy to find and change settings in Vista, no longer are programs hidden in a folder you'd hardly look for. The Control Panel has been revamped, and last time I checked most users knew how to use the control panel.
Perhaps most crucial (and least sexy) is the long-overdue User Account Protection, which invokes administrator privileges as needed, such as during driver updates or software installations. UAP makes it much more convenient for users to operate Vista with limited rights (meaning the system won't let them do certain things, like load software, without clearance from an administrator). This in turn limits the ability of malware to hose your system.
This in turn will limit the ability of malware to hose your system up until a day after it's release, who are they kidding?
http://msdn.microsoft.com/windowsvista/security/#uap
You may want to read up some, take a look into all the measures. You may want to read into Vista security in general, you seem pretty uninformed.
3. Righteous eye candy
Yay more to be disabled! And thats their #3 reason to get it! Ha, if I wanted righteous eye candy I'll play Battlefield2.
Unless the majority of users think like you, they arn't going to care. Sorry.
-
All the info on it's security features was gotten from the article @ PCWorld.com.
Anywho, you just seem to be sticking up for Microsoft for the sake of sticking up for them.
Microsoft can claim that its been REVAMPED and made EASIER but then again how difficult is it to Click START>CONTROL PANEL. I'll believe it when I see it
-
So much for their "bidirectional software firewall"
Unless the majority of users think like you, they arn't going to care. Sorry.
I'll take this as a compliment, since I'd take it as an insult if you said the majority of windows users did think like me. LOL.
-
...I can't believe people don't want Windows to upgrade security because "Done by BSD/Linux". I don't care, Linux stole enough from Windows. Go get your own damn drivers/software and stop using ndis wrappers and Wine before you start crying about who did what.
15 Minute install is possible. Done by Apple.
I (and most people I know) don't run ndis or wine. And it's not fair to complain that Linux uses reverse-engineered Windows drivers for a lot of things because the companies who make the hardware only support Windows. I think it's more impressive that the Linux people went to all the extra work.
And it's not that I don't want Windows to upgrade security, you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. They are calling security a "new feature", which I think is stupid. They're advertising that they now have a secure operating system (which only took what, 20 years?) while every other OS beat them to it a long time ago. That should hardly count as a "feature" of an OS, don't you agree?
A company of which dominates the market. I plan on buying Vista once it comes out, and within the next year, upgrade both of my servers to win2k3.
-
All the info on it's security features was gotten from the article @ PCWorld.com.
Anywho, you just seem to be sticking up for Microsoft for the sake of sticking up for them.
Microsoft can claim that its been REVAMPED and made EASIER but then again how difficult is it to Click START>CONTROL PANEL. I'll believe it when I see it
Actually, I've used Vista (Beta1 and December CTP) and I happen to hate Linux and all of it's users. I also cannot stand when people put Windows down so I intend to prove them wrong every single time. They usually end up with responses like yours in an attempt to save face after I prove them wrong.
Tip to all Linux users: Lose the false sense of superiority, you arn't fooling anyone.
-
All the info on it's security features was gotten from the article @ PCWorld.com.
Anywho, you just seem to be sticking up for Microsoft for the sake of sticking up for them.
Microsoft can claim that its been REVAMPED and made EASIER but then again how difficult is it to Click START>CONTROL PANEL. I'll believe it when I see it
Actually, I've used Vista (Beta1 and December CTP) and I happen to hate Linux and all of it's users. I also cannot stand when people put Windows down so I intend to prove them wrong every single time. They usually end up with responses like yours in an attempt to save face after I prove them wrong.
Tip to all Linux users: Lose the false sense of superiority, you arn't fooling anyone.
I've seen you prove nobody wrong. The fact that you think you have casts a lot of doubt on your goals.
-
Then you're blind, because I still don't see anyone posting anything significant proving what I said otherwise. You guys always look for something wrong in Windows when your kernel isn't anything pretty and it gets annoying to Windows users. I highly doubt Vista will flop..more like wipe Linux out the desktop scene..
-
Then you're blind, because I still don't see anyone posting anything significant proving what I said otherwise. You guys always look for something wrong in Windows when your kernel isn't anything pretty and it gets annoying to Windows users. I highly doubt Vista will flop..more like wipe Linux out the desktop scene..
I doubt it will wipe Linux out, but I still think that the better majority (meaning larger) of people who claim to be "pro-Linux" are script kiddies who run Windows 99% of the time and just use a PHP webserver that their moms pay for and they use CPanel to administer. Meaning: they don't know anything about operating Linux.
An analogous situation would be Joe being Canadian. Everyone knows he's not, he lives in the US, he was born in the US, but claims to be Canadian. Just because he says "eh." I say "eh" too. It doesn't make me Canadian.
But yes I agree, Linux is annoying to Windows users, and arguably so is Windows. At least in Windows, though, I intuitively know where to go to operate my machine my way. That may be true in Linux too, but it's not my experience. In my mind, having to go to a command line is not intuitive. I used DOS for the better part of my life, and I know the intracacies of the DOS command line so well I could write you a batch file that would make your computer self-destruct from its leet-ness. Still, Windows is infinitely more intuitive than a command line. I think expecting a user to go to the commandline, enter "su" and "sudo some-obscure-file-name-with-architecture-id.rpm" just to install something is not intuitive.
With a little common sense and knowledge you can secure a Windows computer. I know, because I've done it. Multiple times. It's not that hard.
-
I agree with you for the most part, pretty good points brought up.
I just don't see Linux surviving much on the desktop after Vista and Leapord hit the shelves.
-
I think expecting a user to go to the commandline, enter "su" and "sudo some-obscure-file-name-with-architecture-id.rpm" just to install something is not intuitive.
I see nothing wrong with sudo installpkg filename.rpm installing successfully (without interaction) a program. I don't know about you, but I get sick of clicking "Next" on EVERY installer...
-
Whatever dude, you just proved your arguement is worthless by saying
I hate linux and all of its users
Tip to all Linux users: Lose the false sense of superiority, you arn't fooling anyone.
ROFL... nobody said linux users feel superior, must just be that windows users feel inferior.
-
Whatever dude, you just proved your arguement is worthless by saying
I hate linux and all of its users
Tip to all Linux users: Lose the false sense of superiority, you arn't fooling anyone.
ROFL... nobody said linux users feel superior, must just be that windows users feel inferior.
I don't really know who you are nor do I particularly care. But you're already annoying.
I think expecting a user to go to the commandline, enter "su" and "sudo some-obscure-file-name-with-architecture-id.rpm" just to install something is not intuitive.
I see nothing wrong with sudo installpkg filename.rpm installing successfully (without interaction) a program. I don't know about you, but I get sick of clicking "Next" on EVERY installer...
...until you download the Red Hat package when you're using Fedora Core or Slackware and you realize there's that one #define in an obscure .h file somewhere that's throwing off symbols in 30 different source files. And half your hardware doesn't work right or you have to find the right information about setting it up online when your wireless network card doesn't work.
That was the first problem I had with FC4 on my laptop: I didn't have NDISWrapper except on my NTFS partition, and I didn't have an NTFS filesystem driver, but I did have instructions for getting it off the internet. Really irritating.
Whether or not Microsoft pays companies to only make drivers for Windows (I can't imagine this is true, but I'll take it for sake of argument), the fact of the matter is that there isn't anything I can do on Linux that I can't do on Windows that I care to do. I don't care about running ssh at home when I can just as easily run Remote Desktop. I don't care about running Apache on a Linux server because -- guess what -- it's running on my Windows Media Center PC at home, side-by-side with IIS 5.1.
-
...until you download the Red Hat package when you're using Fedora Core or Slackware and you realize there's that one #define in an obscure .h file somewhere that's throwing off symbols in 30 different source files. And half your hardware doesn't work right or you have to find the right information about setting it up online when your wireless network card doesn't work.
1. rpm2tgz <filename>.rpm
2. I wouldn't be installing a package that is a source. I'd be installing a package that is a set of binaries.
3. My hardware works just fine. The hardest thing was compiling my kernel for SATA support.
4. I don't use wireless. I guess I don't have a problem. :)
I've never had problems with binaries, either. Normally it's with the sources, so eh?
-
If you don't care then don't talk about it, as I havn't acknowledged you up until now, howdy doodie name-caller.
Note: Don't take this as a jab at you personally, I'd respond this way to anybody who seems to think they know me when they don't.
-
Whatever dude, you just proved your arguement is worthless by saying
I hate linux and all of its users
I don't get what you mean by that, perhaps you're calling it worthless because you have nothing to respond with?
Cmon, maybe if you try a little harder, use google, whatever you can come up with something with a little bit of thought behind it.
Tip to all Linux users: Lose the false sense of superiority, you arn't fooling anyone.
ROFL... nobody said linux users feel superior, must just be that windows users feel inferior.
Your attitude, and the attitude of others on both this forum and the entire Linux community shows that. I'm sure there are some that arn't like this but the majority are and that makes my overall impression of them not very great.
-
Recap:
None of the said 10 reasons to get Vista seem to be too revolutionary. Windows seems to be putting out Vista for the sake of putting out something new, rather than they actually found something that's going to be a contribution to the Windows user.
Any reason why I would want to get it if I'm happy with XP?
-
Warrior, your not one to speak about thought behind what they say
"I hate linux and all of its users" is a fairly ignorant thing to say considering you havn't and no way you will meet all linux users.
As for the attitude, I'm sorry if you feel that it seems to be 'superior', we are just supporting our case, as are you but you don't see us challenging your 'attitude'. Maybe we just have some sort of superiority aura surrounding us?
-
No you (Linux Users, the majority) attack Windows ideas then we attack Linux ideas and suddenly we are bad guys. Give me a break. The Linux Community and the kernel itself is a joke, it was based off a shitty OS (Minix) and it tries to be a good OS but fails horribly.
Your attitude, and the attitude of others on both this forum and the entire Linux community shows that. I'm sure there are some that arn't like this but the majority are and that makes my overall impression of them not very great.
You know, in case you can't read.
-
Yes, noticed that after I posted, still had your 'I HATE ALL' thingie going on in my head.
Anywho, I never said that I used Linux, I'm just pointing out things that I find fishy in the article that I read.
I was only defending the Linux community as a whole since you were hating them, as a whole.
The fact is, I'm not even sure why Linux is being brought up in this conversation... The topic only mentions Windows Vista, so you attacking Linux seems a little out of place.
What would be more appropriate is addressing the "attacks" against Windows Vista. Also, shouldn't this be in the 'Operating System Development' area? Shrug :-X
-
I've already addressed all the attacks against Vista.
I started against Linux because from the beginning this was started and replied to by Linux users. I simply stated their OS is nothing special. It's a mediocre hobbby OS which just got some buzz.
-
Have you addressed them? I was mostly focusing on the security side of Vista, and their claims of bidirectional firewall software and disk encryption. Both of which I've interpreted from the article as not being set on by default.
(The firewall is on by default but only income events, which is just the same as with XP firewall, inbound events have to be turned on by the user)
Vista's BitLocker feature adds security to notebooks and other PCs by letting you encrypt the entire hard drive.
And I interpret this as meaning it's not encrypted by default since it says "letting you". If it were on by default wouldn't it say "by encrypting the entire harddrive." ?
-
...I can't believe people don't want Windows to upgrade security because "Done by BSD/Linux". I don't care, Linux stole enough from Windows. Go get your own damn drivers/software and stop using ndis wrappers and Wine before you start crying about who did what.
15 Minute install is possible. Done by Apple.
I think the "borrowing of ideas" is pretty common in all realms of technology (especially software). As long as they're not copying the code line for line, I don't see the purpose in complaining that they've implemented similar things. Windows has too.
-
Have you addressed them? I was mostly focusing on the security side of Vista, and their claims of bidirectional firewall software and disk encryption. Both of which I've interpreted from the article as not being set on by default.
(The firewall is on by default but only income events, which is just the same as with XP firewall, inbound events have to be turned on by the user)
Vista's BitLocker feature adds security to notebooks and other PCs by letting you encrypt the entire hard drive.
And I interpret this as meaning it's not encrypted by default since it says "letting you". If it were on by default wouldn't it say "by encrypting the entire harddrive." ?
The you misinterpreted. It IS on by default.
-
...I can't believe people don't want Windows to upgrade security because "Done by BSD/Linux". I don't care, Linux stole enough from Windows. Go get your own damn drivers/software and stop using ndis wrappers and Wine before you start crying about who did what.
15 Minute install is possible. Done by Apple.
I think the "borrowing of ideas" is pretty common in all realms of technology (especially software). As long as they're not copying the code line for line, I don't see the purpose in complaining that they've implemented similar things. Windows has too.
I just say that because every Linux loser cries "Oh Linux has had that for blahblah years" and now everyone gets touchy when I point out that withought Windows hardware, Linux would cease to exist.
-
I just say that because every Linux loser cries "Oh Linux has had that for blahblah years" and now everyone gets touchy when I point out that withought Windows hardware, Linux would cease to exist.
I didn't know Windows was "hardware." ;)
Again: I think it's a two-way street. Windows has borrowed a lot off of UNIX/Linux ideas too. I don't see anything wrong with that. I disagree with the nubs that think Linux has things Windows will never have. :)
-
Warrior how can you say it's on by default when it hasn't even been released yet?
You know certain things in the beta that were on by default won't be on by default in the release version, right?
-
I just say that because every Linux loser cries "Oh Linux has had that for blahblah years" and now everyone gets touchy when I point out that withought Windows hardware, Linux would cease to exist.
I didn't know Windows was "hardware." ;)
Again: I think it's a two-way street. Windows has borrowed a lot off of UNIX/Linux ideas too. I don't see anything wrong with that. I disagree with the nubs that think Linux has things Windows will never have. :)
Stability!
-
Stability!
Windows already has that. My Windows 2003 server had a longer uptime than deepthought ever did (actually the same computer with a different OS).
-
Warrior how can you say it's on by default when it hasn't even been released yet?
You know certain things in the beta that were on by default won't be on by default in the release version, right?
So you think they're going to turn off a critical feature in the CTP ... now you're just making stuff up.
-
Stability!
Windows already has that. My Windows 2003 server had a longer uptime than deepthought ever did (actually the same computer with a different OS).
Then... GPL!
-
I just say that because every Linux loser cries "Oh Linux has had that for blahblah years" and now everyone gets touchy when I point out that withought Windows hardware, Linux would cease to exist.
When you say "Linux loser", you're destroying any possibility of an intelligent person seeing an argument.
But to again try to explain, here's the difference:
- Microsoft adds flashy 3d graphics their own. They call it a "revolutionary new interface". Apple and some Linux desktops already did that. It's not revolutionary.
- Microsoft adds a few security features that are present in other operating systems. They call it a revolutionary security system. It's not revolutionary.
- A Linux user reverse engineers a Windows driver. They say, "I reverse engineered a Windows driver".
- A Linux user reverse engineers a bunch of Windows' DLLs and Libraries. They say, "Look, we made a windows compatibility layer!". Honesty!
The difference? Linux developers aren't trying to sell your their OS. They aren't making any money. They're never going to be famous or make a living developing Linux software. Linux developers are doing what they can to help the greater good.
Microsoft is trying to sell their OS, because they're making money. They're going to over-sell features and over-state capibilities, because that's going to make them more money in the long run.
Now, perhaps it's a personal thing, but I like honesty. If there's one thing I want and need from a person/software/company, it's honesty. That's why I don't trust Microsoft, that's why I don't trust Cisco, and that's why I don't trust politicians. They are all known bullshitters. Maybe that's ok for you, but it's not for me.
And to respond to MyndFyre's post awhile back -- I happen to prefer using a commandline. I like having the extra control that you just can't replicate with a GUI. Other people don't. That's fine too. In general, you can go either way on Linux, they don't force you down one road or another.
And to respond to Warrior's assertion that Windows Vista is going to kill Linux -- Haha! I can't think of any Linux user that would leave his OS for something as bloated and expensive as Windows Vista. They don't start using Linux for fun, they start using it because they believe in the ideals that Linux represents.
-
Then... GPL!
Windows software can use the GPL. The Windows OS isn't supposed to ever be under the GPL license, so I guess you're right. It's still a pretty useless comparison, though. :P
iago: excellent post. Well put! :)
-
in response to you Warrior, I don't consider that making things up, it's how I interpret the article and completely logical.
If I'm wrong then it's just a misunderstanding due to unclarity, by them saying "it lets you" use that feature, to me, logically that seems to mean it's not automatically done.
Anybody else have an opinion on this? If others can support a different theory I'd be glad to hear it, but getting angry and calling names/saying I'm making things up isn't very constructive.
-
And to respond to Warrior's assertion that Windows Vista is going to kill Linux -- Haha! I can't think of any Linux user that would leave his OS for something as bloated and expensive as Windows Vista. They don't start using Linux for fun, they start using it because they believe in the ideals that Linux represents.
Ding Ding Ding!
-
I just say that because every Linux loser cries "Oh Linux has had that for blahblah years" and now everyone gets touchy when I point out that withought Windows hardware, Linux would cease to exist.
When you say "Linux loser", you're destroying any possibility of an intelligent person seeing an argument.
But to again try to explain, here's the difference:
- Microsoft adds flashy 3d graphics their own. They call it a "revolutionary new interface". Apple and some Linux desktops already did that. It's not revolutionary.
- Microsoft adds a few security features that are present in other operating systems. They call it a revolutionary security system. It's not revolutionary.
- A Linux user reverse engineers a Windows driver. They say, "I reverse engineered a Windows driver".
- A Linux user reverse engineers a bunch of Windows' DLLs and Libraries. They say, "Look, we made a windows compatibility layer!". Honesty!
The difference? Linux developers aren't trying to sell your their OS. They aren't making any money. They're never going to be famous or make a living developing Linux software. Linux developers are doing what they can to help the greater good.
Microsoft is trying to sell their OS, because they're making money. They're going to over-sell features and over-state capibilities, because that's going to make them more money in the long run.
Now, perhaps it's a personal thing, but I like honesty. If there's one thing I want and need from a person/software/company, it's honesty. That's why I don't trust Microsoft, that's why I don't trust Cisco, and that's why I don't trust politicians. They are all known bullshitters. Maybe that's ok for you, but it's not for me.
And to respond to MyndFyre's post awhile back -- I happen to prefer using a commandline. I like having the extra control that you just can't replicate with a GUI. Other people don't. That's fine too. In general, you can go either way on Linux, they don't force you down one road or another.
And to respond to Warrior's assertion that Windows Vista is going to kill Linux -- Haha! I can't think of any Linux user that would leave his OS for something as bloated and expensive as Windows Vista. They don't start using Linux for fun, they start using it because they believe in the ideals that Linux represents.
I did! And to see what the hubbub was all about.
-
I just say that because every Linux loser cries "Oh Linux has had that for blahblah years" and now everyone gets touchy when I point out that withought Windows hardware, Linux would cease to exist.
When you say "Linux loser", you're destroying any possibility of an intelligent person seeing an argument.
Not really, you saw this...unless..you know.
But to again try to explain, here's the difference:
- Microsoft adds flashy 3d graphics their own. They call it a "revolutionary new interface". Apple and some Linux desktops already did that. It's not revolutionary.
- Microsoft adds a few security features that are present in other operating systems. They call it a revolutionary security system. It's not revolutionary.
- A Linux user reverse engineers a Windows driver. They say, "I reverse engineered a Windows driver".
- A Linux user reverse engineers a bunch of Windows' DLLs and Libraries. They say, "Look, we made a windows compatibility layer!". Honesty!
Microsoft doesn't care about Linux. It shuts itself out from it's development. It could care less. When they make something not previously seen in Windows, then it's revolutionary and new. It's revolutionary and new to Windows.
The difference? Linux developers aren't trying to sell your their OS. They aren't making any money. They're never going to be famous or make a living developing Linux software. Linux developers are doing what they can to help the greater good.
As moving as that was, if Linux were in it for the "Greater good" they wouldn't try to compete for the desktop scene nor would they be so cocky torwards Windows users, they'd just develop and release. Since it is not the case I'll see that as just something they say between each other to make themselves feel better.
Microsoft is trying to sell their OS, because they're making money. They're going to over-sell features and over-state capibilities, because that's going to make them more money in the long run.
That's sorta the point..if the feature is there, then there is nothing wrong with marketing it. I'd be more worried if it wasn't there and they tried to market it.
And to respond to Warrior's assertion that Windows Vista is going to kill Linux -- Haha! I can't think of any Linux user that would leave his OS for something as bloated and expensive as Windows Vista. They don't start using Linux for fun, they start using it because they believe in the ideals that Linux represents.
It's simple, Linux is going to get so pushed back from the Desktop market any small presence they have by it's developers is going to be insignificant. People were considering Linux as a practical OS for the desktop with Distros such as ubuntu striving to make Linux easy to use. I see bad news for them in the future, sorry.
The difference between Microsoft and Linux is, one OS is moving into the future and the other is stuck in 1992.
Microsoft does things others don't do, they actually make things easy to use for their wide range of customers. You can have all the power you want but if it isn't delivered correctly, it's of no use.
-
in response to you Warrior, I don't consider that making things up, it's how I interpret the article and completely logical.
If I'm wrong then it's just a misunderstanding due to unclarity, by them saying "it lets you" use that feature, to me, logically that seems to mean it's not automatically done.
You have some twisted logic then, it's quite obvious they don't mean it like that.
-
Vista's BitLocker feature adds security to notebooks and other PCs by letting you encrypt the entire hard drive.
I've consulted a few other people who agree with me on this.
There is a different between IT letting YOU do it and IT doing it on its own, ya know what I mean?
-
It allows the user to have that protection, if it didn't exist then they wouldn't be allowed to because obviously it doesn't exist.
I can confirm that it is on in December CTP and you can ask anyone else who has used it.
-
Not really, you saw this...unless..you know.
He didn't mean that literally.
Microsoft doesn't care about Linux. It shuts itself out from it's development. It could care less. When they make something not previously seen in Windows, then it's revolutionary and new. It's revolutionary and new to Windows.
I strongly disagree. If they didn't care at all about Linux, why would they implement compatible and similar features? Revolutionary should only be used in a global frame of reference. How is it useful to say something's revolutionary when you're only referring to it in a local scale? It just doesn't make any sense.
As moving as that was, if Linux were in it for the "Greater good" they wouldn't try to compete for the desktop scene nor would they be so cocky torwards Windows users, they'd just develop and release. Since it is not the case I'll see that as just something they say between each other to make themselves feel better.
How are they not coding for the greater good? They put amazing amounts of work into projects they're never going to see a dime for. Then, they release the source code so others can dissect it and understand how it works. That sounds like the greater good to me.
That's sorta the point..if the feature is there, then there is nothing wrong with marketing it. I'd be more worried if it wasn't there and they tried to market it.
He didn't say it was wrong to market a feature, he said it was wrong to exaggerate or over-emphasize a feature, which is exactly what Microsoft does.
And to respond to Warrior's assertion that Windows Vista is going to kill Linux -- Haha! I can't think of any Linux user that would leave his OS for something as bloated and expensive as Windows Vista. They don't start using Linux for fun, they start using it because they believe in the ideals that Linux represents.
It's simple, Linux is going to get so pushed back from the Desktop market any small presence they have by it's developers is going to be insignificant. People were considering Linux as a practical OS for the desktop with Distros such as ubuntu striving to make Linux easy to use. I see bad news for them in the future, sorry.
The difference between Microsoft and Linux is, one OS is moving into the future and the other is stuck in 1992.
Microsoft does things others don't do, they actually make things easy to use for their wide range of customers. You can have all the power you want but if it isn't delivered correctly, it's of no use.
Linux is made for the power-computer user, not a simple one who only uses it to check e-mail and watch porn (that's about 30% of computer users, I'd say). As iago said, people who use Linux use it for a reason. Not because it has the ability to look pretty like Windows. Your prophecy relies too heavily on people wanting a flashy GUI.
-
Wasn't that P2P feature enabled by default in the Beta? which won't be enabled by default in the release?
I never said their disk encryption didn't exist, just that the way it was worded is misleading. That is presuming you're right.
-
Microsoft doesn't care about Linux. It shuts itself out from it's development. It could care less. When they make something not previously seen in Windows, then it's revolutionary and new. It's revolutionary and new to Windows.
I strongly disagree. If they didn't care at all about Linux, why would they implement compatible and similar features? Revolutionary should only be used in a global frame of reference. How is it useful to say something's revolutionary when you're only referring to it in a local scale? It just doesn't make any sense.
They implement...obvious features..none exclusive to Linux itself.
As moving as that was, if Linux were in it for the "Greater good" they wouldn't try to compete for the desktop scene nor would they be so cocky torwards Windows users, they'd just develop and release. Since it is not the case I'll see that as just something they say between each other to make themselves feel better.
How are they not coding for the greater good? They put amazing amounts of work into projects they're never going to see a dime for. Then, they release the source code so others can dissect it and understand how it works. That sounds like the greater good to me.
It may have originally been that, now they are just full of themselves.
That's sorta the point..if the feature is there, then there is nothing wrong with marketing it. I'd be more worried if it wasn't there and they tried to market it.
He didn't say it was wrong to market a feature, he said it was wrong to exaggerate or over-emphasize a feature, which is exactly what Microsoft does.
Marketing is all about putting your product out, they over emphasize it because it has been done by them.
How the HELL are they exaggerating having a new UI? What is the glass less glassy then what they say it is?
And to respond to Warrior's assertion that Windows Vista is going to kill Linux -- Haha! I can't think of any Linux user that would leave his OS for something as bloated and expensive as Windows Vista. They don't start using Linux for fun, they start using it because they believe in the ideals that Linux represents.
It's simple, Linux is going to get so pushed back from the Desktop market any small presence they have by it's developers is going to be insignificant. People were considering Linux as a practical OS for the desktop with Distros such as ubuntu striving to make Linux easy to use. I see bad news for them in the future, sorry.
The difference between Microsoft and Linux is, one OS is moving into the future and the other is stuck in 1992.
Microsoft does things others don't do, they actually make things easy to use for their wide range of customers. You can have all the power you want but if it isn't delivered correctly, it's of no use.
Linux is made for the power-computer user, not a simple one who only uses it to check e-mail and watch porn (that's about 30% of computer users, I'd say). As iago said, people who use Linux use it for a reason. Not because it has the ability to look pretty like Windows. Your prophecy relies too heavily on people wanting a flashy GUI.
Then don't try to compete for the desktop scene and bash Windows for doing something they could never do. Plain and simple.
-
Wasn't that P2P feature enabled by default in the Beta? which won't be enabled by default in the release?
I never said their disk encryption didn't exist, just that the way it was worded is misleading. That is presuming you're right.
It's a P2P feature not a security issue....
-
Never claimed it to be a security issue, was just giving an example of how you cannot base your judgement off your Beta experience.
-
I was comparing it to the Disk encryption..which is of a higher importance to Vista thus it will be most definitely enabled. Otherwise you're just making a judgement on something you're not sure of.
-
You'll notice the importance of their Disk Encryption on their website
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvista/features/foreveryone/security.mspx#more
where it's not mentioned directly at all.
Also, they state near the top of the page that
The improvements are designed to help you have:
1. A PC protected from viruses, worms, spyware, and other potentially unwanted software
Where as at the end of the page it says
Together, these tools can help you protect your PC from malicious software.
So is the PC protected from virus's? Or only provided -help- against virus's with their tools
Note: In addition to using these built-in Windows Vista features, you should help keep your computer healthy by using antivirus software such as Windows OneCare or an antivirus solution from one of Microsoft's partners.
So antivirus doesn't come standard? You're right, they are serious about security!
-
A lot of things arn't mentioned on their website. That site is not set in stone nor is it guaranteed to be the source of absolutely all security features. I'd look deeper into developer portions of the website.
-
They implement...obvious features..none exclusive to Linux itself.
Yes, obvious things that other OSes have done. Then they call it "revolutionary". Like Sidoh said, "revolutionary" only works on a global context, not local. Their use of it is misleading.
It may have originally been that, now they are just full of themselves.
Uhh, how so, exactly? They've done more work and contributed more to the world than most people could ever hope to. And they don't get a dime for it. I think that they deserve to be proud.
Marketing is all about putting your product out, they over emphasize it because it has been done by them.
How the HELL are they exaggerating having a new UI? What is the glass less glassy then what they say it is?
By using misleading words like "revolutionary". See above.
Then don't try to compete for the desktop scene and bash Windows for doing something they could never do. Plain and simple.
I don't understand what your problem is. Linux and Windows both make desktop environments. Some prefer one, some prefer the other. See my previous post about why I disagree with Windows.
-
They implement...obvious features..none exclusive to Linux itself.
Yes, obvious things that other OSes have done. Then they call it "revolutionary". Like Sidoh said, "revolutionary" only works on a global context, not local. Their use of it is misleading.
It's revolutionary because it hadn't been seen in Windows OSes before. I don't get what's so hard to comprehend.
Windows users (most) have almost never even heard of Linux. Saying it's revolutionary is pretty appropriate there.
It may have originally been that, now they are just full of themselves.
Uhh, how so, exactly? They've done more work and contributed more to the world than most people could ever hope to. And they don't get a dime for it. I think that they deserve to be proud.
Read what I said then read what you wrote, then you'll know. When they write an OS which is used globaly, in many different languages, can actually get support from hardware vendors, has a market share, and makes some money off of it then I'll be impressed, else they are just talking out of their ass about Windows withought knowing.
Marketing is all about putting your product out, they over emphasize it because it has been done by them.
How the HELL are they exaggerating having a new UI? What is the glass less glassy then what they say it is?
By using misleading words like "revolutionary". See above.
No they arn't. See above.
Then don't try to compete for the desktop scene and bash Windows for doing something they could never do. Plain and simple.
I don't understand what your problem is. Linux and Windows both make desktop environments. Some prefer one, some prefer the other. See my previous post about why I disagree with Windows.
Simple, one bashes the other about how they go about things yet they cannot even begin to compete.
-
They implement...obvious features..none exclusive to Linux itself.
They have implemented features that were exclusive to Linux until they implemented them.
It may have originally been that, now they are just full of themselves.
You're generalizing again. But still, even the snobby, stuck-up "Windows users suck at life" type people that contribute to a Linux distribution project are coding for the greater good. They don't see a dime for any of their code.
Marketing is all about putting your product out, they over emphasize it because it has been done by them.
How the HELL are they exaggerating having a new UI? What is the glass less glassy then what they say it is?
I consider marketing over-exaggeration (which is a negative thing; it's generally used to draw attention from what they are lacking) when you fill the an entire feature list with useless or old ideas. This is generally what Windows does.
Then don't try to compete for the desktop scene and bash Windows for doing something they could never do. Plain and simple.
Again: we're talking about OS' on a wide scale. People use Linux because of it's functionality, not because of its usability. No one that uses Linux cares that a Windows desktop looks nicer when they consider the functionality Linux has. Secondly, Linux isn't necessarily competing for the desktop scene. They want to add a functional, usable GUI. People code things like KDE and Gnome. What's wrong with that? You're saying that KDE should cease to exist because Microsoft made the desktop environment pretty first?
It's revolutionary because it hadn't been seen in Windows OSes before. I don't get what's so hard to comprehend.
Windows users (most) have almost never even heard of Linux. Saying it's revolutionary is pretty appropriate there.
We're not talking about just the UI, for the last time! We don't care about it! Windows claims several of its "features" are "revolutionary." They're not. To reiterate: saying something is revolutionary is useless when only considered on a local scale.
Read what I said then read what you wrote, then you'll know. When they write an OS which is used globaly, in many different languages, can actually get support from hardware vendors, has a market share, and makes some money off of it then I'll be impressed, else they are just talking out of their ass about Windows withought knowing.
The people who work on Linux don't want to be a corporate organization with their prime intent set to profit. Linux is used globally. It is written in many different languages. You can get support for it all over the internet. Linux does get support from hardware vendors. Sure, not as many as Windows, but that's because the companies aren't going to make any profit by providing Linux support. There are 3rd party drivers for almost every device I've ever ran into. Frankly, I'm glad Linux isn't a corporate organization. They're against coding for money. Why would you argue that they'll be useless until they do make money?
No they arn't. See above.
They're completely misleading.
Simple, one bashes the other about how they go about things yet they cannot even begin to compete.
Who said that the Linux desktop environment is better than Windows? Some say Linux is better than Windows, but I haven't heard anyone argue that the desktop environment is superior. Your arguments for Windows rely really heavily on it's GUI, do you realize this? :)
-
This thread makes me happy I'm not a zealot for any OS :D
I do wish I had the time to actually read all the posts though.
-
This thread makes me happy I'm not a zealot for any OS :D
I do wish I had the time to actually read all the posts though.
Just to make sure this issue is clear: I'm no sort of zealot for any OS. I mainly use Windows on my computer. I recognize that it has its flaws, but I find that they're bearable enough to use over Linux on my main computer. Windows is what I grew up with; it's what I'm used to. For this reason, I'm more comfortable using Windows on my main computer than Linux. However, I have a remarkable level of respect for Linux and what it can do. For this reason, my server (and my other hard drive on my main computer) has Linux on it. :)
-
They implement...obvious features..none exclusive to Linux itself.
They have implemented features that were exclusive to Linux until they implemented them.
That would be believable if Linux wasn't a total rip off Unix.
It may have originally been that, now they are just full of themselves.
You're generalizing again. But still, even the snobby, stuck-up "Windows users suck at life" type people that contribute to a Linux distribution project are coding for the greater good. They don't see a dime for any of their code.
No, those people are coding for themselves. No one sensible uses Linux, so the "Greater" good isn't as "Great" as most may think.
I'd call it coding for the "Select few individuals too poor to buy Windows"
Marketing is all about putting your product out, they over emphasize it because it has been done by them.
How the HELL are they exaggerating having a new UI? What is the glass less glassy then what they say it is?
I consider marketing over-exaggeration (which is a negative thing; it's generally used to draw attention from what they are lacking) when you fill the an entire feature list with useless or old ideas. This is generally what Windows does.
I've explained this multiple times, I'm starting to think you either have a reading problem or just chose to completely ignore me.
Then don't try to compete for the desktop scene and bash Windows for doing something they could never do. Plain and simple.
Again: we're talking about OS' on a wide scale. People use Linux because of it's functionality, not because of its usability. No one that uses Linux cares that a Windows desktop looks nicer when they consider the functionality Linux has. Secondly, Linux isn't necessarily competing for the desktop scene. They want to add a functional, usable GUI. People code things like KDE and Gnome. What's wrong with that? You're saying that KDE should cease to exist because Microsoft made the desktop environment pretty first?
I'm not talking about UI. I'm talking about DESKTOP useability which is not limited to the UI, but functionality driving the UI.
You're saying I'm talking about the UI..seems to me you're doing most of that here.
It's revolutionary because it hadn't been seen in Windows OSes before. I don't get what's so hard to comprehend.
Windows users (most) have almost never even heard of Linux. Saying it's revolutionary is pretty appropriate there.
We're not talking about just the UI, for the last time! We don't care about it! Windows claims several of its "features" are "revolutionary." They're not. To reiterate: saying something is revolutionary is useless when only considered on a local scale.
Neither am I, Windows has multiple things which are more stable than Linux could ever want. Windows supports more drivers and knows more trade secrets than Linux will ever have. That makes them the superior OS, that makes them more powerful, that is what seperates the good OS from the shitty ancient OS.
Read what I said then read what you wrote, then you'll know. When they write an OS which is used globaly, in many different languages, can actually get support from hardware vendors, has a market share, and makes some money off of it then I'll be impressed, else they are just talking out of their ass about Windows withought knowing.
The people who work on Linux don't want to be a corporate organization with their prime intent set to profit. Linux is used globally. It is written in many different languages. You can get support for it all over the internet. Linux does get support from hardware vendors. Sure, not as many as Windows, but that's because the companies aren't going to make any profit by providing Linux support. There are 3rd party drivers for almost every device I've ever ran into. Frankly, I'm glad Linux isn't a corporate organization. They're against coding for money. Why would you argue that they'll be useless until they do make money?
Then they have no room to insult how Windows goes about doing things when them as an OS couldnt' do the same.
No they arn't. See above.
They're completely misleading.
[/quote[
No.
Simple, one bashes the other about how they go about things yet they cannot even begin to compete.
Who said that the Linux desktop environment is better than Windows? Some say Linux is better than Windows, but I haven't heard anyone argue that the desktop environment is superior. Your arguments for Windows rely really heavily on it's GUI, do you realize this? :)
No they don't, you just think they do thus yours rely heavily on the UI, not mine. I'm not talking about the desktop enviroment, I'm talking about the desktop EXPERIENCE which means functionality, support for drivers, ease of use, etc..
Something Linux in it's unstable state cannot provide.
-
That would be believable if Linux wasn't a total rip off Unix.
What's wrong with that? Linux has expanded UNIX. Think of UNIX as Windows 98 and Linux as Windows Vista. They're both under the GPL license; what's wrong with expanding on a brother project? That's the point of open source development. Open source developers want their code to be used.
No, those people are coding for themselves. No one sensible uses Linux, so the "Greater" good isn't as "Great" as most may think.
I'd call it coding for the "Select few individuals too poor to buy Windows"
Bullshit! Do you even understand what the "Greater good" we're referring to is? When programming first became popular, everyone shared code. They all publicly provided their work so that it could be used to accelerate the programming community's advancement pace. It worked extremely well. If every piece of software was corporate, people would continually have to "re-invent the wheel," so to speak. Obviously, this is not the case. There are tons of open source projects. If you're starting a project and you want to implement a specific feature that's already been created, you can simply learn from the source that's been provided for you. That's a damned awesome "Greater good."
I've explained this multiple times, I'm starting to think you either have a reading problem or just chose to completely ignore me.
I'm starting to think the same about you. I've explained why I believe what I do. I've continually rejected your rationale, so you conclude that I'm not understanding what you're saying? For some odd reason, this brings on a strange sense of deja vou (http://www.x86labs.org:81/forum/index.php/topic,4743.0.html).
I'm not talking about UI. I'm talking about DESKTOP usability which is not limited to the UI, but functionality driving the UI.
You're saying I'm talking about the UI..seems to me you're doing most of that here.
You need to be more clear then. Even in your rationalization, you're confusing functionality with usability.
Neither am I, Windows has multiple things which are more stable than Linux could ever want. Windows supports more drivers and knows more trade secrets than Linux will ever have. That makes them the superior OS, that makes them more powerful, that is what seperates the good OS from the shitty ancient OS.
Name a few, please. Windows has "auto-detecting" driver engines, which are pretty useless. The device works crappily until you install the correct drivers. Linux doesn't provide that short time of limited functionality, but I have little doubt that with a bit of searching, you'll find a comparable driver. What kind of "trade secrets" are you talking about? Riddle me this, Warrior: why do the most world renowned physicists, theorists and scientists publish their work? So that the world can understand their findings. So that humanity can progress. So people don't have to discover what they've found after it's already been done. This is the idea behind open source. I think it's a phenomenal idea.
Then they have no room to insult how Windows goes about doing things when them as an OS couldnt' do the same.
Sure they do. There are lots of things I wish Windows did differently. These issues can be discussed if needed, but I'm pretty sure they're intuitively obvious given Window's history on security and stability issues.
No.
I have to do this again? :( *sigh*
www.m-w.com (http://m-w.com/dictionary/revolutionary) :
Main Entry: 1rev·o·lu·tion·ary
Pronunciation: -sh&-"ner-E
Function: adjective
1 a : of, relating to, or constituting a revolution <revolutionary war> b : tending to or promoting revolution <a revolutionary party> c : constituting or bringing about a major or fundamental change <revolutionary styling> <a revolutionary new product>
Note the bolded definition. This is the one that Windows is referring to when it claims that one of its features is "revolutionary." How can something be revolutionary if it's already been done? It can't be.
No they don't, you just think they do thus yours rely heavily on the UI, not mine. I'm not talking about the desktop enviroment, I'm talking about the desktop EXPERIENCE which means functionality, support for drivers, ease of use, etc..
Something Linux in it's unstable state cannot provide.
That seems pretty synonymous with UI features to me (other than the driver functionality). Ease of use is irrelevant in a functionality argument, if you ask me. If some feature can be learned through means of experience, then ease of use isn't very important. I've already argued a rational point on Linux and drivers. Linux is not unstable:
[xx@walden xx]$ uptime
21:34:17 up 369 days, 12:09, 6 users, load average: 0.63, 0.94, 1.33
(actual username replaced with xx for privacy reasons).
-
That would be believable if Linux wasn't a total rip off Unix.
Linux wasn't ripped off of Unix, it's a re-implementation. They don't try to hide that, and I have never heard of people refer to Linux features as revolutionary. Thanks for flaunting the weakness of your arguments.
No, those people are coding for themselves. No one sensible uses Linux, so the "Greater" good isn't as "Great" as most may think.
I'd call it coding for the "Select few individuals too poor to buy Windows"
I use Linux. I'm sensible. Sidoh uses Linux. He's sensible. Your argument is invalid.
I've explained this multiple times, I'm starting to think you either have a reading problem or just chose to completely ignore me.
No, because you keep mis-using words like revolutionary. Something can't be "revolutionary to Windows", that doesn't make sense! Either it's revolutionary to the entire world or it's not. If I program a Tetris clone, it's not revolutionary. I've never done it before, but that STILL doesn't make it revolutionary. Either it's revolutionary for everybody or it's not revolutionary. The fact that you keep ignoring that doesn't bode well for what you're saying.
I'm not talking about UI. I'm talking about DESKTOP useability which is not limited to the UI, but functionality driving the UI.
You're saying I'm talking about the UI..seems to me you're doing most of that here.
I can do more on Linux than I can on Windows. So it makes a better desktop environment. I'm glad you cleared up that we're not talking about the UI. So according to what you're saying, Windows probably isn't the superior OS in this category.
Neither am I, Windows has multiple things which are more stable than Linux could ever want. Windows supports more drivers and knows more trade secrets than Linux will ever have. That makes them the superior OS, that makes them more powerful, that is what seperates the good OS from the shitty ancient OS.
Don't forget that Linux has multiple things that are more stable than Windows. Linux has close to the same number of drivers and Linux doesn't feel the need for trade secrets. Why would an OS need secrets? A real OS shouldn't be hiding anything. Your arguments are totally hollow.
No they don't, you just think they do thus yours rely heavily on the UI, not mine. I'm not talking about the desktop enviroment, I'm talking about the desktop EXPERIENCE which means functionality, support for drivers, ease of use, etc..
Why doesn't your "EXPERIENCE" contain things like power, control, and ease of extension? Are you just listing the criteria that you like and basing everything on that? Yet again, your argument is hollow.
Something Linux in it's unstable state cannot provide.
Huh?
-
What's wrong with that? Linux has expanded UNIX. Think of UNIX as Windows 98 and Linux as Windows Vista. They're both under the GPL license; what's wrong with expanding on a brother project? That's the point of open source development. Open source developers want their code to be used.
Actually, not quite true. The reason Linux was started is because UNIX, over the 20 years before, was becoming too commercial and that was killing it. Linux was a re-implementation of UNIX, which is also compliant with the same standards (ISO, POSIX, etc.) except with a new licensing scheme which demanded non-commercialism.
-
Actually, not quite true. The reason Linux was started is because UNIX, over the 20 years before, was becoming too commercial and that was killing it. Linux was a re-implementation of UNIX, which is also compliant with the same standards (ISO, POSIX, etc.) except with a new licensing scheme which demanded non-commercialism.
Hehe, thanks for clearing that up then. :)
-
That would be believable if Linux wasn't a total rip off Unix.
What's wrong with that? Linux has expanded UNIX. Think of UNIX as Windows 98 and Linux as Windows Vista. They're both under the GPL license; what's wrong with expanding on a brother project? That's the point of open source development. Open source developers want their code to be used.
Then the features weren't "Exclusive to Linux" also Microsoft licensed Unix sourcecode back in the day.
No, those people are coding for themselves. No one sensible uses Linux, so the "Greater" good isn't as "Great" as most may think.
I'd call it coding for the "Select few individuals too poor to buy Windows"
Bullshit! Do you even understand what the "Greater good" we're referring to is? When programming first became popular, everyone shared code. They all publicly provided their work so that it could be used to accelerate the programming community's advancement pace. It worked extremely well. If every piece of software was corporate, people would continually have to "re-invent the wheel," so to speak. Obviously, this is not the case. There are tons of open source projects. If you're starting a project and you want to implement a specific feature that's already been created, you can simply learn from the source that's been provided for you. That's a damned awesome "Greater good."
Wow that was moving..not. There is no money in that, a bunch of saps sharing source code..woopty do.
I've explained this multiple times, I'm starting to think you either have a reading problem or just chose to completely ignore me.
I'm starting to think the same about you. I've explained why I believe what I do. I've continually rejected your rationale, so you conclude that I'm not understanding what you're saying? For some odd reason, this brings on a strange sense of deja vou (http://www.x86labs.org:81/forum/index.php/topic,4743.0.html).
Yea, nice job of dodging the argument. Next time you may want to take some time out of the time you claim to take in writing your SO WELL THOUGHT OUT responses to actually do something.
I'm not talking about UI. I'm talking about DESKTOP usability which is not limited to the UI, but functionality driving the UI.
You're saying I'm talking about the UI..seems to me you're doing most of that here.
You need to be more clear then. Even in your rationalization, you're confusing functionality with usability.
Ironic, I remember once upon a time you werent so clear yourself..yet you still left it up to me to interpret. Maybe you're one of those things you hate most right?
Neither am I, Windows has multiple things which are more stable than Linux could ever want. Windows supports more drivers and knows more trade secrets than Linux will ever have. That makes them the superior OS, that makes them more powerful, that is what seperates the good OS from the shitty ancient OS.
Name a few, please. Windows has "auto-detecting" driver engines, which are pretty useless. The device works crappily until you install the correct drivers. Linux doesn't provide that short time of limited functionality, but I have little doubt that with a bit of searching, you'll find a comparable driver. What kind of "trade secrets" are you talking about? Riddle me this, Warrior: why do the most world renowned physicists, theorists and scientists publish their work? So that the world can understand their findings. So that humanity can progress. So people don't have to discover what they've found after it's already been done. This is the idea behind open source. I think it's a phenomenal idea.
I don't care about some lame physicst. I'm talking about trade secrets such as hardware specifications which they are not allowed to distribute by law. Hundreds of specifications to drivers is what I'm talking about.
I don't know if I have said this before: Open source is lame, I don't care how phenomenal you think it is, it as no application in the real world, won't make me money, thus it's irrelevant.
Then they have no room to insult how Windows goes about doing things when them as an OS couldnt' do the same.
Sure they do. There are lots of things I wish Windows did differently. These issues can be discussed if needed, but I'm pretty sure they're intuitively obvious given Window's history on security and stability issues.
I'd like to see them do better. Never mind they are busy being Open source and coding for the greater whatever it is you guys call that dumb shit you do anyhow.
No.
I have to do this again? :( *sigh*
www.m-w.com (http://m-w.com/dictionary/revolutionary) :
Main Entry: 1rev·o·lu·tion·ary
Pronunciation: -sh&-"ner-E
Function: adjective
1 a : of, relating to, or constituting a revolution <revolutionary war> b : tending to or promoting revolution <a revolutionary party> c : constituting or bringing about a major or fundamental change <revolutionary styling> <a revolutionary new product>
Note the bolded definition. This is the one that Windows is referring to when it claims that one of its features is "revolutionary." How can something be revolutionary if it's already been done? It can't be.
Okay I hate to treat you like an idiot since you're smart but I'm going to have to.
Windows (Microsoft's OS)
says (Meaning claims or speaks)
things as revolutionary (The big word you went through the trouble of looking up)
which apply to (Meaning are relevant to)
Windows (Microsoft's OS)
thus it is perfectly logical (It makes sense)
to call it revolutionary (The big word you went through the trouble of looking up)
Get it?
No they don't, you just think they do thus yours rely heavily on the UI, not mine. I'm not talking about the desktop enviroment, I'm talking about the desktop EXPERIENCE which means functionality, support for drivers, ease of use, etc..
Something Linux in it's unstable state cannot provide.
That seems pretty synonymous with UI features to me (other than the driver functionality). Ease of use is irrelevant in a functionality argument, if you ask me. If some feature can be learned through means of experience, then ease of use isn't very important. I've already argued a rational point on Linux and drivers. Linux is not unstable:
Of COURSE IT is...you just have your head shoved so far up OSS and Torvald's ass you can't see that.
[/quote]
-
Then the features weren't "Exclusive to Linux" also Microsoft licensed Unix sourcecode back in the day.
Personally, I don't claim any of the features in Linux are or were exclusive to it. I think arguing such points is pretty useless. Don't accuse me of doing so.
Wow that was moving..not. There is no money in that, a bunch of saps sharing source code..woopty do.
To retort that, I'll quote myself:
Riddle me this, Warrior: why do the most world renowned physicists, theorists and scientists publish their work? So that the world can understand their findings. So that humanity can progress. So people don't have to discover what they've found after it's already been done. This is the idea behind open source. I think it's a phenomenal idea.
What's wrong with wanting computer science to progress at a faster rate in stead of greedily wanting to fill your pocket?
Yea, nice job of dodging the argument. Next time you may want to take some time out of the time you claim to take in writing your SO WELL THOUGHT OUT responses to actually do something.
Warrior: you're accusing me of what you're guilty of. I retorted perfectly fine and precisely relating to your argument. I didn't dodge anything other than you being correct.
Ironic, I remember once upon a time you werent so clear yourself..yet you still left it up to me to interpret. Maybe you're one of those things you hate most right?
Intuitively, I assume that you are talking about the UI when you explicitly refer to the desktop environment. Sure, it indirectly and non-intuitively entails other sorts of features, but that doesn't mean I should automatically understand what you're talking about.
I don't care about some lame physicst. I'm talking about trade secrets such as hardware specifications which they are not allowed to distribute by law. Hundreds of specifications to drivers is what I'm talking about.
You don't care about some lame physicist? If it wasn't for physicists like Isaac Newton, you wouldn't be at a computer right now. Calculus wouldn't exist; technology would be vastly less advanced. I see no problem in relating the works of physicists and theorists with the work of computer scientists. In fact, I see a direct correlation.
I don't know if I have said this before: Open source is lame, I don't care how phenomenal you think it is, it as no application in the real world, won't make me money, thus it's irrelevant.
It's irrelevant because you don't care about it? That is an absolutely, completely, amazingly unwise, unjustified and blind statement. Saying there is no use for open source is like saying you wish that you couldn't learn anything in school through the work of others.
I'd like to see them do better. Never mind they are busy being Open source and coding for the greater whatever it is you guys call that dumb shit you do anyhow.
Actually, coding for the greater good (open source) takes vast amounts of time less than it does to code for a corporate cause. When you're coding for money, you have to take security measures. You have to obfuscate your libraries, spend vast amounts of time coding and implement validation and verification procedures and implementing other features to make sure users are legally obtaining your software. When you code open source, you don't care about any of that! You upload the source and let the users do what they want with it. Also, if you'd like to see them do better, perhaps you should try Linux again. They already have.
Okay I hate to treat you like an idiot since you're smart but I'm going to have to.
Windows (Microsoft's OS)
says (Meaning claims or speaks)
things as revolutionary (The big word you went through the trouble of looking up)
which apply to (Meaning are relevant to)
Windows (Microsoft's OS)
thus it is perfectly logical (It makes sense)
to call it revolutionary (The big word you went through the trouble of looking up)
Get it?
No, it's not. For the last time, claiming something is revolutionary when it's previously been done is stupid. As iago said, when you call something revolutionary, you imply that it is new to the world; that it has never, ever been done before in any shape or fashion. The point of a revolution is that it provides some type of new knowledge to the world -- not re-implements knowledge that has already been provided. I'm glad you decided to treat me like an idiot when you're obviously misunderstanding the entire point of this argument. You're simply ignoring the fact that calling something revolutionary implies that it has never been done before anywhere in the world.
Of COURSE IT is...you just have your head shoved so far up OSS and Torvald's ass you can't see that.
Are you that uninformed? I use Windows as my main desktop environment. As I told unTactical:
Just to make sure this issue is clear: I'm no sort of zealot for any OS. I mainly use Windows on my computer. I recognize that it has its flaws, but I find that they're bearable enough to use over Linux on my main computer. Windows is what I grew up with; it's what I'm used to. For this reason, I'm more comfortable using Windows on my main computer than Linux. However, I have a remarkable level of respect for Linux and what it can do. For this reason, my server (and my other hard drive on my main computer) has Linux on it. :)
How is Linux unstable? The uptime for the server I showed you was almost a year. I've never seen a Windows box that has functioned for that long.
-
Ah, I see the entire problem:
I don't know if I have said this before: Open source is lame, I don't care how phenomenal you think it is, it as no application in the real world, won't make me money, thus it's irrelevant.
I care about more than money. I guess if your personal world is driven by the quest for money, then of course open source is bad. Mine isn't.
When I help an old lady put groceries in her car, I don't ask her for money. I'm doing it to be nice.
When I deliver Christmas hampers to needy families, I'm not trying to earn money. In fact, I'm losing money on gas. But I'm doing it to be nice.
When I did lighting for my school's play, it wasn't for money. It was to help out.
I consider open-source to be volunteer work. I always have. But if you're against the idea of working for free, then I understand why you wouldn't support open source.
-
I consider open-source to be volunteer work. I always have. But if you're against the idea of working for free, then I understand why you wouldn't support open source.
If you overlook the fact that computer science is a delicately progressing field by wanting nothing more than riches out of it, I'd say you're pretty uninsightful. That's my personal opinion.
-
Then the features weren't "Exclusive to Linux" also Microsoft licensed Unix sourcecode back in the day.
Personally, I don't claim any of the features in Linux are or were exclusive to it. I think arguing such points is pretty useless. Don't accuse me of doing so.
They implement...obvious features..none exclusive to Linux itself.
They have implemented features that were exclusive to Linux until they implemented them.
Whatever would give me that idea.
Wow that was moving..not. There is no money in that, a bunch of saps sharing source code..woopty do.
To retort that, I'll quote myself:
Riddle me this, Warrior: why do the most world renowned physicists, theorists and scientists publish their work? So that the world can understand their findings. So that humanity can progress. So people don't have to discover what they've found after it's already been done. This is the idea behind open source. I think it's a phenomenal idea.
What's wrong with wanting computer science to progress at a faster rate in stead of greedily wanting to fill your pocket?
I don't make money, that's what's wrong.
Ironic, I remember once upon a time you werent so clear yourself..yet you still left it up to me to interpret. Maybe you're one of those things you hate most right?
Intuitively, I assume that you are talking about the UI when you explicitly refer to the desktop environment. Sure, it indirectly and non-intuitively entails other sorts of features, but that doesn't mean I should automatically understand what you're talking about.
Wrong, I'm talking about the XP activation thread. May want to look back.
I don't care about some lame physicst. I'm talking about trade secrets such as hardware specifications which they are not allowed to distribute by law. Hundreds of specifications to drivers is what I'm talking about.
You don't care about some lame physicist? If it wasn't for physicists like Isaac Newton, you wouldn't be at a computer right now. Calculus wouldn't exist; technology would be vastly less advanced. I see no problem in relating the works of physicists and theorists with the work of computer scientists. In fact, I see a direct correlation.
Not in an argument about Linux and Windows.
I don't know if I have said this before: Open source is lame, I don't care how phenomenal you think it is, it as no application in the real world, won't make me money, thus it's irrelevant.
It's irrelevant because you don't care about it? That is an absolutely, completely, amazingly unwise, unjustified and blind statement. Saying there is no use for open source is like saying you wish that you couldn't learn anything in school through the work of others.
Not true, documentation exists.
I'd like to see them do better. Never mind they are busy being Open source and coding for the greater whatever it is you guys call that dumb shit you do anyhow.
Actually, coding for the greater good (open source) takes vast amounts of time less than it does to code for a corporate cause. When you're coding for money, you have to take security measures. You have to obfuscate your libraries, spend vast amounts of time coding and implement validation and verification procedures and implementing other features to make sure users are legally obtaining your software. When you code open source, you don't care about any of that! You upload the source and let the users do what they want with it. Also, if you'd like to see them do better, perhaps you should try Linux again. They already have.
Oh sorry if corporate programming makes you actually program well..sorry..
Okay I hate to treat you like an idiot since you're smart but I'm going to have to.
Windows (Microsoft's OS)
says (Meaning claims or speaks)
things as revolutionary (The big word you went through the trouble of looking up)
which apply to (Meaning are relevant to)
Windows (Microsoft's OS)
thus it is perfectly logical (It makes sense)
to call it revolutionary (The big word you went through the trouble of looking up)
Get it?
No, it's not. For the last time, claiming something is revolutionary when it's previously been done is stupid. As iago said, when you call something revolutionary, you imply that it is new to the world; that it has never, ever been done before in any shape or fashion. The point of a revolution is that it provides some type of new knowledge to the world -- not re-implements knowledge that has already been provided. I'm glad you decided to treat me like an idiot when you're obviously misunderstanding the entire point of this argument. You're simply ignoring the fact that calling something revolutionary implies that it has never been done before anywhere in the world.
Calling something revolutionary in the way they use it implies revolutionary to Windows users, who like me could care less for Linux.
Maybe all that time staring at a blank shell has fried your brains.
Of COURSE IT is...you just have your head shoved so far up OSS and Torvald's ass you can't see that.
Are you that uninformed? I use Windows as my main desktop environment. As I told unTactical:
Just to make sure this issue is clear: I'm no sort of zealot for any OS. I mainly use Windows on my computer. I recognize that it has its flaws, but I find that they're bearable enough to use over Linux on my main computer. Windows is what I grew up with; it's what I'm used to. For this reason, I'm more comfortable using Windows on my main computer than Linux. However, I have a remarkable level of respect for Linux and what it can do. For this reason, my server (and my other hard drive on my main computer) has Linux on it. :)
You seem to be uninformed, there are plenty of other OSes more secure than Linux. Still Linux users seem to treat it like the next big thing, the best thing since me and they talk as if it's actually able to compete with Windows on any level.
-
i dont support open source because its not as buggy and thus less vulnerable. yes folks i like exploitable programs. anyways, uhm, like i said before: linux is sloppy.
\\\"Fuck Linux, Open Your Eyes to a Wider Range of Operating Systems\\\"
All Linux buffs are biased.
-
Whatever would give me that idea.
Maybe the fact that you're accusing me?
I don't make money, that's what's wrong.
That's the only way you can make money? :(
Not in an argument about Linux and Windows.
So then I can't use points that don't directly relate to this argument? Arguing without analogies and metaphors would be a difficult task, Warrior.
Not true, documentation exists.
Not for "revolutionary" features. ;)
Oh sorry if corporate programming makes you actually program well..sorry..
That is a completely invalid generalization.
Calling something revolutionary in the way they use it implies revolutionary to Windows users, who like me could care less for Linux.
Maybe all that time staring at a blank shell has fried your brains.
Ugh. *hits head*. For the last time, we're saying calling something "revolutionary" is misleading because it implies that it is on a global scale, and it is.
Of COURSE IT is...you just have your head shoved so far up OSS and Torvald's ass you can't see that.
Are you that uninformed? I use Windows as my main desktop environment. As I told unTactical:
You seem to be uninformed, there are plenty of other OSes more secure than Linux. Still Linux users seem to treat it like the next big thing, the best thing since me and they talk as if it's actually able to compete with Windows on any level.
If they're more secure than Linux, they're more secure than Windows. They've got my vote.
i dont support open source because its not as buggy and thus less vulnerable. yes folks i like exploitable programs. anyways, uhm, like i said before: linux is sloppy.
Idiot. I'll stop there.
\\\"Fuck Linux, Open Your Eyes to a Wider Range of Operating Systems\\\"
I'd say the same to "Windows buffs."
All Linux buffs are biased.
Another crappy, untrue generalization. Seriously, do you think we're stupid enough to believe that?
-
ok, this is what really puts the turd in the bucket... Linux\\\'s code. Contributed by everyone, and thus sometimes coded by morons who have semi-decent ideas, but can\\\'t code well enough to securely and neatly implement the idea lol
-
ok, this is what really puts the turd in the bucket... Linux\\\'s code. Contributed by everyone, and thus sometimes coded by morons who have semi-decent ideas, but can\\\'t code well enough to securely and neatly implement the idea lol
If that's the case, it's recognized, recoded and replaced. Even if this doesn't happen, the nature of Linux allows you to do it yourself or seek a third party fix for it. When Windows does something sloppily (don't dare argue that it doesn't -- there are loads of areas that Windows is sloppy in), you're screwed.
Remeber: Windows is coded by people too. The people may have met some sort of qualification when they were hired to work at Microsoft, but that does not mean that their code will always meet the standards that are expected.
-
Whatever would give me that idea.
Maybe the fact that you're accusing me?
Actually READ what I responded and you'll see where my accusation came from..you said it yourself..I don't get you.
I don't make money, that's what's wrong.
That's the only way you can make money? :(
No, if I don't make it then I'm losing it. My time is money.
Not in an argument about Linux and Windows.
So then I can't use points that don't directly relate to this argument? Arguing without analogies and metaphors would be a difficult task, Warrior.
It would help if the analogies and metaphors even remotely related to the argument meaning, actually made sense.
Physicists documented their work, open source only applies where documentation is an alternative.
Not true, documentation exists.
Not for "revolutionary" features. ;)
What?
Oh sorry if corporate programming makes you actually program well..sorry..
That is a completely invalid generalization.
Hey, thats what you said in a shorter sentence form. You basically gave Linux an excuse to suck, because
it uses Open source. smooth move.
Calling something revolutionary in the way they use it implies revolutionary to Windows users, who like me could care less for Linux.
Maybe all that time staring at a blank shell has fried your brains.
Ugh. *hits head*. For the last time, we're saying calling something "revolutionary" is misleading because it implies that it is on a global scale, and it is.
If YOU misinterpret it, don't blame Microsoft for you using Linux.
Of COURSE IT is...you just have your head shoved so far up OSS and Torvald's ass you can't see that.
Are you that uninformed? I use Windows as my main desktop environment. As I told unTactical:
You seem to be uninformed, there are plenty of other OSes more secure than Linux. Still Linux users seem to treat it like the next big thing, the best thing since me and they talk as if it's actually able to compete with Windows on any level.
If they're more secure than Linux, they're more secure than Windows. They've got my vote.
You can't be serious. Oh I forgot, because Windows is the target of hackers right!? Give me a break, you act as if your OS is invulnerable to everything.
-
ok, this is what really puts the turd in the bucket... Linux\\\'s code. Contributed by everyone, and thus sometimes coded by morons who have semi-decent ideas, but can\\\'t code well enough to securely and neatly implement the idea lol
I don't suppose you know the process for submitting code to Linux's kernel?
All code is reviewed by Linus or one of his close assistants closely before being committed into the kernel. In fact, Linus is considered a "code nazi" by many because he enforces very strict practices to the point where it's nearly impossible to get your own code included in the main kernel base.
You have no idea what you're talking about. Do you have any evidence that it's sloppy? Do you have any evidence that Windows is less sloppy? Show me, please.
-
A bunch of sap's stealing source code...lol... Microsoft has bought out the majority of their competition, such as Lotus and Word Perfect, which were far superior to Access and Word. Very skillful.
Anywho, is Vista based off of any previous Microsoft OS? If not, won't it be full of bugs?
-
Windows 2003. I personally love Microsoft's power. It want something it takes it.
-
Actually READ what I responded and you'll see where my accusation came from..you said it yourself..I don't get you.
Try looking at things from another point of view for once and maybe you'll see what I'm talking about.
No, if I don't make it then I'm losing it. My time is money.
Then you'd better work on optimizing your sleeping and eating patterns. You'd better stop hanging out with friends. Money is enjoyment. If you're losing time, you're losing money; that obviously means you're losing enjoyment. Nice logic.
It would help if the analogies and metaphors even remotely related to the argument meaning, actually made sense.
Physicists documented their work, open source only applies where documentation is an alternative.
They are very closely related to the argument. They make perfect sense. Providing open source is documenting the source. You're misusing the word to your advantage. Perhaps if you realized this is a comparison in a non-literal sense, you'd understand what I'm trying to prove.
What?
Microsoft doesn't document every single one of their features. In fact, I'd wager that they document a miniscule fraction of the work they do. I'm not saying that is wrong, given their goal, but I am saying their goal is much less vigilant than the goal of open source.
Hey, thats what you said in a shorter sentence form. You basically gave Linux an excuse to suck, because
it uses Open source. smooth move.
No I didn't. You're pulling things out of that sentence that don't exist. You're not a word magician, stop trying to be one. :P
If YOU misinterpret it, don't blame Microsoft for you using Linux.
WHAT? Start making sense, please.
You can't be serious. Oh I forgot, because Windows is the target of hackers right!? Give me a break, you act as if your OS is invulnerable to everything.
There are several things wrong with these statements. I'll lay them out in order of their arrival:
1) I am serious.
2) Windows is the main target of hackers. Why? It's the most vunerable.
3) Linux isn't invunerable to everything. Anyone who claims it is should be labeled an idiot.
4) Linux isn't "My OS," for the last time. I primarily use Windows. However, I can't stand people who disrepsect the accomplishments Linux has.
A bunch of sap's stealing source code...lol... Microsoft has bought out the majority of their competition, such as Lotus and Word Perfect, which were far superior to Access and Word. Very skillful.
Anywho, is Vista based off of any previous Microsoft OS? If not, won't it be full of bugs?
Nice generalization. God, you people are horrible with that.
Windows 2003. I personally love Microsoft's power. It want something it takes it.
And I love Linux's power.
-
I guess taking code makes you a better programmer as well :-X
Anyways, people keep saying there are PLENTY of other operating systems better than Linux.
I'd like to hear a bit more about this, can you give some examples?
Note: Plenty is more than a few, and a few is 3, so serve em up.
-
Hrm, Sidoh, which generalization did I make?
-
I guess taking code makes you a better programmer as well :-X
Anyways, people keep saying there are PLENTY of other operating systems better than Linux.
I'd like to hear a bit more about this, can you give some examples?
Note: Plenty is more than a few, and a few is 3, so serve em up.
You seriously think that every person who takes advantage of source code being publically accessable simply leeches the code? Sure, it happens, but people who just use compiled libraries exist too. I don't see much of a difference.
"OS X is better than OS Y" is a subjective statement. It's relative to your wants, needs and expectations.
Hrm, Sidoh, which generalization did I make?
I've clarified this in my previous statement.
-
Maybe I should have quoted it, Warrior said Linux was just a bunch of saps who steal source code.
And I was pointing out that Microsoft has done it's share as well.
-
Actually READ what I responded and you'll see where my accusation came from..you said it yourself..I don't get you.
Try looking at things from another point of view for once and maybe you'll see what I'm talking about.
You said it yourself Linux features were exclusive to it before windows use it, check the quote...
No, if I don't make it then I'm losing it. My time is money.
Then you'd better work on optimizing your sleeping and eating patterns. You'd better stop hanging out with friends. Money is enjoyment. If you're losing time, you're losing money; that obviously means you're losing enjoyment. Nice logic.
Or I could never use Open source. Hmm...
It would help if the analogies and metaphors even remotely related to the argument meaning, actually made sense.
Physicists documented their work, open source only applies where documentation is an alternative.
They are very closely related to the argument. They make perfect sense. Providing open source is documenting the source. You're misusing the word to your advantage. Perhaps if you realized this is a comparison in a non-literal sense, you'd understand what I'm trying to prove.
Open source: Releasing every part of the experiment, if so I'd likethe same pencil, paper, etc.. that the physicist used. Thanks. I'd prefer GPL license.
What?
Microsoft doesn't document every single one of their features. In fact, I'd wager that they document a miniscule fraction of the work they do. I'm not saying that is wrong, given their goal, but I am saying their goal is much less vigilant than the goal of open source.
I beg to differ. Microsoft has documented fully a lot of things: PnP, FAT32, a lot of their kernel memory management schemes. A lot can be found by simple looking around MSDN.
Hey, thats what you said in a shorter sentence form. You basically gave Linux an excuse to suck, because
it uses Open source. smooth move.
No I didn't. You're pulling things out of that sentence that don't exist. You're not a word magician, stop trying to be one. :P
Prove me wrong. That's exactly what you said.
If YOU misinterpret it, don't blame Microsoft for you using Linux.
WHAT? Start making sense, please.
You misinterpret their usage of the word, you use Linux thus that is the fault of your misinterpretation of the word. Had you not used Linux you would have been on the same level as the rest of the windows users thus the misinterpretation would not have taken place.
You can't be serious. Oh I forgot, because Windows is the target of hackers right!? Give me a break, you act as if your OS is invulnerable to everything.
There are several things wrong with these statements. I'll lay them out in order of their arrival:
1) I am serious.
2) Windows is the main target of hackers. Why? It's the most vunerable.
3) Linux isn't invunerable to everything. Anyone who claims it is should be labeled an idiot.
4) Linux isn't "My OS," for the last time. I primarily use Windows. However, I can't stand people who disrepsect the accomplishments Linux has.
I've said this atleast three times now. When windows gets accepted as a standard server OS, then it will be the main target of hacker. Unless of course the term hacker has deteriorated greatly since I last looked it up..
I can't stand every aspect of Linux, I don't give a shit they did in the past..they suck now.
Windows 2003. I personally love Microsoft's power. It want something it takes it.
And I love Linux's power.
What, the power of open source? HA!
-
You said it yourself Linux features were exclusive to it before windows use it, check the quote...
I said that because you said Windows had features that were exclusive to Windows. I did not make that argument to prove that Linux is better than Windows.
Or I could never use Open source. Hmm...
Too late (http://www.advancedcontent.net).
Open source: Releasing every part of the experiment, if so I'd likethe same pencil, paper, etc.. that the physicist used. Thanks. I'd prefer GPL license.
No, you're misunderstanding the argument. The source to a Physicist's theory are the constituents of the theory, just as the source to an application are its constituents. The pencil and paper the Physicist used have no relevance to their conclusions or theoretical propositions. The source to a Physical theory is the reasoning behind the theory. It's the equations that allow you to arrive at the answers that the theory proposes are correct.
I beg to differ. Microsoft has documented fully a lot of things: PnP, FAT32, a lot of their kernel memory management schemes. A lot can be found by simple looking around MSDN.
And how many things have they chosen to not document? FAT32 is old. PnP is old. There are already several innovative things that implement or replace the same functionality.
Prove me wrong. That's exactly what you said.
How on Earth does being open source vindicate anything being sucky?
You misinterpret their usage of the word, you use Linux thus that is the fault of your misinterpretation of the word. Had you not used Linux you would have been on the same level as the rest of the windows users thus the misinterpretation would not have taken place.
No -- they are misusing the word. They're exploiting their user's ignorance to the technological world. You're misinterpreting the world. Revolutionary cannot be validly used on a local scale. It's a ludicrous claim.
I've said this atleast three times now. When windows gets accepted as a standard server OS, then it will be the main target of hacker. Unless of course the term hacker has deteriorated greatly since I last looked it up..
I can't stand every aspect of Linux, I don't give a shit they did in the past..they suck now.
Windows already is the main target for hackers? What the hell are you talking about?
What, the power of open source? HA!
Precisely.
-
Ah, I see the entire problem:
I don't know if I have said this before: Open source is lame, I don't care how phenomenal you think it is, it as no application in the real world, won't make me money, thus it's irrelevant.
I care about more than money. I guess if your personal world is driven by the quest for money, then of course open source is bad. Mine isn't.
When I help an old lady put groceries in her car, I don't ask her for money. I'm doing it to be nice.
And you're looking for action on the side!
-
You're telling me you don't club her over the head and take her purse?
Dude!!! That'd totally make you a better programmer
-
You're telling me you don't club her over the head and take her purse?
Yeah... I'm confused too, man.
Ah, I see the entire problem:
I don't know if I have said this before: Open source is lame, I don't care how phenomenal you think it is, it as no application in the real world, won't make me money, thus it's irrelevant.
I care about more than money. I guess if your personal world is driven by the quest for money, then of course open source is bad. Mine isn't.
When I help an old lady put groceries in her car, I don't ask her for money. I'm doing it to be nice.
And you're looking for action on the side!
That's wrong on too many levels. :)
-
You're telling me you don't club her over the head and take her purse?
Yeah... I'm confused too, man.
Ah, I see the entire problem:
I don't know if I have said this before: Open source is lame, I don't care how phenomenal you think it is, it as no application in the real world, won't make me money, thus it's irrelevant.
I care about more than money. I guess if your personal world is driven by the quest for money, then of course open source is bad. Mine isn't.
When I help an old lady put groceries in her car, I don't ask her for money. I'm doing it to be nice.
And you're looking for action on the side!
That's wrong on too many levels. :)
I know. That's why it's comical.
-
You said it yourself Linux features were exclusive to it before windows use it, check the quote...
I said that because you said Windows had features that were exclusive to Windows. I did not make that argument to prove that Linux is better than Windows.
You said it and I prove it wrong, done deal case closed.
Or I could never use Open source. Hmm...
Too late (http://www.advancedcontent.net).
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.
Open source: Releasing every part of the experiment, if so I'd likethe same pencil, paper, etc.. that the physicist used. Thanks. I'd prefer GPL license.
No, you're misunderstanding the argument. The source to a Physicist's theory are the constituents of the theory, just as the source to an application are its constituents. The pencil and paper the Physicist used have no relevance to their conclusions or theoretical propositions. The source to a Physical theory is the reasoning behind the theory. It's the equations that allow you to arrive at the answers that the theory proposes are correct.
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.
I beg to differ. Microsoft has documented fully a lot of things: PnP, FAT32, a lot of their kernel memory management schemes. A lot can be found by simple looking around MSDN.
And how many things have they chosen to not document? FAT32 is old. PnP is old. There are already several innovative things that implement or replace the same functionality.
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)
Prove me wrong. That's exactly what you said.
How on Earth does being open source vindicate anything being sucky?
Ask yourself, you said it.
You misinterpret their usage of the word, you use Linux thus that is the fault of your misinterpretation of the word. Had you not used Linux you would have been on the same level as the rest of the windows users thus the misinterpretation would not have taken place.
No -- they are misusing the word. They're exploiting their user's ignorance to the technological world. You're misinterpreting the world. Revolutionary cannot be validly used on a local scale. It's a ludicrous claim.
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).
I've said this atleast three times now. When windows gets accepted as a standard server OS, then it will be the main target of hacker. Unless of course the term hacker has deteriorated greatly since I last looked it up..
I can't stand every aspect of Linux, I don't give a shit they did in the past..they suck now.
Windows already is the main target for hackers? What the hell are you talking about?
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.
What, the power of open source? HA!
Precisely.
[/quote]
You have no "power", just another method of you (Linux users) being full of yourselves.
-
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.
-
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.
I also stated that Linux took almost everything it has today from Unix. Nothing about Linux is innovative.
It's an idea around 20 years old that they cling on to.
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.
Okay, not too hard with Zend Encoder
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.
It's called "Testing it"?
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.
They don't try to be, they also don't try to hide all of their technology. They just don't give it away like Linux does.
Ask yourself, you said it.
No I didn't. You misinterpreted it.
When you come out and say something then say it had a different meaning, sorta makes it look like you change the meaning on the fly to make yourself look good..tell me what exactly does it mean? It's pretty in your face pointing to what I interpreted it as.
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.
You're including knowing about Linux as a need for being non ignorant..Linux isn't anything special..
Maybe I should go write a Unix clone and then claim that anyone who doesn't know about it is "Technologicly Ignorant", cmon..
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.
Compare that to the insane amount of exploits for Linux? It takes time to exploit windows because of Microsoft's cryptic method of coding. From viewing their source which "after a course of events" landed on my hands, it's easily seen how hard they make their code to understand. However it's elegance was preserved. Like I said, Hackers arn't getting much out of a user, they'll be lucky if they get a couple thousand. Hackers hit the big bucks.
Now find me statistics, anything since you're so good at it and I'll agree Windows is in the hackers scope, right now it doesn't look like it nor is it going to change because YOU say it is.
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
Linux and Windows have different purposes, my problem with Linux is them pushing themselves onto an arena where they don't belong: The desktop. My beef is also them criticising windows but their desktop situation is horrible. Of course you're going to go and state something Windows can't do.
Okay find me a linux distro which can do this:
Run most if not all drivers currently out there today. Wait that's asking too much of the operating system. Maybe the all powerful Linux will have a meltdown!
-
I also stated that Linux took almost everything it has today from Unix. Nothing about Linux is innovative.
It's an idea around 20 years old that they cling on to.
You don't think there are any differences between Linux and UNIX? I think you'd better do some research.
Okay, not too hard with Zend Encoder
That's a stupid waste of time.
It's called "Testing it"?
Why? Are they afraid that their patches suck so much that they're going to reek havog on their user's PC's and they'll get sued? Probably.
They don't try to be, they also don't try to hide all of their technology. They just don't give it away like Linux does.
No, but they sure as hell hide most of it.
When you come out and say something then say it had a different meaning, sorta makes it look like you change the meaning on the fly to make yourself look good..tell me what exactly does it mean? It's pretty in your face pointing to what I interpreted it as.
Quote the sentence you're talking about and I'll tell you.
You're including knowing about Linux as a need for being non ignorant..Linux isn't anything special..
Maybe I should go write a Unix clone and then claim that anyone who doesn't know about it is "Technologicly Ignorant", cmon..
How in the HELL did you pull the meaning you're suggesting out of my statement? I said that the average computer user is technologically ignorant--plain and simple. No details attached. They simply don't know much about IT.
Compare that to the insane amount of exploits for Linux? It takes time to exploit windows because of Microsoft's cryptic method of coding. From viewing their source which "after a course of events" landed on my hands, it's easily seen how hard they make their code to understand. However it's elegance was preserved. Like I said, Hackers arn't getting much out of a user, they'll be lucky if they get a couple thousand. Hackers hit the big bucks.
Then why are there thousands of trojans that are exclusively used on Windows? Why are there e-mail viruses that work exculsively on Windows? A hacker's intent is rarely money (again: we're obviously not using the same definition for a hacker). Usually it's just to be a malicious prick.
Now find me statistics, anything since you're so good at it and I'll agree Windows is in the hackers scope, right now it doesn't look like it nor is it going to change because YOU say it is.
Again: it's not my fault you're stupid enough to believe that Linux is exploited in greater numbers (or proportions) than Windows. If you want to believe that, I'm not going to fight you. You be on your merry way.
Linux and Windows have different purposes, my problem with Linux is them pushing themselves onto an arena where they don't belong: The desktop. My beef is also them criticising windows but their desktop situation is horrible. Of course you're going to go and state something Windows can't do.
EXACTLY. For once, you're starting to make sense! Linux isn't supposed to be like Windows! It's not even intended to replace Windows! It's supposed to be there to provide an acceptable alternative for Windows. That is exactly waht it does. What's wrong with Linux having a desktop environment? Who cares if it's not as good as Windows' desktop environment? I'd be pretty appauled if it was. I'd much rather have the functionality that Linux provides.
Okay find me a linux distro which can do this:
Run most if not all drivers currently out there today. Wait that's asking too much of the operating system. Maybe the all powerful Linux will have a meltdown!
Are you saying that Vista can run Linux drivers?
-
Okay find me a linux distro which can do this:
Run most if not all drivers currently out there today. Wait that's asking too much of the operating system. Maybe the all powerful Linux will have a meltdown!
Knoppix DVD. :)
-
I also stated that Linux took almost everything it has today from Unix. Nothing about Linux is innovative.
It's an idea around 20 years old that they cling on to.
You don't think there are any differences between Linux and UNIX? I think you'd better do some research.
No, they both use a stupid 20 year old idea yet Linux claim they someone made that idea better or something.
You can't teach an old dog new tricks and frankly this old dog needs to be put to sleep.
Okay, not too hard with Zend Encoder
That's a stupid waste of time.
Again, want to provide reasoning? It's annoying you stating things withought backing it up.
Cmon mr big bad debator I'm sure you can do better than that.
It's called "Testing it"?
Why? Are they afraid that their patches suck so much that they're going to reek havog on their user's PC's and they'll get sued? Probably.
I guess Linux users write flawless code then? That right there is what annoys me.
They don't try to be, they also don't try to hide all of their technology. They just don't give it away like Linux does.
No, but they sure as hell hide most of it.
...wow. You insult every chance you get about "Knowledgable posts" then you make an outrageous claim withought backing it up in the least. No one cares what you "Think" they do, find me some proof, not some of your conspiracy theories.
When you come out and say something then say it had a different meaning, sorta makes it look like you change the meaning on the fly to make yourself look good..tell me what exactly does it mean? It's pretty in your face pointing to what I interpreted it as.
Quote the sentence you're talking about and I'll tell you.
The entire thing was simply another way of saying "We suck but it's not our fault, it's open sources fault" I showed it to others and they too said "Wtf, did he just insult Linux".
You're including knowing about Linux as a need for being non ignorant..Linux isn't anything special..
Maybe I should go write a Unix clone and then claim that anyone who doesn't know about it is "Technologicly Ignorant", cmon..
How in the HELL did you pull the meaning you're suggesting out of my statement? I said that the average computer user is technologically ignorant--plain and simple. No details attached. They simply don't know much about IT.
Compare that to the insane amount of exploits for Linux? It takes time to exploit windows because of Microsoft's cryptic method of coding. From viewing their source which "after a course of events" landed on my hands, it's easily seen how hard they make their code to understand. However it's elegance was preserved. Like I said, Hackers arn't getting much out of a user, they'll be lucky if they get a couple thousand. Hackers hit the big bucks.
Then why are there thousands of trojans that are exclusively used on Windows? Why are there e-mail viruses that work exculsively on Windows? A hacker's intent is rarely money (again: we're obviously not using the same definition for a hacker). Usually it's just to be a malicious prick.
It's called a script kiddie at a security website, thank iago and his whitehat friends for that.
Now find me statistics, anything since you're so good at it and I'll agree Windows is in the hackers scope, right now it doesn't look like it nor is it going to change because YOU say it is.
Again: it's not my fault you're stupid enough to believe that Linux is exploited in greater numbers (or proportions) than Windows. If you want to believe that, I'm not going to fight you. You be on your merry way.
Okay, so long as you know that you couldn't come up with good proof. I'm happy.
Linux and Windows have different purposes, my problem with Linux is them pushing themselves onto an arena where they don't belong: The desktop. My beef is also them criticising windows but their desktop situation is horrible. Of course you're going to go and state something Windows can't do.
EXACTLY. For once, you're starting to make sense! Linux isn't supposed to be like Windows! It's not even intended to replace Windows! It's supposed to be there to provide an acceptable alternative for Windows. That is exactly waht it does. What's wrong with Linux having a desktop environment? Who cares if it's not as good as Windows' desktop environment? I'd be pretty appauled if it was. I'd much rather have the functionality that Linux provides.
It's not that, it's them going on the desktop scene and having a sense of superiority over Windows. If they want competition windows will sure as hell mop the floor with them desktop wise. Something we can agree on, no?
Okay find me a linux distro which can do this:
Run most if not all drivers currently out there today. Wait that's asking too much of the operating system. Maybe the all powerful Linux will have a meltdown!
Are you saying that Vista can run Linux drivers?
Most of them are probably reversed Windows drivers so Vista in a sense ran them first.
-
No, they both use a stupid 20 year old idea yet Linux claim they someone made that idea better or something.
You can't teach an old dog new tricks and frankly this old dog needs to be put to sleep.
Prove it, please. Prove that Linux is exactly the same as UNIX as you're implying.
Again, want to provide reasoning? It's annoying you stating things withought backing it up.
Cmon mr big bad debator I'm sure you can do better than that.
I didn't think I needed to provide reasoning for something that was so obvious.
1) You could just provide the source. That'd save you a lot of time and the trouble of legally obtaining a copy of Zend Encoder (I assume you plan to do that if you're going to publically release your CMS)?
2) You could save your users the pain of waiting you to fix bugs if you release the source. They could do it themselves.
3) You could be a source. People could look at your code to learn how to do things.
What are the reasons to use Zend Encoder? Here's the one I can think of:
1) People can't see your source. You're more exhaulted in your own eyes.
There are a few reasons. If you need more, let me know.
I guess Linux users write flawless code then? That right there is what annoys me.
Absolutely not. However, they're confident enough to release it. Microsoft tests it for three weeks until they're "absolutely sure" that it's a stable patch. How hard is it to fuck up a patch that royally?
...wow. You insult every chance you get about "Knowledgable posts" then you make an outrageous claim withought backing it up in the least. No one cares what you "Think" they do, find me some proof, not some of your conspiracy theories.
You find me proof that they document all (or even most) of their features. I really, REALLY doubt it's a proportion even close to 0.5.
The entire thing was simply another way of saying "We suck but it's not our fault, it's open sources fault" I showed it to others and they too said "Wtf, did he just insult Linux".
Quote my statement and I'll clarify it.
It's called a script kiddie at a security website, thank iago and his whitehat friends for that.
Now you're saying that covering up the exploits is okay? You're less insightful than I had originally thought. I doubt people at Full Disclosure would appreciate or agree with you calling them script kiddies. I'm thinking most of them know a whole hell of a lot more than you do.
Okay, so long as you know that you couldn't come up with good proof. I'm happy.
I posted about seven links in the other thread. Go read them there.
It's not that, it's them going on the desktop scene and having a sense of superiority over Windows. If they want competition windows will sure as hell mop the floor with them desktop wise. Something we can agree on, no?
No, it's you assuming things again. You think just because Linux implements a desktop environment that they're trying to wipe Windows off of the face of the Earth. There are quite a few people who use Linux. Most of those people appreciate the simplicity that a desktop environment such as KDE provides for them. There's absolutely nothing wrong with adding additional features to an operating system. In fact, as one might suspect, I'd definitely recommend and encourage it. :P
Most of them are probably reversed Windows drivers so Vista in a sense ran them first.
Who cares if Vista ran them? The point is that Linux can run them.
-
You can't teach an old dog new tricks and frankly this old dog needs to be put to sleep.
I agree completely, Windows should give up on trying to add security and such.
-
No, they both use a stupid 20 year old idea yet Linux claim they someone made that idea better or something.
You can't teach an old dog new tricks and frankly this old dog needs to be put to sleep.
Prove it, please. Prove that Linux is exactly the same as UNIX as you're implying.
Isn't it obvious? Look how EVERYTHING is handled in the Linux kernel
Again, want to provide reasoning? It's annoying you stating things withought backing it up.
Cmon mr big bad debator I'm sure you can do better than that.
I didn't think I needed to provide reasoning for something that was so obvious.
1) You could just provide the source. That'd save you a lot of time and the trouble of legally obtaining a copy of Zend Encoder (I assume you plan to do that if you're going to publically release your CMS)?
2) You could save your users the pain of waiting you to fix bugs if you release the source. They could do it themselves.
3) You could be a source. People could look at your code to learn how to do things.
What are the reasons to use Zend Encoder? Here's the one I can think of:
1) People can't see your source. You're more exhaulted in your own eyes.
There are a few reasons. If you need more, let me know.
1) Jeff has Zend Encoded which he said I could use. No thanks at providing the source.
2) I would fix my bugs the day I learn about them, I want my source to stay with me.
3) No thanks, they can go through the same process I went through. They arn't going to get rewarded for doing
nothing, sorry.
I write my code, I have a right to not show my code.
I guess Linux users write flawless code then? That right there is what annoys me.
Absolutely not. However, they're confident enough to release it. Microsoft tests it for three weeks until they're "absolutely sure" that it's a stable patch. How hard is it to fuck up a patch that royally?
I think I already discussed things at length before, it's because of Linux users who hop on Microsoft for every mistake. They take the extra time to make sure it really works. Make sure no new strains of the exploit occur and for more information regarding it.
...wow. You insult every chance you get about "Knowledgable posts" then you make an outrageous claim withought backing it up in the least. No one cares what you "Think" they do, find me some proof, not some of your conspiracy theories.
You find me proof that they document all (or even most) of their features. I really, REALLY doubt it's a proportion even close to 0.5.
Look on Channel9 and MSDN, how do you think I know so much about Vista? I know pretty much all the main details of its internals and a lot of details on how it will handle low level things.
The entire thing was simply another way of saying "We suck but it's not our fault, it's open sources fault" I showed it to others and they too said "Wtf, did he just insult Linux".
Quote my statement and I'll clarify it.
Actually, coding for the greater good (open source) takes vast amounts of time less than it does to code for a corporate cause. When you're coding for money, you have to take security measures.
I'm sorry but since when don't programmers take security measures? This may be so for Linux users..
It's called a script kiddie at a security website, thank iago and his whitehat friends for that.
Now you're saying that covering up the exploits is okay? You're less insightful than I had originally thought. I doubt people at Full Disclosure would appreciate or agree with you calling them script kiddies. I'm thinking most of them know a whole hell of a lot more than you do.
I didn't call them that, people that visit the websites and grab the exploits are the script kiddies. I'da thought you can atleast get that right. You release them a bunch of morons grab them. Then they cry when they are getting exploited left and right. There is no "Good way" to handle an exploit. Best way is to not release it at all or disclose it only to the companies which it affects (Microsoft) with PoC code showing it is indeed an exploit.
Okay, so long as you know that you couldn't come up with good proof. I'm happy.
I posted about seven links in the other thread. Go read them there.
And I reply, you should go read them.
It's not that, it's them going on the desktop scene and having a sense of superiority over Windows. If they want competition windows will sure as hell mop the floor with them desktop wise. Something we can agree on, no?
No, it's you assuming things again. You think just because Linux implements a desktop environment that they're trying to wipe Windows off of the face of the Earth. There are quite a few people who use Linux. Most of those people appreciate the simplicity that a desktop environment such as KDE provides for them. There's absolutely nothing wrong with adding additional features to an operating system. In fact, as one might suspect, I'd definitely recommend and encourage it. :P
What? Linux wiping windows off the face of the earth? That'll be the day. KDE? Simple? Naah. I'd rather not have Kmyapplicationnamehere infront of anything for a Windows look alike (and according to you a Mac look alike) when I can get the real deal.
Most of them are probably reversed Windows drivers so Vista in a sense ran them first.
Who cares if Vista ran them? The point is that Linux can run them.
Whoopty do, withought Vista or Windows for that matter you'd be using VESA, some crappy NIC card, and craptastic ports of code based on loosely documented PDF's. Of course I wouldn't expect you to understand that since you think OSDev is a waste of time, yet you support the development of the Linux kernel. Against or with it, make up your mind.
@ink: You're getting annoying, either post something which actually argues a point or leave the topic -- now you're just taking snipes at windows and picking apart small parts of replies. In other words: Go fuck yourself.
-
And all your doing is taking snipes at Linux?
Don't get mad cause I turned your 'old dog' analogy around on ya.
-
No, I'm supplying my attacks with arguments while you on the other hand, havn't said something useful in a while. Now either get your shit together and say something which is worth my time or don't respond at all. Plain and simple.
-
Riiight
-
Isn't it obvious? Look how EVERYTHING is handled in the Linux kernel
Yeah, in the same way 3.1 handles everything when compared to 95. They're different, Warrior.
1) Jeff has Zend Encoded which he said I could use. No thanks at providing the source.
2) I would fix my bugs the day I learn about them, I want my source to stay with me.
3) No thanks, they can go through the same process I went through. They arn't going to get rewarded for doing
nothing, sorry.
I write my code, I have a right to not show my code.
In response to:
1) Okay, fair enough. It's still a waste of time.
2) Unless you're a hermit, that's physically impossible.
3) Selfishness is stupid. Greediness is going to get you nowhere in this situation.
I didn't say you don't have that right. I'm suggesting you don't take advantage of it.
I think I already discussed things at length before, it's because of Linux users who hop on Microsoft for every mistake. They take the extra time to make sure it really works. Make sure no new strains of the exploit occur and for more information regarding it.
Haha, I think this was a huge deal. IE renders an image and your computer's toast? That's a massive deal. It's something that should be jumped on. They can't release a patch they know works and then make sure those things are in order? No. They care more about profit than customer satisfaction. That's how Microsoft is. That's why I don't respect them as much as I do the open source community.
Look on Channel9 and MSDN, how do you think I know so much about Vista? I know pretty much all the main details of its internals and a lot of details on how it will handle low level things.
No. Do it for me. You made me find you links.
I'm sorry but since when don't programmers take security measures? This may be so for Linux users..
Ugh, do I have to explain everything? You take everything that can relate directly to programming in that context. Stop, please.
By security measures, I mean implementing CD key validators, registration methods and things of this nature. Microsoft spends a noticable chunk of time doing things like this.
I didn't call them that, people that visit the websites and grab the exploits are the script kiddies. I'da thought you can atleast get that right. You release them a bunch of morons grab them. Then they cry when they are getting exploited left and right. There is no "Good way" to handle an exploit. Best way is to not release it at all or disclose it only to the companies which it affects (Microsoft) with PoC code showing it is indeed an exploit.
If the script kiddies have it, it's going to be more of a threat. That's going to make Microsoft fix it. In case you didn't notice, Microsoft has a long history of "letting things slide." Full Disclosure helps that. I'm aware of several people who tried to contact Microsoft before posting things on FD and other similar websites. Often, FD is a last resort when Microsoft will not respond or comply to their request.
And I reply, you should go read them.
Why don't you read them? They looked like completely relevant articles. If you don't like them, why don't you search google for yourself?
What? Linux wiping windows off the face of the earth? That'll be the day. KDE? Simple? Naah. I'd rather not have Kmyapplicationnamehere infront of anything for a Windows look alike (and according to you a Mac look alike) when I can get the real deal.
Warrior, there you go again. You're taking things out of context. I said Linux is not trying to wipe Windows off the face of the Earth. God, if you're not going to read the entire thing and use it in the context that it is obviously intended to be in, don't reply. What's wrong with calling things names that begin with a "K?" Mac puts "i" at the beginning of everything. It's a convention, there's nothing wrong with that. Who cares if it looks like Windows?
Whoopty do, withought Vista or Windows for that matter you'd be using VESA, some crappy NIC card, and craptastic ports of code based on loosely documented PDF's. Of course I wouldn't expect you to understand that since you think OSDev is a waste of time, yet you support the development of the Linux kernel. Against or with it, make up your mind.
@ink: You're getting annoying, either post something which actually argues a point or leave the topic -- now you're just taking snipes at windows and picking apart small parts of replies. In other words: Go fuck yourself.
You asked me to find an OS that ran as many drivers as Vista. Stop trailing off of the subject to avoid the argument that you made.
How can you prove that this is how things would be without Windows? I'm fairly confident it'd be different. Just because I don't like coding OS' doesn't mean I don't understand how they work. Sure, my understanding may not be as deep as yours, but that's a decision I have purposefully made. I don't think coding OS' is a valid cause. There are tons of OS' out there that are multitudes better than the one you're working on, so what's the point of working on it? I can read documentation on how memory is allocated without programming in ASM for two weeks. Once again, Warrior: stop taking things out of context.
Perhaps he's not as willing to waste his time arguing with you? Personally, I think his replies make perfect sense. Just because he didn't reply to your entire message doesn't mean that his argument isn't worth retorting. I thought it was a perfectly good attack at Windows.
No, I'm supplying my attacks with arguments while you on the other hand, havn't said something useful in a while. Now either get your shit together and say something which is worth my time or don't respond at all. Plain and simple.
No, you're saying that. Most of his posts have been useful. Just because they've been short, you've refused to reply to them. That's your fault, not his.
-
3) Selfishness is stupid. Greediness is going to get you nowhere in this situation.
So you can't think of other problems that might arise? Do you think we should let the WoW connection API out into the public?
I of course do not want other people to just have a WoW connection without putting their time and work into it. A lot of people contributed to it, but I of course think that malicious things might come out of people having access to it. I can think of potential malicious things happening to War's CMS if he publically releases it too.
You find me proof that they document all (or even most) of their features. I really, REALLY doubt it's a proportion even close to 0.5.
I think you're absolutely right that they don't document all of their features, but the proportion is to be judged by what you call a "feature." Their API is only supposed to be used, it's 100%-documented, and that's the only thing that is guaranteed to be cross-platform compliant along Windows versions. Arguably you could say there are undocumented Windows API functions, but they're not really part of the API are they; they're simply calls that you can make. However, they're not guaranteed to be there in future versions, so it's not a good idea to rely on them.
Other things, like hyperlinks in rich text, are notorously difficult to deal with. For instance, the Rich Edit control allows you to set the EM_LINK style to make a \v...\v0 field a hyperlink with the specified data, but it doesn't *tell* you that it's \v...\v0, nor the format of the rich text. Then they also have a Rich Edit 5.1 control MSFTEDIT_CLASS ("RICHED51W") that is entirely undocumented (in a separate DLL no less).
That still begs the question about whether you're supposed to use it. Almost all of the kernel exports haven't changed in NT 4.0 to XP, aside from adding some no doubt, and the APIs are primarily thunks to the kernel calls. However, the API is there to provide a consistent interface to the kernel, because the kernel implementations or exports may change.
This problem pops up when you try to use different Linux kernels (like I pointed out earlier about the one #define being different so symbols in 30 different files are off).
Haha, I think this was a huge deal. IE renders an image and your computer's toast? That's a massive deal. It's something that should be jumped on. They can't release a patch they know works and then make sure those things are in order? No. They care more about profit than customer satisfaction. That's how Microsoft is. That's why I don't respect them as much as I do the open source community.
I think the problem with patching is that there are so many different codebases. Microsoft must make sure a patch is persistent in all of its codebases that it currently supports. What does that mean for us right now? Windows 98 SE, Windows "Me", Windows NT 4.0 SP6a Workstation, Windows NT 4.0 SP6a Server, Windows NT 4.0 SP6a Terminal Server, Windows NT 4.0 SP6a Datacenter Server, Windows 2000 Professional, Windows 2000 Server, Windows 2000 Advanced Server, Windows 2000 Terminal Server, Windows 2000 Datacenter Server, Windows XP Home, Windows XP Professional, Windows XP Media Center 2004, Windows XP Media Center 2005, (I'm getting cramps) Windows Server 2003 - Web Edition, Standard Edition, Enterprise Edition, Terminal Server Edition, Datacenter Edition, all of the above in IA64 and x64 flavors as well. That's just one product line. Let's talk then about checking for the same vulnerability in Internet Explorer, Windows Media Player, and Microsoft Office.
No. Do it for me. You made me find you links.
Now you're just picking at straw.
By security measures, I mean implementing CD key validators, registration methods and things of this nature. Microsoft spends a noticable chunk of time doing things like this.
So do other companies. You don't complain about Macromedia or Adobe.
If the script kiddies have it, it's going to be more of a threat. That's going to make Microsoft fix it. In case you didn't notice, Microsoft has a long history of "letting things slide." Full Disclosure helps that. I'm aware of several people who tried to contact Microsoft before posting things on FD and other similar websites. Often, FD is a last resort when Microsoft will not respond or comply to their request.
I truly believe the only people who REALLY want to cause damage *are* the script kiddies. I think it's therefore irresponsible for security people to post these kinds of explots publically, ever. If you're not comfortable using an operating system, then don't use it. If people start migrating, I promise Microsoft will notice. At the end of the day that's infintely more responsible than posting to Full-Disclosure.
Note that I don't necessarily agree with Warrior's position. He just sucks at stating it.
-
I truly believe the only people who REALLY want to cause damage *are* the script kiddies. I think it's therefore irresponsible for security people to post these kinds of explots publically, ever [...] At the end of the day that's infintely more responsible than posting to Full-Disclosure.
I wholly disagree with your position. But I suspect that it's because of a lack of education/experience on your part, not because of being wrong.
I'm actually planning on writing my final ethics paper on disclosure policies. We'll see how that goes.
-
I truly believe the only people who REALLY want to cause damage *are* the script kiddies. I think it's therefore irresponsible for security people to post these kinds of explots publically, ever [...] At the end of the day that's infintely more responsible than posting to Full-Disclosure.
I wholly disagree with your position. But I suspect that it's because of a lack of education/experience on your part, not because of being wrong.
I'm actually planning on writing my final ethics paper on disclosure policies. We'll see how that goes.
That very well may be, because this isn't my particular area of expertise. However, it's pretty clear to me that real threats (criminals) aren't going to be targetting me. It's the script kiddies are the ones who pose the large-scale danger, and that means that they're the ones who have the best chance of reaching me. That's precisely why Sidoh said that it's more of a threat once script kiddies get their hands on them.
At the end of the day, it's the difference between shipping nuclear energy past Iraq versus handing Saddam the keys to the bomb. (You can quote me in your paper if you want, that was a pretty cool analogy).
-
I don't see how I can write a project, work hard on it RELEASE it for free and still be called selfish. I guess anyone who doesn't comply with your OSS way of thinking is automaticly selfish.
I fix CMS bugs as I encounter them and usually within the hour or within the day. I think I even discussed how I would implement the error subsystem into the core to allow easy bug reporting.
Back on the topic of Linux: Linux cannot run every windows driver. Linux depends off windows. I don't understand how you can't see that. Until you strike exclusive deals with OSes and get specifications under an NDA, I don't think you should be dissing an OS you take so much from :).
-
Where do script kiddies get their scripts?
They are thrown to the public once the creator(s) feel they've used it enough or have found a newer more effective exploit.
All the while that the exploits are private = time which users like us who actually DO get updated and such, can still potentially be targeted since patches havn't yet been released for them yet. The people who have access to them aren't script kiddies :-X
The only ways script kiddies would pose a risk to you would be if you didn't bother getting critical updates, or (not sure this even applies) if they decide to ddos you, which doesn't really cause any permanent damages.
-
Where do script kiddies get their scripts?
They are thrown to the public once the creator(s) feel they've used it enough or have found a newer more effective exploit.
All the while that the exploits are private = time which users like us who actually DO get updated and such, can still potentially be targeted since patches havn't yet been released for them yet. The people who have access to them aren't script kiddies :-X
Let's not forget the public posting of such exploits by whitehats once they are found. Then again they seem to think they are helping the security industry by doing this. I'd only see FD as a last resort, however it seems to be used..much much too often to be a "Last resort"
-
http://news.com.com/2061-10794_3-6041613.html?part=rss&tag=6041613&subj=news
Give me one logical explanation of releasing EIGHT DIFFERENT VERSIONS of your operating system besides wanting to make more money then the few billion dollars you already have.
-
http://news.com.com/2061-10794_3-6041613.html?part=rss&tag=6041613&subj=news
Give me one logical explanation of releasing EIGHT DIFFERENT VERSIONS of your operating system besides wanting to make more money then the few billion dollars you already have.
There isn't. But that's not what the debate is about IMO. They're a company. It's their prerogative to make money.
-
The argument isn't about that, it's mainly spawned into a Windows vs. Linux thread I think. I'm just support Linux by linking to an article that says that Micorosft is going to release 8 different versions of Vista. Slackware, for example, doesn't release 8 versions of Slackware.
-
The argument isn't about that, it's mainly spawned into a Windows vs. Linux thread I think. I'm just support Linux by linking to an article that says that Micorosft is going to release 8 different versions of Vista. Slackware, for example, doesn't release 8 versions of Slackware.
Then you should have said so in the first place.
(BTW, that's good, because Slackware isn't a company, and it's not their prerogative to make money).
-
The argument isn't about that, it's mainly spawned into a Windows vs. Linux thread I think. I'm just support Linux by linking to an article that says that Micorosft is going to release 8 different versions of Vista. Slackware, for example, doesn't release 8 versions of Slackware.
Then you should have said so in the first place.
(BTW, that's good, because Slackware isn't a company, and it's not their prerogative to make money).
The argument isn't about that, it's mainly spawned into a Windows vs. Linux thread I think. I'm just support Linux by linking to an article that says that Micorosft is going to release 8 different versions of Vista. Slackware, for example, doesn't release 8 versions of Slackware.
Then you should have said so in the first place.
(BTW, that's good, because Slackware isn't a company, and it's not their prerogative to make money).
While a company's prerogative is to make money first and foremost, do they really need EIGHT versions of the near same damn thing? I could understand WinXP Home & Professional, but don't you think it would be smart to sell the best product ONLY and charge what the highest of the 8 are? It's not like the changes are going to be drastically different, and since it's Windows 99.99% of the changes from the cheap one to the expensive Corporate one are going to be disabled regardless.
-
On full disclosure:
There is a lot of debate about disclosure policies. But a recent example illustrates best why full disclosure works. I think everybody here knows about the exploit in Windows MetaFormat images (WMF). Well, it was "discovered" in late december. I'm not sure whether or not it was fully disclosed at that point, but that's not important. By early January, Microsoft had fixed it. That's all well and good.
It's now known that the same exploit was discovered by some black hats much earlier. It was sold for a couple thousand in early december, and people were actively exploiting it over the course of december.
What's this mean? Well, let's look at two scenarios:
1. It was discovered at the end of December and disclosed to Microsoft "responsibly" (at Microsoft calls it). Now, let's say for the sake of argument that Microsoft still took 2 weeks to fix it (although it's not likely). In those two weeks, everybody is still vulnerable to the exploit, and tons more money/information could be lost as a result of not disclosing it to everybody, because the black hats already had it (that's the key).
2. It was discovered at the end of December and fully disclosed. Anti-virus companies (who don't need to worry about compatibility and stuff) have a signature the next day. IDS and IPS companies have a signature the next day. There's a third party patch released, which is a good emergency measure. And suddenly, all security people are on the look-out for .wmf files because they know they're dangerous.
Which situation sounds better to you? I personally prefer full disclosure for the fundamental reason: I'd rather let the whitehats and blackhats both have it for sure rather than the possibility that blackhats have it and I don't.
-
Aren't Linux and Windows targeted for almost entirely different user bases?
-
Aren't Linux and Windows targeted for almost entirely different user bases?
There is overlap, especially in people like those who visit these forums. Intelligent desktop users have to make the choice.
-
Aren't Linux and Windows targeted for almost entirely different user bases?
There is overlap, especially in people like those who visit these forums. Intelligent desktop users have to make the choice.
I hope that wasn't a sly innuendo that "intelligent desktop users choose Linux." :P
For the record, I'm not anti-Linux, I'm just not pro-Linux or anti-Windows. :)
-
http://news.com.com/2061-10794_3-6041613.html?part=rss&tag=6041613&subj=news
Give me one logical explanation of releasing EIGHT DIFFERENT VERSIONS of your operating system besides wanting to make more money then the few billion dollars you already have.
Ever looked at linux, it has what a few hundred different versions?
-
I hope that wasn't a sly innuendo that "intelligent desktop users choose Linux." :P
Nope, I was implying that people who are intelligent have the opportunity to use Linux, whereas people who aren't, don't. I was implying nothing else.
Ever looked at linux, it has what a few hundred different versions?
True, but they're created by different people (similar to different "companies" on a smaller scale). That's not the same as a single person releasing 8 versions of a single Linux variation.
-
So you can't think of other problems that might arise? Do you think we should let the WoW connection API out into the public?
I of course do not want other people to just have a WoW connection without putting their time and work into it. A lot of people contributed to it, but I of course think that malicious things might come out of people having access to it. I can think of potential malicious things happening to War's CMS if he publically releases it too.
I can't think of anything a well coded CMS would be vulnerable to if the source was provided.
No, I completely agree with obfuscating the WoW connection API. I'm not saying closed source is wrong in all cases, I am saying that open source makes more sense to me on a global scale.
I think you're absolutely right that they don't document all of their features, but the proportion is to be judged by what you call a "feature." Their API is only supposed to be used, it's 100%-documented, and that's the only thing that is guaranteed to be cross-platform compliant along Windows versions. Arguably you could say there are undocumented Windows API functions, but they're not really part of the API are they; they're simply calls that you can make. However, they're not guaranteed to be there in future versions, so it's not a good idea to rely on them.
Other things, like hyperlinks in rich text, are notorously difficult to deal with. For instance, the Rich Edit control allows you to set the EM_LINK style to make a \v...\v0 field a hyperlink with the specified data, but it doesn't *tell* you that it's \v...\v0, nor the format of the rich text. Then they also have a Rich Edit 5.1 control MSFTEDIT_CLASS ("RICHED51W") that is entirely undocumented (in a separate DLL no less).
That still begs the question about whether you're supposed to use it. Almost all of the kernel exports haven't changed in NT 4.0 to XP, aside from adding some no doubt, and the APIs are primarily thunks to the kernel calls. However, the API is there to provide a consistent interface to the kernel, because the kernel implementations or exports may change.
This problem pops up when you try to use different Linux kernels (like I pointed out earlier about the one #define being different so symbols in 30 different files are off).
Yes, of course. I'm arguing that open source provides large amounts more insight than closed source; that is obvious. :). I've been ranting on and on about how great open source is. I truly feel this way, but closed source definitely has its place. I'm making my argument against warrior. Handing him pieces of information that would help his argument wouldn't be a wise move in the case of my argument. :)
I think the problem with patching is that there are so many different codebases. Microsoft must make sure a patch is persistent in all of its codebases that it currently supports. What does that mean for us right now? Windows 98 SE, Windows "Me", Windows NT 4.0 SP6a Workstation, Windows NT 4.0 SP6a Server, Windows NT 4.0 SP6a Terminal Server, Windows NT 4.0 SP6a Datacenter Server, Windows 2000 Professional, Windows 2000 Server, Windows 2000 Advanced Server, Windows 2000 Terminal Server, Windows 2000 Datacenter Server, Windows XP Home, Windows XP Professional, Windows XP Media Center 2004, Windows XP Media Center 2005, (I'm getting cramps) Windows Server 2003 - Web Edition, Standard Edition, Enterprise Edition, Terminal Server Edition, Datacenter Edition, all of the above in IA64 and x64 flavors as well. That's just one product line. Let's talk then about checking for the same vulnerability in Internet Explorer, Windows Media Player, and Microsoft Office.
Haha, yeah. They do have a lot of work to do, but how many people do they have to do it? How many programmers does Microsoft employ? Seeing as it's a software company, I would wager a considerable amount. :)
Now you're just picking at straw.
He wanted me to do it! What's wrong with asking him to do the same thing? ;)
So do other companies. You don't complain about Macromedia or Adobe.
I'm unaware of any significant security exploits that Macromedia and Adobe should be working on instead of furthering their projects. I'm fully impressed with Flash and Photoshop (to give two examples). I'm complaining about Microsoft for a reason. :)
I truly believe the only people who REALLY want to cause damage *are* the script kiddies. I think it's therefore irresponsible for security people to post these kinds of explots publically, ever. If you're not comfortable using an operating system, then don't use it. If people start migrating, I promise Microsoft will notice. At the end of the day that's infintely more responsible than posting to Full-Disclosure.
I think FD is a great idea. As iago mentioned, Microsoft isn't the only entity capable of providing remedies for the problems at hand. If they're made publicly known, the chances of the hole getting patched increase enormously. People already have started migrating. It's happening slowly, but more and more, I see people buying Macs, giving other OS's a try and going anti-Microsoft.
Again, I'd like to explicitly state my opinion of Microsoft: I'm not anti-Microsoft. I have numerous complaints regarding several different things (as I've made apparent in this topic), but I do respect that their products are very good. They have their flaws, but I definitely don't think they suck because they have those flaws.
I don't see how I can write a project, work hard on it RELEASE it for free and still be called selfish. I guess anyone who doesn't comply with your OSS way of thinking is automaticly selfish.
It definitely is selfish in some aspects. In other ways, it's very generous. Unless you admit to some other reason you don't want to release the source, I don't see a reasonable point in puting yourself and your users through the trouble of encoding it.
I fix CMS bugs as I encounter them and usually within the hour or within the day. I think I even discussed how I would implement the error subsystem into the core to allow easy bug reporting.
What if the user wants to make a specific change that would only benefit their situation? Would you be willing to code that for them? Or would you just say "No, it's a waste of my time." I'm not saying that you should feel inclined to meet all of your customer's application; I recognize that you'd probably just want them to choose another product that allowed this sort of thing. However, I do wish to make you aware of such situations to be certain.
Back on the topic of Linux: Linux cannot run every windows driver. Linux depends off windows. I don't understand how you can't see that. Until you strike exclusive deals with OSes and get specifications under an NDA, I don't think you should be dissing an OS you take so much from :).
In retrospect, Windows depends on Linux. Most of the internet runs on Linux. Without the internet, Windows would be huge amounts less useful. They're part of a global scene: technology. All of technology has a very high possibility have having dependancies or at least having some sort of encounter with another arbitrary piece of technology. I'm not saying Linux can run every Windows driver. In fact, I'm fairly certain that it can't run any Windows driver (literally, anyway). There are generally alternatives that work just as well, though. I'm not saying for every Windows driver, there is an equally well functioning Linux driver, but I am saying that Linux can be just as functional as Windows (driver-wise), given you have compatable devices (which are most devices on the market).
-
Ever looked at linux, it has what a few hundred different versions?
True, but they're created by different people (similar to different "companies" on a smaller scale). That's not the same as a single person releasing 8 versions of a single Linux variation.
This is just a result from the nature of open source software. One group needs their specialized version so they make it for themselves and other people make their version for themselves.
However, with closed source software the main company makes the specialized version for group A but they also make the special version for group B because there is demand for both.
-
This is just a result from the nature of open source software. One group needs their specialized version so they make it for themselves and other people make their version for themselves.
However, with closed source software the main company makes the specialized version for group A but they also make the special version for group B because there is demand for both.
Personally, I don't see a problem with either (globally speaking, of course). They both have issues that should be considered, but when it comes down to a final judgement, I don't think I'd lean one way or another (without considering that one is open source--I like open source :)).
-
This is just a result from the nature of open source software. One group needs their specialized version so they make it for themselves and other people make their version for themselves.
However, with closed source software the main company makes the specialized version for group A but they also make the special version for group B because there is demand for both.
Of course, the big difference then shows up: you can try out every version of Linux and pick your favorite and the one that suits your needs. Windows, on the other hand, costs a huge amount to buy and experiment with, so you're basically locked in once you make a decision which may or may not be the corrent one. Additionally, if your needs change at a later date, you have to go out and re-purchase Windows. That's silly, you should buy it once and have access to any permutation of it.
-
I fix CMS bugs as I encounter them and usually within the hour or within the day. I think I even discussed how I would implement the error subsystem into the core to allow easy bug reporting.
What if the user wants to make a specific change that would only benefit their situation? Would you be willing to code that for them? Or would you just say "No, it's a waste of my time." I'm not saying that you should feel inclined to meet all of your customer's application; I recognize that you'd probably just want them to choose another product that allowed this sort of thing. However, I do wish to make you aware of such situations to be certain.
Good point, I've thought about this extensively. I've tried to make my system as modular as possible. Static data represented with "Pages" built into the core and Dynamic data with Modules. What I'd like to deal with is features the core lack to give them that freedom. Portions of the CMS like MPI will be open so users can extend it and I will see about comitting useful enough functions into the core build. Seems like a nice compromise right?
Back on the topic of Linux: Linux cannot run every windows driver. Linux depends off windows. I don't understand how you can't see that. Until you strike exclusive deals with OSes and get specifications under an NDA, I don't think you should be dissing an OS you take so much from :).
In retrospect, Windows depends on Linux. Most of the internet runs on Linux. Without the internet, Windows would be huge amounts less useful. They're part of a global scene: technology. All of technology has a very high possibility have having dependancies or at least having some sort of encounter with another arbitrary piece of technology. I'm not saying Linux can run every Windows driver. In fact, I'm fairly certain that it can't run any Windows driver (literally, anyway). There are generally alternatives that work just as well, though. I'm not saying for every Windows driver, there is an equally well functioning Linux driver, but I am saying that Linux can be just as functional as Windows (driver-wise), given you have compatable devices (which are most devices on the market).
I'll agree with you there. I think they've worked with what they have (which is what OSDever's must do) and have written an OS. That in it'self is respectable, to anyone who can write an OS deserves my respect. I may be blaming the wrong people for the wrong thing but a few people with bad attitudes are enough to give me an opinion based on a whole crowd, sadly enough I've seen nothing to make me think otherwise. Just trying to restate my point in a less heated manner.
-
Good point, I've thought about this extensively. I've tried to make my system as modular as possible. Static data represented with "Pages" built into the core and Dynamic data with Modules. What I'd like to deal with is features the core lack to give them that freedom. Portions of the CMS like MPI will be open so users can extend it and I will see about comitting useful enough functions into the core build. Seems like a nice compromise right?
So you plan on allowing users to code their own modules, correct? You also plan to provide the source to the MPI and allow them to edit that? That sounds like a great deal to me. Nothing wrong with that. At that rate, why don't you make the whole thing open source?! :)
I'll agree with you there. I think they've worked with what they have (which is what OSDever's must do) and have written an OS. That in it'self is respectable, to anyone who can write an OS deserves my respect. I may be blaming the wrong people for the wrong thing but a few people with bad attitudes are enough to give me an opinion based on a whole crowd, sadly enough I've seen nothing to make me think otherwise. Just trying to restate my point in a less heated manner.
And I'll agree with you that a negative attitude definitely can be rationale to deem a certain group a negative group. As long as you know it's a prejudice decision, you're fine.
-
Good point, I've thought about this extensively. I've tried to make my system as modular as possible. Static data represented with "Pages" built into the core and Dynamic data with Modules. What I'd like to deal with is features the core lack to give them that freedom. Portions of the CMS like MPI will be open so users can extend it and I will see about comitting useful enough functions into the core build. Seems like a nice compromise right?
So you plan on allowing users to code their own modules, correct? You also plan to provide the source to the MPI and allow them to edit that? That sounds like a great deal to me. Nothing wrong with that. At that rate, why don't you make the whole thing open source?! :)
Trying to weigh out if the added protection from exploitation and the ease of deployment work out, at this point it may go either way.
-
Trying to weigh out if the added protection from exploitation and the ease of deployment work out, at this point it may go either way.
Which are you considering? The release of the MPI as an open source portion? Obviously, I'm going to strongly recommend that you release it open source. :)
-
No the release of the core as open source. Don't know if I'd like to keep encrypting it. It could get annoying fast.
-
No the release of the core as open source. Don't know if I'd like to keep encrypting it. It could get annoying fast.
Hehe, I personally think it would become too much of a nuicance to maintain in such a fashion. That's a totally subjective conclusion, though.
-
What makes you think that hiding your source is going to create less exploits? It seems to me that more exploits can be found/fixed if it's open source so there will be less exploits to worry about.
Of course, from what I've seen in your code, I guess I understand :P
-
What makes me think that? The current state of security on the internet.
FD only works if the company doesn't cooperate with the person who discovered it. I on the otherhand intend to fully cooperate provided PoC code is presented.
If someone with a malicious intent find an exploit chances are he will keep it to himself so the difference between open source/closed source is transparent there.
I don't know what you mean by that last comment however.
-
What makes me think that? The current state of security on the internet.
FD only works if the company doesn't cooperate with the person who discovered it. I on the otherhand intend to fully cooperate provided PoC code is presented.
That's one of the major problems with Microsoft. Not only do you have to find a vulnerability in their code, you also have to program a PoC exploit for it, and in many cases explain to them why it's a vulnerability. So most people just say "screw it" and disclose it publicly. I've posted a pretty good quote about Microsoft's procedure here, search my posts for "Zalewski" if you're interested (he's the author of the quote).
If someone with a malicious intent find an exploit chances are he will keep it to himself so the difference between open source/closed source is transparent there.
How many people do you really know with malicious intent compared to the people you know with no malicious intent? I have a pretty positive view of people in general, and I really have found that most people ARE genuinely good. I know of very few 0-day exploits being discovered in open-source code, but I know of several that people have sold/traded for Windows (WMF, 2 Excel ones). That seems to deny that there will be more 0-day exploits in open-source code.
I don't know what you mean by that last comment however.
Sorry, I was thinking back to when zorm was re-coding x86's homepage after you were finished. He had a thing or two to say about the security of your code :P
-
What makes me think that? The current state of security on the internet.
FD only works if the company doesn't cooperate with the person who discovered it. I on the otherhand intend to fully cooperate provided PoC code is presented.
That's one of the major problems with Microsoft. Not only do you have to find a vulnerability in their code, you also have to program a PoC exploit for it, and in many cases explain to them why it's a vulnerability. So most people just say "screw it" and disclose it publicly. I've posted a pretty good quote about Microsoft's procedure here, search my posts for "Zalewski" if you're interested (he's the author of the quote).
It's pretty logical to make people provide PoC, I'm not going to go bug hunting because someone says "I have an exploit" chances are they probably have the code they used to test the exploit so I don't see the problem in showing an example. I'd most likely want PoC code only, pretty obvious it's an exploit if it causes the core to behave other than intended.
If someone with a malicious intent find an exploit chances are he will keep it to himself so the difference between open source/closed source is transparent there.
How many people do you really know with malicious intent compared to the people you know with no malicious intent? I have a pretty positive view of people in general, and most people ARE genuinely good.
True however if there were absolutely none then there would be no need for worrying. Since they DO exist I'm not going to assume they are good. I'll only think someone is good when they show me they are.
-
It's pretty logical to make people provide PoC, I'm not going to go bug hunting because someone says "I have an exploit" chances are they probably have the code they used to test the exploit so I don't see the problem in showing an example. I'd most likely want PoC code only, pretty obvious it's an exploit if it causes the core to behave other than intended.
So if I say, "the code at this address is vulnerable because whatever, see?" And they say, "no thanks, code an exploit first" (actually, they just don't respond). What do I do? The obvious thing is to fully disclose the vulnerability and let somebody else develop an exploit for whatever purpose.
The important thing to remember is that, when this happens in an open-source program, the users can protect themselves. In a closed-source program, users are screwed until the person who puts it out fixes it. What if they're on vacation? What if they're dead? Your program is now useless.
True however if there were absolutely none then there would be no need for worrying. Since they DO exist I'm not going to assume they are good. I'll only think someone is good when they show me they are.
I don't wear a bullet proof vest while I'm walking downtown, but I know that people get shot.
I'm pretty sure that you think I'm good, but I haven't proven it.
You have to draw a line in the sand between trust and suspicion.
-
It's pretty logical to make people provide PoC, I'm not going to go bug hunting because someone says "I have an exploit" chances are they probably have the code they used to test the exploit so I don't see the problem in showing an example. I'd most likely want PoC code only, pretty obvious it's an exploit if it causes the core to behave other than intended.
So if I say, "the code at this address is vulnerable because whatever, see?" And they say, "no thanks, code an exploit first" (actually, they just don't respond). What do I do? The obvious thing is to fully disclose the vulnerability and let somebody else develop an exploit for whatever purpose.
The important thing to remember is that, when this happens in an open-source program, the users can protect themselves. In a closed-source program, users are screwed until the person who puts it out fixes it. What if they're on vacation? What if they're dead? Your program is now useless.
If it's an error outside the core in one of the publicly availible libraries they can submit the exploit and the offending code with a description of what goes wrong and I'll fix it and merge it into the source tree.
Now if the error is found in the non open source part of the code (core) then I'd ask for some PoC code because they can't just point at a line of code there. It's not me not believing them, it's more like me asking them to help me fix the bug.
I don't plan on dieing soon and when I go on vacation I'm usually on a laptop every night. Hell, if my project is alive so long that I'm about to die then I'll release it open source. Here's my will: All of my work in my life that I have programmed should be made opensource under the PD license and given to the world. My brother will get none of my riches that I make from being so damn awesome, donate it or something. gl hf bb dd.
True however if there were absolutely none then there would be no need for worrying. Since they DO exist I'm not going to assume they are good. I'll only think someone is good when they show me they are.
I don't wear a bullet proof vest while I'm walking downtown, but I know that people get shot.
I'm pretty sure that you think I'm good, but I haven't proven it.
You have to draw a line in the sand between trust and suspicion.
I know you and you've proven to be good multiple times around these forums so I'd have no reason
to suspect you, now someone who I don't know I'm not going to welcome with open arms. I'm not going to necessarily consider them the root of all evil but I'm going to act suspicious around them.
-
If it's an error outside the core in one of the publicly availible libraries they can submit the exploit and the offending code with a description of what goes wrong and I'll fix it and merge it into the source tree.
Now if the error is found in the non open source part of the code (core) then I'd ask for some PoC code because they can't just point at a line of code there. It's not me not believing them, it's more like me asking them to help me fix the bug.
I don't plan on dieing soon and when I go on vacation I'm usually on a laptop every night. Hell, if my project is alive so long that I'm about to die then I'll release it open source. Here's my will: All of my work in my life that I have programmed should be made opensource under the PD license and given to the world. My brother will get none of my riches that I make from being so damn awesome, donate it or something. gl hf bb dd.
You can get hit by a car tomorrow. You never know what's going to happen in a couple years, either.
I know you and you've proven to be good multiple times around these forums so I'd have no reason
to suspect you, now someone who I don't know I'm not going to welcome with open arms. I'm not going to necessarily consider them the root of all evil but I'm going to act suspicious around them.
I've never been proven to be good. I've been proven not to be bad, perhaps, but there isn't really a way to prove that you're good.
Like I said, there's a line in the sand that has to be drawn between "good" and "evil". Nobody can ever prove that they aren't evil, you just have to trust them.
-
If I trust you, you're good. I trust you.
If I get hit by a car tomorrow then my CMS would never be finished but I see your point anyway. If it comes to the point where I die before I can write my will, then yes it would be lost.
-
If I trust you, you're good. I trust you.
You shouldn't.
If I get hit by a car tomorrow then my CMS would never be finished but I see your point anyway. If it comes to the point where I die before I can write my will, then yes it would be lost.
It's too bad that all your work would go to waste just because of your selfishness :P
-
you may have not heard of any 0day exploits, but thats because many 0days are kept secret. and you're wrong about open source programs not having any more 0days in the future. there's always a new vuln being discovered in something.
-
you may have not heard of any 0day exploits, but thats because many 0days are kept secret. and you're wrong about open source programs not having any more 0days in the future. there's always a new vuln being discovered in something.
Who cares? If it's only known by a few, it's probably not going to affect me. By the time it's a problem, it's likely going to be taken care of.
-
you may have not heard of any 0day exploits, but thats because many 0days are kept secret. and you're wrong about open source programs not having any more 0days in the future. there's always a new vuln being discovered in something.
Because vulnerabilities that have 0day exploits are generally found eventually, and it is always discovered that somebody had already been using it. Just because the 0days don't get public, the vulnerability invariably does.
Plus, there are many sensors on the Internet and in private networks that don't detect attacks, they detect attack patterns. Things like shellcode, stack overflows, SQL injection, and format string exploits (to just name a few) are detected whether or not it's part of a known attack. Because most attacks follow that structure, 0day exploits are often discovered that way, then based on the capture of the attack the exploit is reverse-engineered. That happens frequently.
My point is, 0days don't last forever, they are eventually discovered and documented.
-
Ever looked at linux, it has what a few hundred different versions?
True, but they're created by different people (similar to different "companies" on a smaller scale). That's not the same as a single person releasing 8 versions of a single Linux variation.
This is just a result from the nature of open source software. One group needs their specialized version so they make it for themselves and other people make their version for themselves.
However, with closed source software the main company makes the specialized version for group A but they also make the special version for group B because there is demand for both.
And group C, and D, E, F, G, and H? I doubt there's THAT much demand. What's going to be drastically different between the lowest costing and the highest costing? Barely anything. Maybe a couple "security" tweaks or something, but that's about it.
-
And group C, and D, E, F, G, and H? I doubt there's THAT much demand. What's going to be drastically different between the lowest costing and the highest costing? Barely anything. Maybe a couple "security" tweaks or something, but that's about it.
It's obviously intended for profit. They make way more profit if they separate their operating systems into individual groups.
-
And group C, and D, E, F, G, and H? I doubt there's THAT much demand. What's going to be drastically different between the lowest costing and the highest costing? Barely anything. Maybe a couple "security" tweaks or something, but that's about it.
It's obviously intended for profit. They make way more profit if they separate their operating systems into individual groups.
That's what I was getting at. War's all fighting for Microsoft and how they're good, really they're just stupid. All the features that differ are off by default anyways. Why not Microsoft stop being dykes for once and settle with a mean price and sell the highest product and call that "Windows Vista."
-
That's what I was getting at. War's all fighting for Microsoft and how they're good, really they're just stupid. All the features that differ are off by default anyways. Why not Microsoft stop being dykes for once and settle with a mean price and sell the highest product and call that "Windows Vista."
I'm not saying everything about Microsoft is bad, either. Like I said, I'm pretty neutral. I have positive and negative opinions of both Linux/Open Source and Windows/Closed Source. While I do tend to lean more towards Linux and Open Source, I will just as soon stand up for Windows if it is falsely convicted of something. I agree that their main intent in having numerous versions of their operating system is to gain more revenue; however, there are benefits to having them organized in this fashion. If you incorporated everything into one OS, there's a lot more clutter and things you don't need. If you buy an OS that's tailored to your area of interest, it's going to do more of what you want and less of what you don't care about.
-
That's what I was getting at. War's all fighting for Microsoft and how they're good, really they're just stupid. All the features that differ are off by default anyways. Why not Microsoft stop being dykes for once and settle with a mean price and sell the highest product and call that "Windows Vista."
I'm not saying everything about Microsoft is bad, either. Like I said, I'm pretty neutral. I have positive and negative opinions of both Linux/Open Source and Windows/Closed Source. While I do tend to lean more towards Linux and Open Source, I will just as soon stand up for Windows if it is falsely convicted of something. I agree that their main intent in having numerous versions of their operating system is to gain more revenue; however, there are benefits to having them organized in this fashion. If you incorporated everything into one OS, there's a lot more clutter and things you don't need. If you buy an OS that's tailored to your area of interest, it's going to do more of what you want and less of what you don't care about.
Plus, if you need a feature that's not in your version, all you have to do is go out and buy a different one. Simple!
-
Plus, if you need a feature that's not in your version, all you have to do is go out and buy a different one. Simple!
Expensive!
-
It's called buying the version you need from the start...
-
It's called buying the version you need from the start...
QFT
-
Plus, if you need a feature that's not in your version, all you have to do is go out and buy a different one. Simple!
Or find an alternative. If you buy an operating system for a server, you'll probably have no such issue if you buy the correct operating system tailored to your needs; this applies to a home computer as well.
It's called buying the version you need from the start...
Even though I'd normally argue this as well, I seem to have a knack for disagreeing with your "Microsoft is teh all" attitude. Notice I said "probably" above. If you buy OS A that has features: {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7} but you also need features: {8, 10}, you'll have to buy OS B that has features: {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14}. Usually, you pay more for things you don't care about.
-
It's called buying the version you need from the start...
Even though I'd normally argue this as well, I seem to have a knack for disagreeing with your "Microsoft is teh all" attitude. Notice I said "probably" above. If you buy OS A that has features: {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7} but you also need features: {8, 10}, you'll have to buy OS B that has features: {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14}. Usually, you pay more for things you don't care about.
Sucks for you then is probably what they'd say and tell you to buy Ultimate. They built the versions grouped by what's needed (Buisness, Home, etc..) so the likelyhood of that is probably small. If it does arise however I'm sure you can find an alternative.
-
Sucks for you then is probably what they'd say and tell you to buy Ultimate. They built the versions grouped by what's needed (Buisness, Home, etc..) so the likelyhood of that is probably small. If it does arise however I'm sure you can find an alternative.
So we don't have a right to complain because there isn't a closely tailored OS for us? I think we have every right to complain! :)
-
Sure you have the right to complain, they just won't care.
-
Sure you have the right to complain, they just won't care.
They've made that apparent time and time again..
-
It's called buying the version you need from the start...
You've obviously never written a program in a real work environment. People NEVER know what they need.
-
It's called buying the version you need from the start...
You've obviously never written a program in a real work environment. People NEVER know what they need.
I doubt server requirements change so regularly it would warrant needing new server software every few months.
-
It's called buying the version you need from the start...
You've obviously never written a program in a real work environment. People NEVER know what they need.
I doubt server requirements change so regularly it would warrant needing new server software every few months.
I mean people in general. People tend to buy what they think they need, not what they actually need. In this case, they're going to get screwed backwards and forwards.
A humorous example: an unnamed international company invested over $1,000,000 in installing IDS and IPS sensors to protect their network of Solaris machines. It turns out, the IDS and IPS sensors only protect against Intel-based attacks.
Of course, that has very little to do with the subject. I just find it a funny story.
-
I mean people in general. People tend to buy what they think they need, not what they actually need. In this case, they're going to get screwed backwards and forwards.
A humorous example: an unnamed international company invested over $1,000,000 in installing IDS and IPS sensors to protect their network of Solaris machines. It turns out, the IDS and IPS sensors only protect against Intel-based attacks.
Of course, that has very little to do with the subject. I just find it a funny story.
Hahaha, that's great!
-
It's called buying the version you need from the start...
You've obviously never written a program in a real work environment. People NEVER know what they need.
That's too bad, best MS can do is send you a nice giftbasket with a "Sorry but we don't care" sticker on the side if you're nice enough to one of the IT guys over the phone.
-
You've obviously never written a program in a real work environment. People NEVER know what they need.
That's too bad, best MS can do is send you a nice giftbasket with a "Sorry but we don't care" sticker on the side if you're nice enough to one of the IT guys over the phone.
Good, then you admit that Microsoft's tiered model is flawed and will cause a lot of hardship.
So what did that admission prove?
-
I'm not going to pretend they care if you don't like how they bundle services in their OS. You can thank the people @ Antitrust for that. Additionally, like I said each version is bundled with related things so either your incredibly picky or weird. Most desktop users pick the desktop release, buisness users pick buisness release, mediacenter users..well you know where this is going.
-
I'm not going to pretend they care if you don't like how they bundle services in their OS. You can thank the people @ Antitrust for that. Additionally, like I said each version is bundled with related things so either your incredibly picky or weird. Most desktop users pick the desktop release, buisness users pick buisness release, mediacenter users..well you know where this is going.
We've known exactly where every argument that has been started in the past few days has been going vor some time now. You're a diehard, irrational, blind Microsoft fanboy. There's no doubt in my mind this is the case.
-
Microsoft is the best, Linux is the worst. We understand. This is going nowhere.
Trashed.